United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

[bullethead]

Here's some interesting punditry on how the case might shake out:

The Meaning Behind the Supreme Court Granting Cert in NYSRPA v. Corlett - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ By LKB This morning, the Supreme Court announced that it has granted cert in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, the case challenging New York City’s “may issue” (read: no issue unless you are politically connected) system for granting concealed...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch appear to be locks for a strong Second Amendment decision. Based on her writings as a circuit judge, ACB appears to be as well. Kavanaugh has talked a good 2A game in the past, but there have been increasing concerns as to whether his supposed conservative views would outweigh his apparent desire to remain in good standing with the Beltway chattering classes.

In granting cert today, it would appear that the pro-2A wing of the Court is sufficiently satisfied that they can now get to five…which means Kavanaugh is likely on board. I’ll go out on a limb and say that Roberts will also wind up in the majority, but only for a purely tactical reason rather than any return to originalist sanity.

After the Court takes its preliminary vote on a case after oral arguments, if the Chief Justice is in the majority, then he gets to assign who writes the draft of the majority opinion (which almost always winds up being the Court’s opinion). If the the Chief Justice is not in the majority, that role falls to the senior-most associate justice in the majority.

Ergo, if Roberts goes squish on the NYSR&PA case, the assignment role would fall to Justice Clarence “Second Class Right” Thomas who would almost certainly take that job for himself and write a very expansive pro-Second Amendment opinion.

Even if the Chief Justice Robert doesn’t like (or may ultimately vote against) the majority in the case, he can tactically vote with the majority up front, thus being able to assign the opinion to someone who will produce an opinion that’s closer to his own. My guess is that he’d assign the opinion to Kavanaugh. If Roberts took it himself and tried to write a weak sauce opinion, there would be five votes that could reject it and join an opinion written by Thomas or Alito which would then become the Court’s opinion.

 

[Terthna]

I'm actually a little pessimistic on the outcome being anything like a full throated endorsement we need for the 2nd. I suspect that Roberts is going to either flake out and manage to make it a 5-4 upholding gun control (in an attempt to kowtow to the Dems out 9f fear that anything less will get a renewed xourt packing push) or make such a narrow decision in the case that it's functionally meaningless (ie striking down one, the one narrow method of gun controlthat is in question as "unconstitutional" while leaving all sorts of other avenues open).

That said, I'm getting really tired of the Dems threats to change the rules. If they ever do pass court packing I think that may well end up being the end point of the republic, as many on the right who are passionate about the court and have been fighting to take control of it for generations (namely the pro-life and gun-rights folks) will in effect had the rug yanked out from under them and effectively are being signalled that playing by the rules gets them nothing... considering the passion on those two issues and what is at stake with them... changing the game like that is not going to end up in nice or good places. After all, one of those groups already has a history of terrorism in support of their cause that they rejected to play by the rules and change public opinion. Take away the legal method and recourses, well... that faction might make a serious comeback.

I think the republic ended when Biden got "elected" into office; it convinced a lot of people that the vote does not matter, and that the only way they can affect any meaningful change is through violence. In my mind, it's no longer a question of if things will escalate, but when.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

So, I happened to see this article on MSN and apparently Tennessee is trying to get a Nullification Law passed and most likely will be successful given their Govenor is a Republican.

Measure making Tennessee a Second Amendment sanctuary passes Senate

 

[bullethead]

Apparently, a New Jersey gun association is trying to get the court to take up New Jersey's mag ban. It's so new to the court docket that it doesn't have a proper number yet.

 

[Doomsought]

I think the republic ended when Biden got "elected" into office; it convinced a lot of people that the vote does not matter, and that the only way they can affect any meaningful change is through violence. In my mind, it's no longer a question of if things will escalate, but when.

Gun issues are a likely canidate for the when. The way United States politics is, we just won't have a civil war without states taking sides.

 

[LordsFire]

I think the republic ended when Biden got "elected" into office; it convinced a lot of people that the vote does not matter, and that the only way they can affect any meaningful change is through violence. In my mind, it's no longer a question of if things will escalate, but when.

There is some slim hope left. Arizona is having a major audit of the election, and Georgia has serious enough election process reforms underway that the leftists have been trying to mass-boycott it into submission.

There's still a chance of things playing out through a lawful framework rather than completely breaking down.

 

[bullethead]

Here's a good thing out of the Ninth Circuit (which'll almost certainly be appealed):


From what I understand, the TL;DR is that states have no jurisdiction in when it comes to the government removing 3D printed gun files from the ITAR list.

 

[bullethead]

Here's an update on a California case about their dumb handgun registry:

Thread by @2Aupdates on Thread Reader App

@2Aupdates: NEW: Renna v Bonta (S.D. CA, handgun roster): Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… "At this stage of litigation, the Court therefore ...…

threadreaderapp.com

Seems like it'll go forward, while some bits are getting dropped.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Seems like it'll go forward, while some bits are getting dropped.

This is a good decision.

The only parts that are getting dropped are the challenges to the state requirement of CLI, MDM, and microstamping for future guns to be deemed "not unsafe". Those exact claims were already unsuccessfully challenged in Pena v. Lindley, with no change in circumstances or facts that would justify not applying stare decisis.

 

[LindyAF]

Since microstamping doesn't exist, the original decision sounds like it was ridiculous and insane.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Since microstamping doesn't exist, the original decision sounds like it was ridiculous and insane.

Pena v. Lindley was badly argued by the pro-gun side, which among other things submitted no actual evidence regarding the feasibility and cost of microstamping technology, instead arguing simply that it was a de facto ban because it wasn't on the market already. Because they submitted no evidence other than manufacturers saying they weren't producing any microstamping guns and did not have any current plans to, the very weak evidence that the State of California presented that it was theoretically feasible stood on this point.

