View Full Version : HEADS UP on a SCOTUS case that could screw us!
Doc Safari
09-20-16, 17:31
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/supreme-court-second-amendment-case-overrule-heller-2017/
I won't quote the whole article. It's kind of long and involved, but suffice it to say it's of "legal importance" so SCOTUS will most likely hear it, making it all the more critical that any new Supreme Court justices are pro 2A:
As important as the Sixth Circuit’s Tyler decision is, that is not the most newsworthy aspect of this case. Because now a federal appeals court has struck down an Act of Congress on constitutional grounds.
That means the Obama administration’s solicitor general will now petition the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to review this case. Under these rare circumstances, it is virtually 100 percent certain that the justices will grant review and hear the case.
That means that the Second Amendment will be back before the Supreme Court in 2017, after a ninth justice has been confirmed to replace Scalia. The Second Amendment has survived twice at the Supreme Court over the past decade, both by only 5-4 votes.
One of the ways that the justices could rule in favor of the federal government would be to overrule Heller, and hold that the Second Amendment does not apply at all to private citizens. [The leftist view of the Second Amendment is that its only meaning is that the federal government cannot stop state governments from arming their National Guard (i.e., “militia”) units with guns.]
So declarations from Donald Trump and Mike Pence that gun rights are in danger is no longer hypothetical. It is now certain. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, the Second Amendment can be effectively erased from the U.S. Constitution.
I hope this doesn't degenerate into a Trump vs. Hillary thread. We KNOW Hillary wants to disarm the public. Trump may have flip-flopped on his pro 2A stance but seems to be at least talking pro 2A now. Can we leave it at that?
The important thing is that we need to watch this case and be ready to gear up and petition our beloved Congress to stop any nominee that is not pro 2A.
Why can't we catch a fuggin break?
You can't overrule the BOR. Going after guns historically precedes extreme acts by the government at large.
I think this would meet with friction if they really try this dumb as dogshit move.
In 94? Sure....wall collapsed. World relatively at peace, last US campaigns successful, decent economy.
Now? World in turmoil, lots of pissed off people/veterans, economy in the shitter, domestic terrorism more commonplace...
It really would not behoove anyone to try and rope this goat.
Thanks for the heads up. Seems my senator will be receiving more calls, letters, and emails.
Mr. Goodtimes
09-20-16, 18:19
What exactly is the SCOTUS deciding on in relation to the 2A?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What exactly is the SCOTUS deciding on in relation to the 2A?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The question at hand is, if a person was involuntarily committed to a mental health institute for 1 day, but has had no mental health issues of any kind for the last 30 years since that one day, can he own firearms? There are other facts at hand, like in many states you can petition to be allowed to purchase firearms even with a negative mental health record, but in this case there was no remedy at the state level. And the "mental health issue" the man exhibited was due to his wife cheating on him, then leaving him and his daughters.
The majority decision was that the law was unconstitutional as the plaintiff had no remedies although they should have been available to him, and the law itself doesn't address a person who is no longer a danger to himself nor to others and is not forseeably a danger to himself nor to others. The intent of banning someone from firearms ownership due to mental illness was to prevent people from easily killing other people when they are prone to extreme mood swings or can no longer differentiate between good and bad behavior.
The judges in the minority believe that mental health dispossession of firearms should be treated like felony dispossession of firearms because they have always been the same. That is to say, once you are a felon, you can never own firearms unless pardoned by the Governor (for a state crime), or the President. So they believe if you have a serious mental health issue, even if it's for one day three decades ago and has never happened again and likely never will happen again, you still should not own firearms. Essentially, their argument is that if there's zero tolerance for felons, there should be zero tolerance for mental illness.
This is getting to be god-damn-ridiculous.
Essentially, their argument is that if there's zero tolerance for felons, there should be zero tolerance for mental illness.
Because of all the medicines and therapies that can make a former felon not a felon, right? Right??
Eurodriver
09-20-16, 19:50
I'm just gonna roll dice behind the liquor store from now on.
Ain't no one gonna care if I have an assault weapon on me or not...
