Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-17-2021, 13:22   #1471
bblhead672
Area Commander
 
bblhead672's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen View Post
This one is for all the marbles.
It’s the case that’s been generations in the making.

If it is ruled pro-2A, then blue cities and states will have lost their tyrannical power.
If it is ruled anti-2A, then we know that the next civil war is upon us.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/16/supr...y-gun-law.html
I have zero confidence in the SCOTUS after they declined to get involved in the election fiasco.

IMHO, its not a matter of "if" SCOTUS decides the 2A is null and void, its "when" they do it.
bblhead672 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2021, 14:52   #1472
PSM
Area Commander
 
PSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cochise Co., AZ
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bblhead672 View Post
IMHO, its not a matter of "if" SCOTUS decides the 2A is null and void, its "when" they do it.
It doesn't matter what they do. Remember, the Bill of Rights were added as an addenda to the Constitution, not really amendments. They changed nothing in the original text so 'amend' nothing. They were added as a reminder that these are birth rights and it was a warning to government not to attempt to interfere with them. The presumption being that We the People would then have a rogue government in place that needs to be replaced. Which is the exact reason the 2nd Amendment (Addendum) is even included in the first place.
__________________
"Hector Lives!"

"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass

"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." -- Dennis Prager

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." --H.L. Mencken
PSM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2021, 21:04   #1473
Texas_Shooter
SF Candidate
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 156
Not gonna happen

Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen View Post
This one is for all the marbles.
It’s the case that’s been generations in the making.

If it is ruled pro-2A, then blue cities and states will have lost their tyrannical power.
If it is ruled anti-2A, then we know that the next civil war is upon us.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/16/supr...y-gun-law.html
Most Americans will not go to war with their neighbors over this or for anything for that matter. As long as Netflix is available, power and running water, most people do not have the will or courage to do any fighting.

IMO, they will rule it unconstitutional as is prevents people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. The government, both state and federal, should not be able to dictate when and where a citizen should carry a firearm. As we have seen before gun free zones only stop law abiding citizens.

Here in Texas we just finally passed constitutional carry. Before it got passed several police chiefs and Sheriffs did a press conference on the steps of Texas Capital against constitutional carry. How it would make it more dangerous for its officers and deputies. Those same people would be the ones saying we are just doing our job when rounding up people. Plus officers shoot plenty of unarmed people. At least now shooting armed people they would receive less scrutiny then if they shot someone unarmed.

Last edited by Texas_Shooter; 08-17-2021 at 21:13.
Texas_Shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2021, 03:58   #1474
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Cautiously optimistic

Just a tad, though. IF (presuming normal mental capacity in the court) they thought that NY law was just a cookie cutter sufficient to leave it alone & let other states emulate it, they'd have not agreed to hear it at all. (They seem to be good at not hearing things.) So there's the hair better than even chance they view the case as possibly succeeding.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2021, 21:02   #1475
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
Looks like they did all the necessary preparation and deliberately picked a fight with the ATF.
It will be interesting to see how this legal battle goes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/co...lic_statement/
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)

Last edited by GratefulCitizen; 08-21-2021 at 21:41.
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2021, 20:58   #1476
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
Looks like the ATF was playing dirty and got caught.
If the plaintiffs win their case and the FRT-15 remains legal, the fact that there are a finite number of NFA machine guns will become moot.

The owner is an attorney and had everything ready.
Lawfare points both ways.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92523.32.0.pdf
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2021, 21:03   #1477
Old Dog New Trick
Quiet Professional
 
Old Dog New Trick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Just above the flood plain in Southern Texas
Posts: 3,608
Biden is a lame duck president before any of this becomes an issue.

The polarity of the congress is in survival mode.
__________________
You only live once; live well. Have no regrets when the end happens!

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Sir Edmund Burke)
Old Dog New Trick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2021, 04:24   #1478
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen View Post
Looks like the ATF was playing dirty and got caught.
If the plaintiffs win their case and the FRT-15 remains legal, the fact that there are a finite number of NFA machine guns will become moot.

The owner is an attorney and had everything ready.
Lawfare points both ways.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92523.32.0.pdf
Thanks for that link.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2021, 05:18   #1479
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
· So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate. As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/07/un-...#axzz75IyLqz2G

the comment!

"And the American People better be prepared if it is signed. As always stay heavily armed and very dangerouse."


(AmmoLand.com)- It’s that time again folks, as the Seventh Conference of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will take place August 30 to September 3 (2021) in Geneva, Switzerland.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2021, 16:30   #1480
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals rules that bump stocks are not machine guns.

Important parts of the decision directly address problems with ATF interpretation and apply the rule of lenity.

https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/...chine-Guns.pdf
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)

Last edited by GratefulCitizen; 09-09-2021 at 20:23.
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2021, 05:36   #1481
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen View Post
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals rules that bump stocks are not machine guns.

