United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

[ShadowArxxy]

There's a reason this was a unanimous ruling -- the police claim here that warrantless confiscation was a valid use of the "community caretaking" exception was completely ridiculous from start to finish.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Here's a good win against gun seizures:

And of course it was a woman. Bet you dollars to cents they broke up and she decided to try and get him killed for daring to live his life.

 

[LordsFire]

Good. I read the most salient bit, and this is a good response to a gross over-reach.

Bluntly put, the judges that decided this the other way in lower courts should be summarily removed from the bench for blatant bullshit.

 

[S'task]

There's a reason this was a unanimous ruling -- the police claim here that warrantless confiscation was a valid use of the "community caretaking" exception was completely ridiculous from start to finish.

I honestly couldn't believe the police even tried that argument, to say nothing of the lower courts upholding it.

To explain to the gallery, the "community caretaking" exception to the 4th Amendment is historically a VERY NARROW exception that applied only to motor vehicles that were abandoned on public roads, meant to allow police to enter those vehicles (since, believe it or not, the police normally require a warrant to enter a vehicle) and be able to move them out of hazardous positions. It was an exception carved out from the unique situation created by both requiring a warrant to enter a vehicle but then also having to maintain public safety and traffic flow on roads.

To try and extend this idea to allow entry into HOMES, which historically have the highest level of protection granted by the 4th Amendment, and then to claim it justified seizing property, all without a warrant is so egregious that if the court accepted the argument, it would functionally make the 4th Amendment a dead letter.

So yeah, even though it was about guns, I'm not surprised the liberal judges came down against it too. This was a situation where the precedent was much too dangerous in the larger scheme for them to be blinded by the fact guns were involved.

 

[gral]

So yeah, even though it was about guns, I'm not surprised the liberal judges came down against it too. This was a situation where the precedent was much too dangerous in the larger scheme for them to be blinded by the fact guns were involved.

Yes, this was the veredict(lol) in other board I frequent; guns were a red herring in this case.

 

[bullethead]

Here's a good podcast on what the upcoming SCOTUS 2nd Amendment case is about:

Second Amendment scholar David Kopel sits down with us to set the stage for a big issue we’ll hear a lot about over the next year: What “keep and bear arms” means outside of the home. Whether it’s conceal carry or open carry, does the Constitution protect that right, and if so, how? There’s a case at the Supreme Court from the Second Circuit challenging New York’s conceal carry law, and another case waiting in the wings from the Ninth Circuit. We get into some history, some legal tactics, and some judicial speculation—although only of a healthy kind.

Transcript: ij.org/wp-content/uploads/20…74_otter.ai-FINAL.pdf
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett (cert petition), www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…on%20FINAL.pdf
Young v. Hawaii, cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…4/12-17808.pdf
Errors of Omission, www.illinoislawreview.org/online/error…of-omission/
David Kopel, davekopel.org/
Anthony Sanders, ij.org/staff/asanders/

 

[bullethead]

Saint Benitez declares California's assault weapon restrictions unconstitutional:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.116.0.pdf

Let's see whether this goes to SCOTUS, because it could be some real fun shit.

 

[LordsFire]

Excellent.

Of course, I'm sure the AG will kick it up the chain, but it's still good progress.

 

[prinCZess]

I only wish it wasn't...immediately stayed? Pre-stayed? Whatever the legal terminology is.
A Californian run on 'assault weapons' like the run on magazines during freedom week would've been garbage for still-inflated prices, but I would've preferred the boatloads of arms getting into the hands of the folks who need them.
...Plus, it'd be a good sorting algorithm for companies I want to do business with. If they didn't ship to Cali, then they could be put under the 'Do Not Purchase' column.

Alas, 'tis not to be and instead just escalating legal battles.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Of course, I'm sure the AG will kick it up the chain, but it's still good progress.

They pretty much by definition have to kick it up the chain. It's a fairly bold lower court to make a decision this sweeping on their own; it's much more common at this level to see verdicts that basically say, "This is the legally accurate application of current law and precedent. By the way it sucks and the legislature and/or higher courts should look at that, hint hint."

I only wish it wasn't...immediately stayed? Pre-stayed? Whatever the legal terminology is.

That is standard practice for legal decisions like this. Basically, the courts are *supposed* to err on the side of not creating transient situations as appeals go back and forth, as such ambiguity is considered a harm in and of itself. So you don't want a situation where something is briefly legalized only to be re-banned shortly thereafter.


In other news, this verdict if upheld would render the proposed Oregon ballot measure for a state level assault weapons ban here dead on arrival.

[Nelson] HA HA!

 

[bullethead]

Here's some big news:

twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1412766506635730951
Big ruling from Judge Rodriguez (W.D. Tex.):

After a bench trial, he's ruled that the federal government is 60% responsible under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the 2017 Sutherland Springs shooting, and will hold a separate trial to determine damages:

https://t.co/PVkEnnkeFb

 

[Chaos Marine]

 

[Chaos Marine]

Judge rules synagogue shooting victims can sue Smith & Wesson

A San Diego judge ruled last week that the survivors and families of victims of a 2019 shooting at a California synagogue can sue Smith & Wesson, the manufacturer of the weapon used in the inci…

thehill.com

 

[ShadowArxxy]

This is bullshit. Suing the *gun store* is fair game in my opinion because they made an illegal sale, but the gun manufacturer did nothing wrong. The claim that AR-15s are "easily convertible" to full auto is especially absurd considering the degree to which *all* post-ban ARs are modified to prevent that.

 

[Cherico]

This is bullshit. Suing the *gun store* is fair game in my opinion because they made an illegal sale, but the gun manufacturer did nothing wrong. The claim that AR-15s are "easily convertible" to full auto is especially absurd considering the degree to which *all* post-ban ARs are modified to prevent that.

This will be apealed and struck down, by the supreme court if need be.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

This will be apealed and struck down, by the supreme court if need be.

To be fair, I do think the exception clause in the PLCAA makes sense and is necessary; but the court's determination that the exception applies to the manufacturer in this situation is an absurd stretch of the facts and legal logic. The determination that the exception applies to the gun store, given their illegal sale, is on the other hand pretty solid.

 

[Chaos Marine]

 

[BlackDragon98]

This based man in South Africa literally stepped up and started his friendly neighborhood Freikorps to do what the SA government could not.

Good for him.

We should all be like this man.

 

[bullethead]

Well, get ready for that big New York Supreme Court case to be an even bigger shitshow, as 175 Republican members of the House of Representatives straight up say the New York law in question is racist:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184246/20210719150738433_20-843%20tsac%20Representative%20Claudia%20Tenney%20et%20al.pdf

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
There is no serious argument that the preexisting right to keep and bear arms, as recognized and preserved by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, does not extend beyond the home. But the state law at issue here, New York’s infamous Sullivan Law, infringes on that right and effectively eliminates any meaningful exercise of the right outside a person’s domicile. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to prevent states from disarming disfavored and marginalized citizens—at that time the recently freed slaves. When New York passed the Sullivan Law in 1911, it was motivated by animus against another marginalized group in society—recent immigrants from Europe. For many years New York has gotten away with barring all but a privileged few of its citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms outside the home, and this case presents a chance to right that Constitutional wrong.

In upholding the Sullivan Law, the Second Circuit incorrectly evaluated the law using intermediate scrutiny. That improper standard of review violated this Court’s dictate in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 634–35 (2008), that interest-balancing tests are not to be used in Second Amendment cases.

The Court should reverse the Second Circuit’s decision and clarify that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to carry a handgun outside the home, and that this right is not subject to interest balancing.

 

[Chaos Marine]

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

www.beliefnet.com

[Edit]