Stare decisis is nonetheless a necessary doctrine.

 

[LindyAF]

Sure, Stare decisis is necessary but it's not one without any limits. Courts should err on the side of upholding prior decisions unless there is good reason not to do so. But they should not follow blindly prior bad or incorrect decisions.

The idea that a bad and unconstitutional law is legitimate merely because a similar case was poorly argued in the past is crazy.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Sure, Stare decisis is necessary but it's not one without any limits. Courts should err on the side of upholding prior decisions unless there is good reason not to do so. But they should not follow blindly prior bad or incorrect decisions.

It's also a matter of rank. Pena v. Lindley is a SCOTUS precedent, which means a lower court flatly doesn't have the authority to set it aside, especially when it's only three years old and there has been no other precedent set since which undermines it.

 

[LindyAF]

It's also a matter of rank. Pena v. Lindley is a SCOTUS precedent, which means a lower court flatly doesn't have the authority to set it aside, especially when it's only three years old and there has been no other precedent set since which undermines it.

Please cite the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

It's also a matter of rank. Pena v. Lindley is a SCOTUS precedent, which means a lower court flatly doesn't have the authority to set it aside, especially when it's only three years old and there has been no other precedent set since which undermines it.

9th Circuit actually

Pena v. Lindley, No. 15-15449 (9th Cir. 2018)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the state in an action challenging three provisions of California's Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). The UHA requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be...

law.justia.com

Although it was a really shitty decision.

 

[bullethead]

Surprised no one took it to the Supreme Court, although the 9th Circuit's thing is apparently "grab a full en banc panel to kill any 3 judge en banc pro-gun ruling."

 

[LindyAF]

Surprised no one took it to the Supreme Court, although the 9th Circuit's thing is apparently "grab a full en banc panel to kill any 3 judge en banc pro-gun ruling."

They did, SC didn't grant writ of certiorari, is my understanding looking at this.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

9th Circuit actually

Pena v. Lindley, No. 15-15449 (9th Cir. 2018)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the state in an action challenging three provisions of California's Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). The UHA requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be...

law.justia.com

Although it was a really shitty decision.

My mistake.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

a win in illinois, the foid card has been stuck down (for now at least)
link to the judges opinion

 

[bullethead]

Here's some spooky shit, if it's true:

Did you know the FBI is collecting your information for INTERPOL when you purchase a firearm?

The FBI is using firearms background checks to collect & give U.S. citizens' private data to INTERPOL, the international criminal police organization that facilitates worldwide police investigations.

www.ammoland.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Gun Owners of America has obtained and supplied AmmoLand News with copies of the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) User Manual. [embedded and linked below]


The first copy of the User Manual was obtained from a GOA’s initiated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI. The law enforcement agency heavily redacted the document. Certain information is exempt from FOIA requests. If an agency decides the information is exempt, they will blackout that section of the supplied document. Disputing what the government agencies can redact from public view tends to end up in courts, and fighting them is a drawn-out and time-consuming process.

Instead, we worked our contacts and were able to get a second copy of the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) User Manual from another source that showed the redacted information.

One of the FBI censored sections deals with giving U.S. citizens’ private data to INTERPOL, the international criminal police organization that facilitates worldwide police investigations.

When a licensed gun dealer (FFL) runs a gun buyer through NICS, the system checks four (4) databases. These databases are Interstate Identification Index (III), NICS Index, ICE Database, and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Located in NCIC data is INTERPOL’s Foreign Fugitive File (FFF). Note U.S. Authorities cannot arrest a subject just for being on the FFF.

Neither can the FBI use INTERPOL’s Foreign Fugitive File to deny the transfer of a firearm. This action begs the question of why the FBI would run a gun buyer against that part of NCIC. The document states that even though a person on the FFF doesn’t make them a “prohibited person.” It does raise a red flag for the FBI.

According to the unredacted copy of the NICS User Guide, the FBI employee doesn’t stop the transfer of the firearm at your local gun shop. After the sale is complete, the FBI representative will request the buyer’s address and personal information with a call to the FFL, who is compelled to cooperate. The FBI will then pass along the address, and possibly other private information, of the person who legally purchased a firearm to INTERPOL.

Gun owners have been told background checks are ONLY used to verify a person’s eligibility to buy a gun. This document seems to dispute this assertion. Now you can see why they want Universal Background Checks so bad…
NICS, in this case, is used to gather information on a U.S citizen or someone in the country legally who is eligible to buy a firearm. That intelligence is then supplied to a foreign law enforcement agency. It is unclear what INTERPOL does with the FBI-provided information, but it is clear that the target for the snooping is never informed that the FBI handed over their data to INTERPOL.

Certain crimes in INTERPOL countries are not crimes in the United States. Some of these foreign crimes are protected rights under our Constitution. Since handing over information is done each and every time regardless of the nature of the charge, the FBI could be handing over information about someone who was just exercising a God-given right.

Also, how NICS fucks over people trying to buy guns in other states:

Ratting You Out on Long Gun Purchases

There is also a long gun notification program built into NICS?

Buying a long gun over state lines is legal in the United States. NICS has a built-in program where an anti-gun state can request to be notified whenever their unsuspecting resident buys a long gun across state lines. In this case, on top of a state reporting a firearm sale to only NICS, NICS then reports a sale of a firearm to the nosey state. It isn’t clear how many states are signed up to use this program, but gun buyers should know it.

Also, the manual defaults to the buyers’ home-state law if the law is more restrictive than federal law. If a state law disqualifies a buyer for something that federal law does not, then the state can update NICS to reflect the disqualification. That means that California could disqualify purchases, that when made in-state violates CA’s laws, when the citizen is trying to buy a firearm in a free state like Arizona.