How did we ever get to this can of worms in such a short period of time...I fear the worst. Thanks for the 411
SomeOtherGuy
09-20-16, 20:10
Thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't heard of this case before now.
The 6th Circuit decision is a good one, though I prefer J. Batchelder's view over the majority opinion, for the reasons outlined in the article.
Some people are calling this election "the flight 93 election" - as in, you must win or you die. Part of me thinks that is hyperbole, but part of me thinks it is a realistic description of what's going on. I'm not a big fan of Trump, but will vote for him since Hillary is the worst major-party candidate that the US has ever had. Not just on guns either - on virtually all issues.
I'm just gonna roll dice behind the liquor store from now on.
Ain't no one gonna care if I have an assault weapon on me or not...
That's the spirit. This is where I'm at now. Nobody gonna look twice at guys shooting dice behind a haji shop. Just get out there in slippers, sweats, and maybe a cap. Drink some OJ with vodka in it and just keep it real. Try charging some street creature with NFA. No really. ATF won't touch it. After trial and whatnot it will get torched but no fed charges. No state charges. It'll get dropped for a plea. I seen a genius cut up a Winchester single shot turkey gun way down and the stock and wrap it in duct tape. It looked like something from Fallout. ATF had no interest in earning their pay on that one.
So....yeah, shit. I actually feel moderately more at ease in the ghetto than most places.
As long as you abide your Ghetto Etiquette, pull up a crate, get down on a barbecue sammich, and take it easy.
The question at hand is, if a person was involuntarily committed to a mental health institute for 1 day, but has had no mental health issues of any kind for the last 30 years since that one day, can he own firearms? There are other facts at hand, like in many states you can petition to be allowed to purchase firearms even with a negative mental health record, but in this case there was no remedy at the state level. And the "mental health issue" the man exhibited was due to his wife cheating on him, then leaving him and his daughters.
The majority decision was that the law was unconstitutional as the plaintiff had no remedies although they should have been available to him, and the law itself doesn't address a person who is no longer a danger to himself nor to others and is not forseeably a danger to himself nor to others. The intent of banning someone from firearms ownership due to mental illness was to prevent people from easily killing other people when they are prone to extreme mood swings or can no longer differentiate between good and bad behavior.
The judges in the minority believe that mental health dispossession of firearms should be treated like felony dispossession of firearms because they have always been the same. That is to say, once you are a felon, you can never own firearms unless pardoned by the Governor (for a state crime), or the President. So they believe if you have a serious mental health issue, even if it's for one day three decades ago and has never happened again and likely never will happen again, you still should not own firearms. Essentially, their argument is that if there's zero tolerance for felons, there should be zero tolerance for mental illness.
Which is asinine as mental illness is not the same as a persons assessed dangerousness. That's not how it works. Without a comprehensive psychometric based assessment dangerousness cannot be reliably determined. And none of that matters as the determination to restrict ones liberty should be only done via ruling by a judge in a court of law..
But wait the law doesn't matter anymore I guess.
Which is asinine as mental illness is not the same as a persons assessed dangerousness. That's not how it works. Without a comprehensive psychometric based assessment dangerousness cannot be reliably determined. And none of that matters as the determination to restrict ones liberty should be only done via ruling by a judge in a court of law..
But wait the law doesn't matter anymore I guess.
This is something else. It is pretty easy to accuse people of mental illness. Then it's this Crucible Salem Witch trial BS as you are crazy until proven sane. Same logic that if we tie you up and toss you in a river that if you fly away you must be hunted and killed or if you drown, at least you died a good Christian death.
Too many Dr. Phil Fck your patients shrinks out there. Unless someone is shitting their pants and eating it or foaming at the mouth trying to eat people; then I am skeptical that so many people are mentally ill except for the people making the decisions on who is crazty and who aint.
sevenhelmet
09-20-16, 20:31
Some people are calling this election "the flight 93 election" - as in, you must win or you die. Part of me thinks that is hyperbole, but part of me thinks it is a realistic description of what's going on. I'm not a big fan of Trump, but will vote for him since Hillary is the worst major-party candidate that the US has ever had. Not just on guns either - on virtually all issues.
