CA and AWB

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

https://youtu.be/wUKYSGd5f58

So is this the legal battle that will most likely get to SCOTUS? Or is the MD stuff?

It seems that they usual SCOTUS idea that you get competing decisions and then compare and contrast them doesn't work here. We had laws outlawing and sanctioning gay marriage, but there aren't any real pro-2A laws that get challenged to counterweight the AWB/mag bans.

Scalia did us no favors when he called out the M16. Someone should have really had him sharpen up his language to cite something like a crew served machine gun. His M16 reference flies in the face of the NFA.

Also, I guess the left now wants to fully disown Miller.

I have . zero faith that ROberts will side with throwing out AW/M-Bans because of the logistics of it.

[BoringGuy45]

The arguments the various circuit courts have made for upholding the bans are very weak: Some courts have ruled that the 2nd only protects sporting weapons. Others ruled that the 2nd does indeed protect semiautomatic rifles, but that the government has the right to ignore constitutional rights if they feel that it's in the best interests of the country to do so.

I don't trust Roberts, but he does rule conservative more than liberal, and he's been consistently pro-gun. The one concerning thing is that he keeps turning down gun cases though.

[soulezoo]

I truly believe that Roberts goes out of his way to try to not be controversial; however, in doing so he ends up being exactly that.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I truly believe that Roberts goes out of his way to try to not be controversial; however, in doing so he ends up being exactly that.

He is one of those people who thinks that they know better and that they can tip the scales in the favor the 'right' outcome by short circuiting the standard procedures. Trump caused lots of lefties- especially judges- to think that Trump was such a threat to normal order that they could change the normal order against him and in the 'favor' the good. You get a lot of bad law out of that. My guess is that in twenty years a lot of those decisions will be whitewashed in the name of getting back to the 'normal'.

Everyone has a code of ethics that is objectively universal with set right responses, until some event happens to them- then it all becomes ad hoc decisions.

Like Sam said in Ronin, "lt's tempting. - lt's a good plan. Let's stick to the plan."

[Belmont31R]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ssault-weapons


Hopefully we get some favorable rulings but the way gun cases and cases that support rights goes it'll be years before a ruling is reached yet pro-left judgements can come out in hours or days :-/

[Diamondback]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ssault-weapons


Hopefully we get some favorable rulings but the way gun cases and cases that support rights goes it'll be years before a ruling is reached yet pro-left judgements can come out in hours or days :-/

And that's been the entire strategy of the Left Coast: "ram so many rulings through, across so many different fronts, that SCOTUS can't overturn 'em all."

[flenna]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ssault-weapons


Hopefully we get some favorable rulings but the way gun cases and cases that support rights goes it'll be years before a ruling is reached yet pro-left judgements can come out in hours or days :-/

Now we have the Senate ComDems outright threatening the SC that if they do not rule the way they want them to they will restructure the court.

[Belmont31R]

And that's been the entire strategy of the Left Coast: "ram so many rulings through, across so many different fronts, that SCOTUS can't overturn 'em all."

Thats why these cases get drug out. A law can be passed in days but the courts drag their feet as much as possible on stuff that benefits individual rights.

Look at the ruling legalizing regular magazines and it was stopped in a week with a different ruling, and hasn't been addressed AFAIK since.

[Diamondback]

Now we have the Senate ComDems outright threatening the SC that if they do not rule the way they want them to they will restructure the court.

You know what that sounds like to me? Time to force a vote with the new seats filled IMMEDIATELY. See them explain why one party can add new seats for immediate fill but not the other... I'd even agree to a deal to put Schumer on SCOTUS if it was part of a package deal of him and three Scalia clones to fill four new seats. Right now the math is 4-2-3, with Roberts and Kavanaugh being the two switch-hitters. Schumer gives the Left 5, we still have the Turncoat Turds in the middle, but now it's 5-2-6 on a Court of 13.

Of course the Left would do the same thing... the point isn't to actually DO it, it's to make them burn down and discredit their own idea so we can make them go on record as "they were against it before they were for it, either they were lying then or they're lying now."

[Diamondback]

Thats why these cases get drug out. A law can be passed in days but the courts drag their feet as much as possible on stuff that benefits individual rights.

Look at the ruling legalizing regular magazines and it was stopped in a week with a different ruling, and hasn't been addressed AFAIK since.

I suspect Benitez may have been teeing up a follow-up case with his actions: "there's no way to PROVE when a mag was or wasn't in California, so this ban is unenforceable."