View Full Version : How Dick Cheney helped save our gun rights
This is an interesting quick video on Dick Cheney’s influence on the Heller decision in the final year of Bush’s administration.
https://youtu.be/nGZyjK31hSQ
Edit: had to make a video
hotbiggun42
04-24-23, 20:13
Was the Heller decision good for gun owners? Seems gun rights have been getting more restrictive since that decision.
Was the Heller decision good for gun owners? Seems gun rights have been getting more restrictive since that decision.
Heller gave us Dobbs which has returned gun rights taken away by States like NY, NJ, CT, MA, MD, and CA. It's an up and down roller coaster.
Heller gave us Dobbs which has returned gun rights taken away by States like NY, NJ, CT, MA, MD, and CA. It's an up and down roller coaster.
All of whom essentially ignored it and or passed even more restrictive laws in response. They only care about a SCOTUS ruling where it suits them.
ChattanoogaPhil
04-25-23, 09:05
Was the Heller decision good for gun owners? Seems gun rights have been getting more restrictive since that decision.
I suppose it depends on what gun rights you're referring. Heller was decided in 2008. States began passing permitless carry bills, aka Constitutional Carry, in 2010. Fast forward to today... now a majority of states enjoy permitless carry. While all 2A protected liberties are important, exercising the right to bear (carry) arms absent a government permission slip rates pretty high, IMO.
There's been a ton of pro-gun victories in the past 15 years, but the one that surprised me most is when Illinois began issuing carry permits. I looked out the window for flying pigs. Ha!
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-23, 10:31
Was the Heller decision good for gun owners? Seems gun rights have been getting more restrictive since that decision.
You got that right brother…. CO has gone nothing but worse. More wins like Heller, McDonald and Bruen and I’ll be sitting here with my pud in my had. The real issue is that SCOTUS hasn’t actually supported those those judgments and enforced them. Maybe they were waiting for a better court, but considering that Trump was a flier, and we could be looking at a court composition the opposite of what we have- the means balancing test and all the other BS like “Muskets only” would be the law of the land.
SCOTUS needs to without delay go after these means balancing and all the other BS and just say what they are going to say. They made a HUGE mistake by not using Bruen to more completely shut the door on bans. That you can take the text of the 2A and have the left USE IT to restrict our rights tells you that unless it is in clear black and white text- we have nothing. Even then, states and cities will leave unconstitutional zombie laws on the books.
And of course, when the left gets a majority back, they’ll try to Roe all these decisions.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-23, 00:40
And all these laws that you are so proud of passing or haven't passed......... yet. All those laws can be overturned and the stupid laws will then come. Happened here in the 'old west' in Colorado. You have to have something more durable than some law that passed now... I know the SCOTUS rulings are perfect, but they are more durable than state legislatures...
ViniVidivici
04-26-23, 10:00
Yeah we're seeing that here in WA. They've been making law irrelevant for a few years now, and just passed an AWB which of course flies in the face of the new scrutiny set forth in Bruen.
Educate me fellas, how does the SCOTUS enforce its decisions, what is the mechanism to FORCE states to comply? They can simply ignore, apparently without consequence.
hotbiggun42
04-26-23, 13:52
Yeah we're seeing that here in WA. They've been making law irrelevant for a few years now, and just passed an AWB which of course flies in the face of the new scrutiny set forth in Bruen.
Educate me fellas, how does the SCOTUS enforce its decisions, what is the mechanism to FORCE states to comply? They can simply ignore, apparently without consequence.
Call Dick Cheney. I kid, what i did was pack up and move from Washington. I know it was extreme but it had to be done.
ChattanoogaPhil
04-26-23, 16:08
And all these laws that you are so proud of passing or haven't passed......... yet. All those laws can be overturned and the stupid laws will then come. Happened here in the 'old west' in Colorado. You have to have something more durable than some law that passed now... I know the SCOTUS rulings are perfect, but they are more durable than state legislatures...
