posh-goofiness
Well-known member
No. It costs him nothing to admit something like this. While he gets brownie points about seemingly getting a clue, he'll stick push his shit in other ways. It's just a smokescreen.
United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
It appears to be scripted. Multiple liberal posters suddenly threw down near-identical "No health exemption in the constitution" posts. The suspicion is that this got so much backlash so fast they're doing damage control now and throwing the NM Governor to the wolves.
Notable that Matt Gaetz predicted "Guns as a Health Issue" a few months ago.
Notable that Matt Gaetz predicted "Guns as a Health Issue" a few months ago.
DarthOne
☦️
Shhhhh. Let me have this damnit.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Called it.
DarthOne
☦️
I said shhh damnit!
f1onagher
Well-known member
Someone in the DNC cottoned on to how this law could be Uno reversed.
People are watching and taking notes
Imagine using this logic on abortion:
Republican governor:
"There's a public health emergency and thus I'm shutting down all abortion clinics."
"What's the public health emergency?"
"Babies are DYING."
Yeah... someone on the left realized how bad this logic could backfire on them if they tried to support it and they're backtracking like crazy.
Republican governor:
"There's a public health emergency and thus I'm shutting down all abortion clinics."
"What's the public health emergency?"
"Babies are DYING."
Yeah... someone on the left realized how bad this logic could backfire on them if they tried to support it and they're backtracking like crazy.
Doomsought
Well-known member
That isn't the doom scenario. What they are afraid of is someone having the balls to declare a pedophilia emergency and start rounding up school teachers.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
I don't think so. I think this is a big ask, where they try to do something egregious then present something they want under cover of seeming like they're reasonable.
That only works when you keep those big asks reasonable and rare but the Dems have basically used up any and all good will on the two a front decades ago.
California takes another L, but lets see if it gets overturned en banc:
Article: LEGAL ALERT: Ninth Circuit rules that California's minor firearm advertising law likely violates the constitution, saying "the First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government's muzzling of speech."
Article: "California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms."
Article: "And bizarrely, California's law would likely ban advertisements promoting safer guns for minors— for example, a hunting rifle designed for young hunters that has less recoil or that comes with a more secure trigger safety—if they are directed at minors and their parents."
Article: Judge VanDyke: "...the legislative record indicates an intention that the law will stop the message that minors should lawfully use firearms, and a hope that the law will prevent minors from eventually becoming adults who have a favorable view of gun ownership and use."
California Magazine Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
Saint Benitez delivers once again:
Article: LEGAL ALERT:
A Federal Court has determined California's Standard Capacity Magazine Ban is unconstitutional & ordered enforcement to be halted.
However, the Court delayed enforcement of the order for ten days to allow the State time to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.
Article: This means the ban is officially ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Court, but enforcement of the ban has yet to be stopped.
California will appeal and request the Ninth Circuit extend the 10-day delay to leave the ban in place during their appeal.
Article: You can read the Court's decision here:
Article: Alright, a highlights thread of Benitez's ruling in Duncan.
He comes out swinging against the Newsoms of the world, correctly noting his job is to enforce the law, not to fear public criticism.
Article: This was one of the point we raised in our arguments when California kept trying to set 10 as some magical line. Different states set different limits, for what is a fundamental right applicable to all states.
Article: Benitez notes that California would almost assuredly reduce the ten round limit anyway. It is arbitrary.
Article: As we've argued repeatedly, the States defending such laws are just trying to smuggle interest balancing back into the analysis under the pretense of it being a "plain text" analysis.
Article: Sadly, Judge Benitez does not read @TheReloadSite
apparently. @StephenGutowski
Article: Gonna need to update the law review article to include Judge Benitez in the section on modern judicial commentary.
Article: And yes, obviously magazines are "Arms".
Article: This argument was indeed a hilarious one the state made. It doesn't magically become a protected arm if it has ten rounds instead of eleven lol.
Article: I am SO glad he included this. Newsom's lawyers in the 1327 litigation took over for Bonta when he refused to defend that law, and we successfully baited them into taking this position. They didn't know they were supposed to gaslight.
Article: Pointing out more contradictions in the state's position, given current CA law makes a magazine literally necessary to fire a modern handgun for it to be sold here.
Article: Benitez takes apart the argument states like California are making regarding an arm only being protected if it is frequently actually used for self-defense.
Article: Benitez takes apart the tired "weapon of war" argument.
Article: Benitez goes through an excellent historical analysis that is more thorough than the superficial one we've seen other courts apply (on purpose, so they could uphold the laws).
Article: Benitez tells the state its discriminatory laws are no good here.
Article: He zeroes in on the state's reliance on regulations of concealed carry of weapons which were mostly note firearms.
Article: A point we emphasized in our briefing was that bans on possession of common arms just did not exist until the 20th century. Benitez got the message.
Article: I can see the Duke Law Blog article already.
Article: Benitez notes that while territory laws are of little value under Bruen, even if they were, the territories didn't ban any guns in the 19th century.
Article: This one seems to just be in there as a historical fun fact lol.
Article: As I've long maintained, the lack of regulation of revolvers and repeating rifles decides this issue.
Article: I was actually shocked that the State argued that gunpowder storage was their best analogue, as that is clearly dissimilar because the reasons for it had nothing to do with stopping gun-related crime.
Article: Yep. The "militia right only!" people are weirdly wary of citing actual laws about citizen militias, because they destroy the "weapon of war" arguments.
Article: What a banger of an opinion. Great read, and excited to help defend it in the 9th circuit.
Frankly, the militia argument has always been odd to me because if the Second Amendment is intended to cover a citizen militia, then it by definition covers full fledged military weapons.
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
USA v. Miller the SCOTUS said you could ban shotguns with short barrels because they had no military use ( while wrong WWI trench guns became common), while completely ignoring the militarily usefulness of automatic weapons.
Not surprising as it was the only Supreme Court case I know of that had no defense to argue against the state, Just the federal government arguing on how the taxes and restrictions that had never existed before suddenly did not violate the Constitution.
stephen the barbarian
Well-known member
that case has horrible jurisprudence. the only reason the SC took the case was because there was no opposition to the .govs position, and in fact miller was dead before the case was decided.
Considering that if taken straight up, Miller holds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to all firearm types, but specifically covers military weapons, I would absolutely accept that as a compromise.
The government may regulate non-military hunting weapons as restrictively as it pleases, but military small arms are a solid right. Full fledged select-fire ARs and suppressors for everyone!
If SCOTUS ever has the balls to take a straight challenge to an AR-15 ban (and they may be forced to if/when a circuit split occurs) then it will end up with a decision that is very hard to write in such a way that it doesn't basically gut the closed NFA registry as well.
Because a straight challenge to the NFA registry not allowing new build automatic weapons is a case that is basically impossible for the courts to find against.
Grandfathering in all the extant weapons really undercuts basically every argument that the government could make supporting the closed registry. Going after the NFA registry requirement itself is a harder fight (it shouldn't be, the thing is plainly unconstitutional) but the closed registry is ripe for a challenge.
The AR-15 challenge needs to happen first though, because there is basically zero way under Heller and Bruen to uphold an AR-15 ban and basically zero way to write an opinion striking down such a ban without also writing an opinion that will basically gut the NFA.