NRA Trying To Challenge Mag Ban Ruling Before SCOTUS

[EssOne]

This really bears watching. Short version: The NRA is filing an amicus brief asking the SCOTUS to review a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case which upheld mag bans, asserting that the 7th decision was based on flawed tests that conflicted with SCOTUS precedents etc, etc.

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150831/california-the-nra-files-a-brief-urging-supreme-court-to-rehear-challenge-to-ban-on-common-semi-automatic-firearms-and-magazines

Edited September 8, 2015 by EssOne

[runco]

This needs to be watched.  Could have serious ramifications if left unchecked.

[JohnC]

Anything going to SCOTUS scares the daylights out of me! :meh:

One more "opinion" away from losing ______________ right(s). Edited September 9, 2015 by JohnC

[EssOne]

Ordinarily it scares me too. But this is an appeal to regain something we've already lost and that doesn't worry me nearly as much.

[Oh Shoot]

Anything going to SCOTUS scares the daylights out of me! :meh:

One more "opinion" away from losing ______________ right(s).

Ordinarily it scares me too. But this is an appeal to regain something we've already lost and that doesn't worry me nearly as much.

 
Yup, as long as lower court decision stands as the exemplar, already gone.
 
- OS

Edited September 9, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[JohnC]

Yup, as long as lower court decision stands as the exemplar, already gone.
 
- OS

That's why you have to be strategic of when you take something to SCOTUS. I say we wait until one of the old liberals dies off and a true conservative or libertarian is appointed to SCOTUS (hopefully that happens once Obama is out) before we take anything else there.

It's a dice roll for sure.

[tartanphantom]

That's why you have to be strategic of when you take something to SCOTUS. I say we wait until one of the old liberals dies off and a true conservative or libertarian is appointed to SCOTUS (hopefully that happens once Obama is out) before we take anything else there.

It's a dice roll for sure.

 

Until there is a legitimate change in the apathetic attitudes of the general populace (e.g-- voting in more statesmen and fewer "politicians" to the Legislative and Executive branches of gov't), I doubt that there will ever be another "true conservative" appointed to SCOTUS in our lifetime. The last strict constitutionalist appointed was Clarence Thomas, and that was 1991, so I wouldn't hold my breath for the next one.

The deck has been stacked for awhile now-- witness John Roberts-- who was advertised as a "conservative" when he was confirmed... however, many of his crucial vote positions reveal otherwise. Alito and Scalia are often slightly more conservative in their judicial reasoning, but not by much, and even they have been prone to lapses of constitutional judgement from time to time.

 

The theoretical concept of a "balanced court" (4 libs, 4 conservatives, and 1 middle/moderate) is not completely flawed-- it helps to insure that the views of most people are represented at some point-- but the court does not exist for "representation" of the populace-- it exists to interpret written Federal law primarily on the basis of constitutionality. However, The Roberts court has tended to veer away from strict scrutiny through the lens of constitutional law and has slowly moved towards legislating from the bench... such tendencies make SCOTUS more like an oligarchy and less like an actual judicial body. When the court acts on "feelings of what is the right thing to do" rather than interpreting written law (or the absence thereof), then credibility for jurisprudence is severely damaged.

 

I only need to point to the recent decision regarding gay marriage to illustrate this. Whether I agree with the decision or not is irrelevant... however, the method, procedure, and reasoning for arriving at the decision is rather questionable, since marriage has long been an individual state issue, and the Federal government as we know it has never had real jurisdiction over it. In this case, using the guise of "equal protection" is a sham if the same equal protection is not afforded to ALL consenting adults-- regardless of their sex, relationships, or preferences for single or multiple spouses. Pandora's Box has been opened on this one-- and there are already cases moving forward regarding multiple spouses and incestual relationships (even if only for the convenience of hassle-free property inheritance) under the premise of the decision on gay marriage.

 

As you say, it's a dice roll-- but it's been that way since at least the Warren Court.

In this day & age, The phrase "Take it to the Supreme Court" should be exercised with the same caution as the phrase "Please castrate me."  One should never be too confident no matter who is in charge of the court.

 

Government Statists are enemies of personal freedoms no matter what party they belong to, and no matter at which level of government they operate-- and unfortunately, they ain't going away anytime soon.

Edited September 10, 2015 by tartanphantom