United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

[Zyobot]

Another Washington Gun Law update:




Oh, boy, seems Blue-state legislators really can’t help themselves. Best-case scenario is they realize how unenforceable these laws are and back off… because I don’t so much as want to touch a worst-case scenario.

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

Another Washington Gun Law update:




Oh, boy, seems Blue-state legislators really can’t help themselves. Best-case scenario is they realize how unenforceable these laws are and back off… because I don’t so much as want to touch a worst-case scenario.

No, it has nothing to do with not realizing what they are doing.
It is about time / money analysis. Every new law has to be challenged by someone that on a case that has merit. You need to have money to fight a multi year legal battle.

You have to win, and some jurisdictions the judges are politically motivated or corrupt. Imagine that when they are politically appointed at the federal level.

SCOTUS only takes a few cases a year. And you have cases like USA v. Miller.

Result: Shorty shotguns can be taxed under the Federal Firearms Act, because they are not military useful and not protected by the 2nd amendment.
( which makes the arguments against AR-15’s being weapons of war interesting ).

The problem with the court finding was if it was true why did the court not address the FFA taxing automatic weapons , SBR, suppressors which are all taxed by the FFA?
So the court allowed an unconstitutional law to be in place for 90 years because of politics?

The real issue is political hacks have no accountability to the people for making unconstitutional law.

If the creators of bills that become law would be booted from office and banned from any governments position when their laws are struck because of unconstitutionality we would have less infringement in our society.

 

[DarthOne]

The real issue is political hacks have no accountability to the people for making unconstitutional law.

If the creators of bills that become law would be booted from office and banned from any governments position when their laws are struck because of unconstitutionality we would have less infringement in our society.

That’s…not a bad idea.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Gavin Newsome has proposed a 28th amendment that will "keep the 2nd intact" while actually gutting it. Favorite response included.



Given the current state of America, I doubt any constitutional amendment has a chance of passing but Gavin is on the short list ofr Presidential candidates in the next couple of election cycles so he has fair odds of pushing something similar soon.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Assault weapon laws are *stupid* from the beginning because only a tiny fraction of crimes are committed with long guns in the first place, and only a tiny fraction of THOSE are with "assault weapons".

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Gavin Newsome has proposed a 28th amendment that will "keep the 2nd intact" while actually gutting it. Favorite response included.



Given the current state of America, I doubt any constitutional amendment has a chance of passing but Gavin is on the short list ofr Presidential candidates in the next couple of election cycles so he has fair odds of pushing something similar soon.

...Well at least he is doing it in the legal way this time rather than Jim Crowing gun laws into oblivion. It's not like it will get anywhere anyway while democrats may insist a "Huge" majority of Americans are in favor of gun control they are nowhere near as high as required.

 

[Wargamer08]

...Well at least he is doing it in the legal way this time rather than Jim Crowing gun laws into oblivion. It's not like it will get anywhere anyway while democrats may insist a "Huge" majority of Americans are in favor of gun control they are nowhere near as high as required.

That's standard poling question manipulation, where it's not just out and out fabrication.

 

[Zyobot]

Speaking of 28th Amendment proposals:

 

[Cherico]

Speaking of 28th Amendment proposals:

Gaven Newsome isn't much loved here in california and I am honestly surprised he wasn't killed by many of the small business owners who lost everything because of his covid shit.

Chances of him pulling it off pretty damned slim, but I understand why he's so anti gun he's pissed off a whole lot of people who have every reason to assasinate him.

 

[DarthOne]

Gaven Newsome isn't much loved here in california and I am honestly surprised he wasn't killed by many of the small business owners who lost everything because of his covid shit.

Chances of him pulling it off pretty damned slim, but I understand why he's so anti gun he's pissed off a whole lot of people who have every reason to assasinate him.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

[Cherico]

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Like I said I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened.

Because he fucked over a very large number of people, maybe they all left for greener pasters, maybe his security is that good or maybe people are just that demoralized but it is remarkable he's doing as well as he is considering how a large segment of people here just fucking hates him for personal reasons.

 

[Zyobot]

Gaven Newsome isn't much loved here in california and I am honestly surprised he wasn't killed by many of the small business owners who lost everything because of his covid shit.

