Assault Weapons Ban Upheld In MA

[E4 No More]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment/ar-AAvyIYD?li=BBnbcA1 

Sounds like someone needs to tell this judge that a flintlock was an assault weapon in 1787. I'm getting so tired of this crap! 

[QuackerSmacker]

I sure hope all of this ultimately has a good ending.  The gun grabbers are really getting energized.  We've got to get SCOTUS on board in this term. 

[tntnixon]

SCOTUS is very unlikely to hear and rule on this at a time of deep passion on both sides . They will punt , for now , and wait for an appeals court to create a contradiction with the Maryland ruling . They hate entering the debate during its height .

[QuackerSmacker]

Agreed.  What I meant to say is that we've got to get the right folks on the bench at SCOTUS in this presidential term.  We may not have another chance for a long long time.

[tntnixon]

1 minute ago, QuackerSmacker said:

Agreed.  What I meant to say is that we've got to get the right folks on the bench at SCOTUS in this presidential term.  We may not have another chance for a long long time.

There’s rumors that Kennedy will retire this year . They’ll definitely need to get someone on the court before November, if he does .

[MacGyver]

Folks would love for him to retire to make another Supreme Court appointment a midterm issue - getting out some who are likely to stay home otherwise.  

Kennedy more or less dismissed it earlier this year.  That’s not to say he couldn’t change his mind - or you could have another older justice pass away or retire.  

[E4 No More]

8 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Folks would love for him to retire to make another Supreme Court appointment a midterm issue - getting out some who are likely to stay home otherwise.  

Kennedy more or less dismissed it earlier this year.  That’s not to say he couldn’t change his mind - or you could have another older justice pass away or retire.  

I nominate Guinsberg!

Seriously, I am so tired of the SC kicking this can down the danged road. Settle it for once!

[MacGyver]

She's 85, so it's certainly a possibility.  But, she's had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer and is still going strong - so she's about as tough as they come.

Heller and McDonald would be hard to undue - especially the longer they are on the books.  But, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is open to reasonable restrictions.  I hate to poke the hornet's nest when it doesn't need poking.

[tntnixon]

10 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

She's 85, so it's certainly a possibility.  But, she's had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer and is still going strong - so she's about as tough as they come.

Heller and McDonald would be hard to undue - especially the longer they are on the books.  But, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is open to reasonable restrictions.  I hate to poke the hornet's nest when it doesn't need poking.

The wickard case has been on the books for nearly a century . Scalia had hinted that he wanted a crack at it before his demise, but the conservatives have been Leery about overturning long held precedents. The left leaning justices have shown no such hesitation in such . 

[MacGyver]

39 minutes ago, tntnixon said:

The wickard case has been on the books for nearly a century . Scalia had hinted that he wanted a crack at it before his demise, but the conservatives have been Leery about overturning long held precedents. The left leaning justices have shown no such hesitation in such . 

Wickard vs. Filburn gets overturned and this whole show falls apart.  

That’s why they offed him

[Chucktshoes]

5 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Wickard vs. Filburn falls and this whole show falls apart.  

That’s why they offed him

 Well I know this was said in jest, I would also say that the amount of truth contained it is significant. Not about Scalia, of course. If Wickard were to fall I would say conservatively it would unravel a solid 30-50% of the federal government, if not more. 

[tntnixon]

1 minute ago, Chucktshoes said:

 Well I know this was said in jest, I would also say that the amount of truth contained it is significant. Not about Scalia, of course. If Wickard were to fall I would say conservatively it would unravel a solid 30-50% of the federal government, if not more. 

And this is bad ?

[Chucktshoes]

3 minutes ago, tntnixon said:

And this is bad ?

 I am an anarchist, ultimately I believe it would be a good thing. On the other hand, don’t for a second think that it won’t be without a lot of serious pain all around. 

[MacGyver]

2 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 Well I know this was said in jest, I would also say that the amount of truth contained it is significant. Not about Scalia, of course. If Wickard were to fall I would say conservatively it would unravel a solid 30-50% of the federal government, if not more. 

I added the last sentence to add some levity to the first.  Since 1789, the federal government has been working to consolidate power.  It’s a long game, and each of the three branches have played a part. 

But, Wickard vs. Filburn is certainly one of the Judicial Branches most significant contributions.  

If you’ll remember the various firearms freedom acts from a few years ago - arguing that Wickard vs. Filburn was wrongly decided was one of its key arguments. 

[tntnixon]

2 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 I am an anarchist, ultimately I believe it would be a good thing. On the other hand, don’t for a second think that it won’t be without a lot of serious pain all around. 

And I’m a libertarian... sorta the same thing. 

[MacGyver]

9 minutes ago, tntnixon said:

And this is bad ?

