United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

Reader mode
The Whispering Monk said:
Is this an absolute statement, or just a statement about current governments in existence?
Click to expand...
Absolute. I don't believe in 'legitimacy' of governments on a fundamental level. I view them as at best a necessary evil.

I also don't think that any major government existing right now rises to the level of being a mostly necessary evil. Most of governments is just a bunch of redistribution and irrelevant/rentseeking regulations.
 
Abhorsen said:
I also don't think that any major government existing right now rises to the level of being a mostly necessary evil. Most of governments is just a bunch of redistribution and irrelevant/rentseeking regulations.
Click to expand...
Can't really argue against this.
Abhorsen said:
Absolute. I don't believe in 'legitimacy' of governments on a fundamental level. I view them as at best a necessary evil.
Click to expand...
I'm mostly on board here.
-They definitely are a necessary evil.
-However, I believe that one that is reduced to it's most basic components can certainly be legitimate. Once the bureaucratic bloat sets in, and the politicians see the people as just resources to be squeezed, it's definitely lost it's legitimacy.
 
The Whispering Monk said:
-However, I believe that one that is reduced to it's most basic components can certainly be legitimate. Once the bureaucratic bloat sets in, and the politicians see the people as just resources to be squeezed, it's definitely lost it's legitimacy.
Click to expand...
This I think I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. It's a mostly semantic issue, I find it useful in mindset to always consider the government illegitimate, so then when a minarchist government tries to expand, it can't use its legitimacy as an argument. Constantly looking at government as an evil, even if it's sometimes necessary, is a good way to look at the world. It encourages skepticism of government when my base nature is to think the best of people.
 
Morphic Tide said:
Case regarding the Department of Ecology forcing fishers to bring inspector aboard and pay them for the privilege, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, is making it to the Supreme Court. Pile of gun rights organizations filed an amicus brief suggesting the underlying Chevron Deference, which hands near-total decision-making over ambiguities in law to the executive regulatory agencies, be pitched as Unconstitutional in full.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this is not a great test case for challenging Chevron Deference.

The written letter of the law explicitly grants the Department of Ecology authority to require at-sea inspection monitors as part of its fishery management programs, explicitly grants the Department authority to impose sanctions for failure to make payments for "observer services provided to or contracted by an owner or operator", and also explicitly grants the Department general authority to implement measures "necessary and appropriate" to its prescribed mission.

In other words, the only part that the lawsuit can even challenge on the basis of Chevron Deference is requiring owners to directly pay for at-sea inspection monitors, and that relies on asking the court to rule that, "Congress granted the Department the authority to impose sanctions for failure to pay, but did not grant it authority to actually require payment in the first place". And that requires the Court to rule that the regulation in questions rests on Chevron in the first place for its authority, as opposed to the "necessary and appropriate measures" clause, which is not Chevron and which is in the black-letter law.

(Chevron Deference, as a legal doctrine, solely applies to the precedent dictating that the government agency placed in charge of dministering a given set of laws has the authority to authoritatively adopt any legally possible interpretation of those laws. In order to overcome Chevron Deference (a difficult but not impossible standard -- it has been done), you have to prove that the agency's interpretation cannot possibly be legally valid.

Ironically, the Chevron Deference doctrine was put in place by Reagan conservatives...)
 
So the short version is that from a legal point of view, the court can -- and arguably should, following the principle of legal parsimony -- declare that it isn't going to set a precedent on Chevron deference because the legal authority that is being challenged doesn't actually rest on Chevron deference, but on a clear reading of the plain text of the law. Because it would be a clearly unreasonable finding to say that the law specifically grants the Department authority to require at-sea inspection, and also specifically grants the Department authority to levy financial penalties for failure to pay for at-sea inspection, but somehow does not grant the Department authority to actually bill for at-sea inspection.

(And if one objects to the Department being able to impose those inspections in the first place, that's a matter to be challenged in the legislature, not the courts.)
 
Article:
LEGAL ALERT: A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the parts of Hawaii's Bruen response bill that ban guns in private property by default, parks, beaches, restaurants that serve alcohol, banks, and certain parking lots.

F3Ds_wjXwAA5Qc7

F3Ds_wiXQAAxbSQ

F3Ds_wkW4AA0iqL

F3DtAeDWMAASuG2



TL;DW:
-Obama appointed judge says lots of Hawaii's "sensitive places" are unconstitutional
-Parking lots, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, banks and financial institutions, beaches and parks, private properties held open to the public are in effect no longer sensitive places
-Judge buys into "collision" myth of public safety and 2A
-Judge says forcing businesses to take a position on gun control is constitutionally problematic, as it could be compelled speech
-Judge says government presumptions can be overcome, and the burden is on the government to prove laws are consistent with laws/regs of the Founding Era
-Judge points out the value of concealed carry
 
No issue with inspections, issue with paying for the inspections.

That is what taxes are for, different if it was foreign flagged ships.

If you pay taxes, then the government wants you to pay again to do its job?
 
PeaceMaker 03 said:
No issue with inspections, issue with paying for the inspections.

That is what taxes are for, different if it was foreign flagged ships.

If you pay taxes, then the government wants you to pay again to do its job?
Click to expand...

There's never been a rule that the government has to pay for 100% of regulation exclusively using general taxes. If anything, the inspection fees in this case are essentially tariffs, which are more historically and Constitutionally established than taxes are.
 
Tariff is for external use on foreign importers as far as I know.

Equal protection of the law, should not all businesses need to pay regulation commissars to be present when business is conducted?
 
jordanmiles said:
"Equal protection of the law" is a legal principle that ensures that all individuals or entities are treated equally under the law, without discrimination or favoritism. This principle is a foundational aspect of many legal systems, including the United States, where it is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law does not fully apply to foreigners versus citizens; in fact, under the standing interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, it does not even fully apply to "citizens of a U.S. territory" versus "citizens of a U.S. state".

It also doesn't apply as specifically as this -- if it did, the lottery would be illegal since the government is not "equally" awarding wins to every person who buys a lottery ticket. Random customs/port inspections are completely allowed under equal protection as long as they aren't singling out a specific group.
 
Blasterbot said:
Huh neat. that is an interesting constitutional theory. Governors are above the law and fuck the constitution. lets see if the courts come down on her like a sack of bricks from on high or if her theory applies to all governors equally.
Click to expand...

Betting on the former but if the latter happens then the left must get a chance to enjoy being on the other side of this.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top