Chances of him pulling it off pretty damned slim, but I understand why he's so anti gun he's pissed off a whole lot of people who have every reason to assasinate him.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Yeah, well, odds are they’ll crack down even harder if someone on the edge finally snaps and JFK’s him without warning. You know it, I know it, and there’s a good chance America’s hoplophobes are downright praying for it as we speak.

At that point, they’ll have made a martyr out of the guy, giving anti-gun activists and Democratic legislators all the ammunition (no pun intended) they need to demand even more gun grabs and even more onerous restrictions — both in California, and in fellow Blue states where things are about to get hairy, anyway.

 

[Sailor.X]

Speaking of 28th Amendment proposals:

About as good as me getting a date with a Hot Vulcan chick......

 

[Zyobot]

About as good as me getting a date with a Hot Vulcan chick......

Thought you liked Togrutas, though?

 

[Sailor.X]

Thought you liked Togrutas, though?

Hey I love both.

 

[Zyobot]

Hey I love both.

 

[prinCZess]

Gavin Newsome has proposed a 28th amendment that will "keep the 2nd intact" while actually gutting it.

What baffles me about the whole proposal is just...What the point of it is? Why propose a new amendment limiting the second instead of just...propose to repeal the old one? We have prohibition as the example of how it's supposed to work, a new amendment that conflicts with the old one just seems like it creates legal wriggle-room...And while that kind of makes sense from the anti-gun folks if they assume they're always going to get their way, as recent 2nd-Amendment stuff has shown they DON'T, so it seems silly of them to amplify and embrace a process that will just nationalize, amplify, and exaggerate the whole debate over what, if any, guns are 'OK' constitutionally to ban.

Only thing I could come up with is that proposing a new amendment maybe has better optics than repealing an old one with people that are more middle-of-the-road, but that's all I could come up with for motivating factor.

 

[bullethead]

Only thing I could come up with is that proposing a new amendment maybe has better optics than repealing an old one with people that are more middle-of-the-road, but that's all I could come up with for motivating factor.

I think it's this, really.

When even the highly biased polls show that a lot of people in the 30s and under demographics are against gun bans, that's a sign that gun abolitionists are on the losing end of the conflict.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

The second ammendment needs to be abolished because the founding fathers never could have anticipated modern assault weapon ghost guns that can fire a 30 caliber magazine clip in half a second, this has tripled the casualty rate in conflicts and has made what some call a 'non stop warfare' effect. In addition too many guns nowadays have the shoulder things that go up, and that is terrifying.
Now that that the jokes are out of the way, how do you guys decipher "Shall not be infringed"?

 

[Zyobot]

I think it's this, really.

When even the highly biased polls show that a lot of people in the 30s and under demographics are against gun bans, that's a sign that gun abolitionists are on the losing end of the conflict.

Actually? 🧐

Well, in any case, I shouldn't be surprised that common people who own guns for home defense, hunters who hunt their own game, and farmers and ranchers who kill of varmints feel "underrepresented" in the gun debate, if nothing else.

For starters, when the Corporate Media doubles down on their illiteracy via made-up terms like "assault weapon" or "assault-style weapon". Or, worse yet, incorrectly referring to semi-auto firearms as "assault rifles" — even when civilian models aren't even capable of fully automatic fire, because those are mostly banned. Even as someone who's not so much as touched a gun, I have no trouble recalling these at the drop of a hat. Weird (or perhaps, not so weird) that journalists who cover this stuff can't say the same...

The second ammendment needs to be abolished because the founding fathers never could have anticipated modern assault weapon ghost guns that can fire a 30 caliber magazine clip in half a second, this has tripled the casualty rate in conflicts and has made what some call a 'non stop warfare' effect. In addition too many guns nowadays have the shoulder things that go up, and that is terrifying.
Now that that the jokes are out of the way, how do you guys decipher "Shall not be infringed"?

In fact, even without "Shall not be infringed!" being blatantly explicit, I'd think the 2nd Amendment being enshrined precisely to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms as a fail-safe against a tyrannical government implies the private citizenry ought to have enough firepower to meaningfully resist them, not just for self-protection or maintaining a livelihood in their day-to-day lives.

Therefore, it makes no sense to give a government that could one day turn tyrannical the authority to decide what weapons you can or can't have. Because then, tyrannical elements within the US government will use and abuse their power to deprive you of what you need to defend yourself, so that by the time they're ready to pounce, it's already too late — which misses the whole point behind why the 2nd Amendment is there to start with! 🤦