In the long run it might work out.  

But, empire is hard.  And so is freedom.  We’ve ceded way too much to the federal government.  Put another way - all of us depend on the government for too much.  

It could very well lead to a break up of the Union.  In the near to midterm if would be quite painful - likely causing a depressions nationally and globally. 

It would affect every man, woman, and child in America. 

[Chucktshoes]

Yep.  All the federal gun  laws, all of the drug laws, all of the USDA laws, almost every federal regulation in this country is built upon the basis of the commerce clause. Undoing Wickard what undo almost all of it.  There would be a lot of chaos, and a lot of layoffs.  I would venture that it would also trigger a constitutional amendment, if not a convention to redo the whole shebang. 

[tntnixon]

2 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

In the long run it might work out.  

But, empire is hard.  And so is freedom.  We’ve ceded way too much to the federal government.  Put another way - all of us depend on the government for too much.  

It could very well lead to a break up of the Union.  In the near to midterm if would be quite painful - likely causing a depressions nationally and globally. 

We survived long before wickard and we could do it again. The problem is the weaning from the teat.

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, tntnixon said:

We survived long before wickard and we could do it again. The problem is the weaning from the teat.

In 1942 when Wickard was decided, global GDP was about $3 trillion dollars.  Today it’s a little north of $80 trillion dollars. 

Mind you, there are a lot of things at work here - but the foundation for most of that growth has been built on a stable, predictable American economy.  

The growth has happened in a short time historically - basically in a few generations. Think about that.  Until 1942, the collective value of every effort of man to that point in history was about $3 trillion dollars.  In a lifetime, we’ve grown to 25x that.  

We could go back.  

But it would mean a global reset. All bets are off if that happened. It would be painful. 

[tntnixon]

 The problem is that the effects have not been economic. The affects of this decision to have mostly been on a personal liberty level. And it’s allowed the government to intrude into our personal lives much more Dan into our finances. 

[QuackerSmacker]

Man, you guys are good!  I studied Wickard  in law school at Kansas  way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.   (Boo, March Madness.....guess there's always next year!)

Seems to me our society would have to make a huuuge turn to the conservative side before we'd ever see SCOTUS unravel Wickard.  I just can't see the court doing something that momentous without the stage having been completely set. 

In other words, I see the court as following more than leading in matters like this.  And if they're following, I don't see where all the massive disruption would come from.

Am I missing something?   This is a fascinating topic.

 

 

[MacGyver]

I’d argue that both parties are just as dependent on Wickard at this point - as they’re two sides of the same coin - both serving their own interests over the people’s  

Wickard may be one of those rulings that we’ve simply moved too far to go back. It would take justices willing to set the whole system on fire to decide it was wrongly decided in ‘42.

As much as we decry the loss of freedom - the states have willingly ceded authority to the federal government.  What was originally a few bucks here and there has turned into a lot of states that wouldn’t be able to support basic services for its people if that happened. A lot of states here in the south would be at the top of that list.

 

[Hershmeister]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment/ar-AAvyIYD?li=BBnbcA1 
Sounds like someone needs to tell this judge that a flintlock was an assault weapon in 1787. I'm getting so tired of this crap! 

Caetano opinion (2016)

Reaffirmed Heller/McDonald allows ownership of weapons in common use “today” and reprimanding Massachusetts Supreme Court for denying Heller by allowing a conviction of a woman who used a stun gun against a domestic abuser which was unlawful in Massachusetts because it was “not invented in 1789” - an argument the court in Heller found “bordering on frivolous”. Particularly relevant today since the same Massachusetts supreme court followed the same line of arguments to uphold the state “assault weapons ban”. Expect it to be overturned on appeal for the same reasons as Caetano.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tntnixon]

1 hour ago, Hershmeister said:

 

 

 

Caetano opinion (2016)

Reaffirmed Heller/McDonald allows ownership of weapons in common use “today” and reprimanding Massachusetts Supreme Court for denying Heller by allowing a conviction of a woman who used a stun gun against a domestic abuser which was unlawful in Massachusetts because it was “not invented in 1789” - an argument the court in Heller found “bordering on frivolous”. Particularly relevant today since the same Massachusetts supreme court followed the same line of arguments to uphold the state “assault weapons ban”. Expect it to be overturned on appeal for the same reasons as Caetano.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I doubt they would issue a per curium order on this. I could be wrong 

[mikegideon]

19 hours ago, tntnixon said:

There’s rumors that Kennedy will retire this year . They’ll definitely need to get someone on the court before November, if he does .

I don't know how any of the liberal judges could retire in good conscience as long as Trump is around with a senate majority. They will hang on for dear life, I figure.