Professional Soldiers ® - Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772)

Not gonna happen

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 670429)

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.

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.

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/

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

Biden is a lame duck president before any of this becomes an issue.

The polarity of the congress is in survival mode.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 670659)

Thanks for that link.

· 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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 670913)

Thanks for that. There is likely grumbling by some readable on the Richter scale, epicenter New York Ave. NE.

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

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

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

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".

Here’s the latest blueprint for gun control:
https://denveraccord.org/recommended...-and-policies/

Hmmm…
-“May issue” permit to purchase.
-Denial for a misdemeanor “hate crime”.

This sort of thing would be an effective way to start a shooting war.

If vaccine mandates, direct from or sponsored by government, are allowed to survive then the "public health crisis" mentioned can be handled the same way. Dovetails perfectly with the CDC examining "gun violence" as a public health concern (again).

Never give them up. Ever.