I understand the desire to live in an ideal world where SCOTUS declares all gun restrictions unconstitutional but that isn't likely to happen. Heck, waiting for any particular anti-gun state law to be overturned by courts can take a long time, if ever.
California AWB passed in 1989. The good news is that over 30 years later and many more legislative restrictions along the way, it may be overturned again, soon, including magazine limitations and ammo restrictions. That would be great! Then it will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, again, and then perhaps SCOTUS for a final favorable ruling, maybe, maybe not (think years from now).
Like it or not, I don't, that's the world we live in. I feel fortunate to have lived in a part of this world with generally pro-gun lawmakers for the past 30 years. Is there risk that could change? Sure. But there's no point fretting over something (highlighted above) with no realistic alternative but to remain vigilant against the anti-gun bastards.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-23, 20:14
It seems that the SCOTUS thing needs to be surcharged based on an actual criminal case. I would think that would press the issue faster than these ‘procedural’ cases.
We got gay marriage in one-fell-swoop, but gun stuff is dragged out over almost 20 years….
The real issue is that SCOTUS hasn’t actually supported those those judgments and enforced them.
The executive branch executes laws, not scotus.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-23, 21:45
The executive branch executes laws, not scotus.
Well, SCOTUS actuallly does ‘execute laws’ as in kill them. Bruen didn’t actually change anything. SCOTUS has allowed inferior courts to flout Heller with BS levels of scrutiny for over 14 years. Bruen didn’t change anything except that SCOTUS said that they weren’t kidding about the 2A being a real right. And still CA, IL, NYS, and WA thumbed their noses. SCOTUS needs to bypass the 2nd and 9th Circuits and directly affirm a case from someone like Benetiz.
Well, SCOTUS actuallly does ‘execute laws’ as in kill them. Bruen didn’t actually change anything. SCOTUS has allowed inferior courts to flout Heller with BS levels of scrutiny for over 14 years. Bruen didn’t change anything except that SCOTUS said that they weren’t kidding about the 2A being a real right. And still CA, IL, NYS, and WA thumbed their noses. SCOTUS needs to bypass the 2nd and 9th Circuits and directly affirm a case from someone like Benetiz.
"he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
ViniVidivici
04-26-23, 21:54
I'm genuinely curious, as I only have knowledge of Bird Law, what the enforcement mechanism actually is.
What is done to MAKE states comply with SCOTUS decisions?
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-23, 22:10
I'm genuinely curious, as I only have knowledge of Bird Law, what the enforcement mechanism actually is.
What is done to MAKE states comply with SCOTUS decisions?
SCOTUS throws out a law, like the CCW BS in NYC/S. So NYS just writes another law, actually in direct opposition to the first ruling. SCOTUS takes it like a bitch and asks the lower courts to hash it out and come to a consensus. What they need to do is after the first case- decided either way- have the Pro2A plantiffs go directly to SCOTUS for a ruling. And keep that pace up until these states get a clue and stop and there is enough case law to stop the stupidity.
Federal court blocks Illinois semi-auto ban.. https://thereload.com/federal-court-blocks-illinois-assault-weapons-ban/
Federal court blocks Illinois semi-auto ban.. https://thereload.com/federal-court-blocks-illinois-assault-weapons-ban/
Seems like the language was pretty good from the judge, too. The Four Boxes Diner channel on YouTube has been really good on this stuff.
ChattanoogaPhil
04-29-23, 08:39
It's worth the bandwidth to quote.
Excerpts-
“The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense,” he wrote. “PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them.”
“Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them,” Judge McGlynn wrote. “Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.”
----
Thank you president Trump for appointing judges like Stephen P. McGlynn.
ViniVidivici
04-29-23, 10:04
Amen. THAT is a judge who knows how to interpret the Constitution, and does his duty to recognize and adhere to rulings from SCOTUS that do same.
Question is, does the state abide by this, or ignore it?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.