This is the "Flight 93 election", because this plane is going to crash either way it goes. The marginalization of the Constitution is nearly complete. Awesome.
This is the "Flight 93 election", because this plane is going to crash either way it goes. The marginalization of the Constitution is nearly complete. Awesome.
This is what I fear, buy now or cry later (possibly both).
Interesting article
A Tiny Percentage of U.S. Adults Own Half the Country's Guns
http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/us-gun-ownership/
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Essentially, their argument is that if there's zero tolerance for felons, there should be zero tolerance for mental illness.
If they can't be trusted to own a gun, they shouldn't be walking free. Applies to both groups.
This is what I fear, buy now or cry later (possibly both).
Interesting article
A Tiny Percentage of U.S. Adults Own Half the Country's Guns
http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/us-gun-ownership/
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
There are a few points made. But the suicide spiel is lame.
If people want to die they are going to do it. I don't agree with it but short of tying someone to a bed where they cant bite their own tongue off; what can you do?
This metrosexual 21st century "everyone lives forever" schtick is a farce.
This high school "everybody shun and shame so and so for liking/screwing/wearing/owning/driving/eating such and such" is likewise pretty damn gay.
Oodles of things in the world I find unjust/blasphemous/crazy/backward/silly but I just don't have the tine nor energy to march or protest or make a to-do about it.
I just....I dunno....say F it and drive on.
Time and Karma fixes more than you think. I knew plenty of folks who just had it figured all out and they got royally fcked up by the very life they claimed to master.
tl;dr I do what I want
Mental illness or absence of can be determined by the stroke of a pen. When I was a kid in rural Mississippi, a lady in my hometown married some dude from out of town--which was a strike against him to start with. She considered him a sex fiend and had her 80 year old doctor together with the 80 year old Chancery Judge declare the poor man insane. Her lifelong friend, the 70 year old sheriff, hauled him off to the Mississippi Asylum for the Insane. His offense was asking his wife for oral sex and being a compulsive masturbator. I don't think he ever did get out. So let that be a lesson to you Eurodriver and Fly man. :stop:
Mental illness or absence of can be determined by the stroke of a pen. When I was a kid in rural Mississippi, a lady in my hometown married some dude from out of town--which was a strike against him to start with. She considered him a sex fiend and had her 80 year old doctor together with the 80 year old Chancery Judge declare the poor man insane. Her lifelong friend, the 70 year old sheriff, hauled him off to the Mississippi Asylum for the Insane. His offense was asking his wife for oral sex and being a compulsive masturbator. I don't think he ever did get out. So let that be a lesson to you Eurodriver and Fly man. :stop:
And that is the real problem. Too easy for somebody to get dogpiled. In a fair world, she would have been the crazy one.
This is something else. It is pretty easy to accuse people of mental illness. Then it's this Crucible Salem Witch trial BS as you are crazy until proven sane. Same logic that if we tie you up and toss you in a river that if you fly away you must be hunted and killed or if you drown, at least you died a good Christian death.
Too many Dr. Phil Fck your patients shrinks out there. Unless someone is shitting their pants and eating it or foaming at the mouth trying to eat people; then I am skeptical that so many people are mentally ill except for the people making the decisions on who is crazty and who aint.
Exactly why they want it- you "brandished" a firearm and "made threatening gestures" (ie,your shirt slid up a little on your CCW holster and you waved hello), so your snitchbitch neighbor calls the 1-800-seesomething-saysomething hotline cuz' there's a crazy man threatening people in the streets. You get hauled in for one day to determine whether you're "mentally defective" since only crazy people own guns to protect them against imaginary threats, and blammo! you're ****ed for life.
Or something like that, but you get the general idea of where I'm going here...
This is the "Flight 93 election", because this plane is going to crash either way it goes. The marginalization of the Constitution is nearly complete. Awesome.
Please... the constitution already IS irrelevant, they're just paying lip service to keep the lid on until it becomes socially expedient enough to let it all out...
[edited to delete rant, because at this point... what does it really matter?]
But yeah...The only difference between our two potential pilots in command, is one is saying "I'm going to try and establish a decent glide path so you folks can have a few extra minutes to kiss your ass goodbye", and the other is saying "Crashing? No you fools- down is UP!"
:suicide:
Doc Safari
09-20-16, 22:47
One other thing I thought of: even if SCOTUS doesn't overturn Heller, a decision could be written that gives ATF a license to issue new regulations so that even a prescription for certain drugs could mean "no guns for you." The SCOTUS could inadvertently lower the threshold so that being on the wrong medication could result in a prohibition similar to the "domestic violence" prohibition. Remember that the domestic violence prohibition on the 4473 includes even misdemeanors, and was never voted on by Congress. IIRC it was simply issued as a regulation by ATF. If the SCOTUS upholds the ban for life for any kind of mental issue, ATF could take an inch and turn it into a mile by including being on certain prescription drugs as a "mental health issue."
I could see a SCOTUS decision resulting in a new question on the 4473 that reads, "Are you taking a prescribed medication for depression or any other mental health issue?" And of course, a 'yes' answer means "NO GUNS FOR YOU."
I know that's probably an oversimplification of what might actually happen, but we live in an age where a medical marijuana prescription means no guns, so it isn't that much of a stretch.
Moose-Knuckle
09-21-16, 04:55
When Hillary uses the SCOTUS to legislate the 2nd Amendment into criminality we'll see a Convention of States, states will secede, and probably a major land war in COTUS.
It's been awhile we're kind of past due.
"Do not go gentle into that good night . . . "
When Hillary uses the SCOTUS to legislate the 2nd Amendment into criminality we'll see a Convention of States, states will secede, and probably a major land war in COTUS.
It's been awhile we're kind of past due.
"Do not go gentle into that good night . . . "
And that's when I pack up the SUV, throw the dog and cat in the back and enough ammo to make the bumper scrape and head my ass down to Texas. The wife can come too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-21-16, 08:10
How exactly does this 'overturn' Heller. As the Progressives like to point out that Scalia said there could be restrictions to the right to bear arms. I'm not saying that I don't see this as an erosion of our 2A rights- between this and the no-fly/no-buy BS they have gone from trying to regulate guns to instituting pre-crime laws.
Doc Safari
09-21-16, 09:01
How exactly does this 'overturn' Heller. As the Progressives like to point out that Scalia said there could be restrictions to the right to bear arms. I'm not saying that I don't see this as an erosion of our 2A rights- between this and the no-fly/no-buy BS they have gone from trying to regulate guns to instituting pre-crime laws.
Basically it's the camel's nose under the tent, or in other words, any excuse is a good excuse to rule that the Second Amendment is not an individual right and the Heller decision is set aside.
Historically, the SCOTUS does not like to revisit old decisions and is even less likely to overturn itself, so that is the GOOD NEWS.
The problem is we are increasingly experiencing a willingness of our ruling class to go against its own laws to further an agenda, so that is the BAD NEWS.
wilson1911
09-21-16, 14:53
Congress has the ability to reign in the abc agency's and I do not see them uttering one word about it....ever.
MountainRaven
09-21-16, 22:38
This is the "Flight 93 election", because this plane is going to crash either way it goes. The marginalization of the Constitution is nearly complete. Awesome.
If this is the, "Flight 93 election," then Ziad Jarrah is already in the cockpit and we're simply voting on whether it should be Ahmed al-Nami or Ahmed al-Haznawi who takes the controls from Jarrah.
Moose-Knuckle
09-22-16, 02:51
Congress has the ability to reign in the abc agency's and I do not see them uttering one word about it....ever.
And the states have the ability to reign in the Federal government via Article V.
wilson1911
09-22-16, 14:26
Actually thats kind of funny. There was a convention for having a balanced budget amendment. Michigan was the last state to sign up I think to meet the quota. Some fell off the list, then tried to rejoin, BUT the fed govt said...once you remove your state, you cannot get back on the list for a convention. I'm not sure how it stands now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.