Important parts of the decision directly address problems with ATF interpretation and apply the rule of lenity.

https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/...chine-Guns.pdf
Thanks for that. There is likely grumbling by some readable on the Richter scale, epicenter New York Ave. NE.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2021, 14:55   #1482
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
NYSRPA v. Bruen

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824

Quote:
III
 Recognizing that the Constitution protects the right to carry arms in public does not mean that there is a “right to . . . carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 626. “The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment . . . are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation.” Voisine v. United States, 579 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 17). States can impose restrictions on an individual’s right to bear arms that are consistent with historical limitations. “Some laws, however, broadly divest an individual of his Second Amendment rights” altogether. Ibid. This case gives us the ideal opportunity to at least begin analyzing which restrictions are consistent with the historical scope of the right to bear arms.

 It appears that a handful of States throughout the country prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “good cause” or a “justifiable need” for doing so. The majority of States, while regulating the carrying of arms to varying degrees, have not imposed such a restriction, which amounts to a “[b]a[n] on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right.” Wrenn, 864 F. 3d, at 666. The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous “justifiable need” or “good cause” restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a “good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property” violates the Second Amendment. Wrenn, 864 F. 3d, at 655 (internal quotation marks omitted).7 By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with “justifiable need” or “good reason” requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard. See Gould, 907 F. 3d, at 677; Kachalsky, 701 F. 3d, at 101; Drake, 724 F. 3d, at 440; Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d, at 460.

 “One of this Court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘important matter[s]’ on which the courts of appeals are ‘in conflict.’ ” Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1) (quoting this Court’s Rule 10(a)). The question whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter. We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.
Justice Thomas did write this but Justice Kavanaugh did not concur with part II
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2021, 08:36   #1483
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
This looks like an experiment.
If it proves effective in serving gun-grabbers larger agenda, the federal government will get in on the game.

The federal government’s ability to print money combined with this tactic could be a problem.
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releas...riff%E2%80%99s
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2021, 15:47   #1484
Paslode
Area Commander
 
Paslode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Occupied Wokeville
Posts: 4,629
The BATFE is expanding its foot print.

According to leaked document the BATFE is opening satellite branches in several areas and creating operation zones.

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/10/new...#axzz79OVTObhi

The doc:

https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/...nches-2021.pdf
__________________
Quote:
When a man dies, if nothing is written, he is soon forgotten.
Paslode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2021, 07:50   #1485
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
The use of concealed carry limitations in Robertson v Baldwin is actually very similar to the use of such limitations in Heller: as an example (out of several) to show that Constitutional protections sometimes have limits, and thus that the Constitutional protection in question (the 13th Amendment) also has limits (such that the contract of a seaman would not violate the 13th Amendment).

Now, while the concealed carry limitations were contemporary at the time of Robertson, it's important to note that Heller uses them solely in historical form, to note that the right was historically regarded as having limits.

The use of the 2nd Amendment example was not itself a necessary precondition for the holding in Robertson, most especially because of the wording at the beginning of the paragraph in which it's used ("But we are also of opinion that, even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the Thirteenth Amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude."), which clearly shows that the entire line of inquiry the Court was using there was unnecessary for its conclusion. That means that Robertson is not precedential with respect to its claim about the 2nd Amendment to the degree that an actual holding would be.

If Robertson were indeed precedential in that way, then the Court would not have limited its statement in Heller to one that courts historically regarded the right as having some limitations, with concealed carry prohibitions being among those limitations. Rather, it would have directly stated that concealed carry prohibitions are among those limitations today, precisely because of its own prior jurisprudence (but only if it regarded its prior jurisprudence as remaining valid).


In any case, precedent is valid only to the degree that the reasoning behind that precedent is valid. The state courts explicitly stated their reasoning for upholding concealed carry bans. That reasoning was that, as a rule, only criminals would consider carrying concealed, and they do so for nefarious purposes, and therefore a ban on the act is justifiable because they regarded the nature of the act itself as nefarious. But the actions of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens who peacefully carry concealed every day today disproves that reasoning. Without the reasoning behind it, the historical precedent is invalid. A court which insists on using invalid precedent as the basis of its decision is a court which is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

A proper free society does not impose limits on the everyday peaceful actions of the citizenry solely due to the actions of a much smaller number of criminals. That is what a police state does. If we forbade every action that is common to both citizens and criminals, the resulting set of available actions left would be vanishingly small. To do that would be to straitjacket the citizenry. It is plainly invalid to do such a thing, and that is one reason that carry bans of all modes are facially invalid.

From a current post from Maryland "mdshooters".

Last edited by pcfixer; 10-18-2021 at 07:56. Reason: ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN (1897)
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:49.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies