United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

Reader mode
Vetrom said:
Is there a written treatment you could recommend about those reasons for which the ninth circuit was never split? I imagine there's political factors in the supreme court itself as well as the states (each justice oversees one of the circuits. Do they also allocate them?)
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court isn't a factor -- we already have thirteen federal circuits and only nine justices, so splitting the Ninth into additional circuits does not automatically create new Supreme Court positions, nor does it even significantly strengthen the argument for new Supreme Court positions. As far as I can tell, it's really just a matter of, "No one in Congress, on either side of the aisle, gives enough of a damn to push a bill through on this matter. Bills occcasionally get suggested, and never go anywhere."

(Also, most of the bills propose a 'simple' one-for-two split, which isn't actually enough to solve the issue. Because they're always geographic splits, none of the proposed splits has ever *not* still had a 'super district' with a blatantly unwieldly (21+) number of judges. You'd need a bolder three-way or perhaps even four-way split to cut the Ninth to a size comparable to other judicial districcts, and even though that's not any harder to propose than a two-way split -- again, no one actually cares.)
 
ShadowArxxy said:
The Supreme Court isn't a factor -- we already have thirteen federal circuits and only nine justices, so splitting the Ninth into additional circuits does not automatically create new Supreme Court positions, nor does it even significantly strengthen the argument for new Supreme Court positions. As far as I can tell, it's really just a matter of, "No one in Congress, on either side of the aisle, gives enough of a damn to push a bill through on this matter. Bills occcasionally get suggested, and never go anywhere."

(Also, most of the bills propose a 'simple' one-for-two split, which isn't actually enough to solve the issue. Because they're always geographic splits, none of the proposed splits has ever *not* still had a 'super district' with a blatantly unwieldly (21+) number of judges. You'd need a bolder three-way or perhaps even four-way split to cut the Ninth to a size comparable to other judicial districcts, and even though that's not any harder to propose than a two-way split -- again, no one actually cares.)
Click to expand...
……More power in fewer hands means easier to control, coerce, corrupt, bribe, blackmail, and spin.
As for
“no one actually cares”
Click to expand...
Not enough to upset the cart from how it is, logic may say keeping the 9th court covering the same area as 4 other courts appears rather incompetent.
Sorry, I miss spoke incompetent assumed they can not change lines on a map and create more government bureaucracy by creating a new court be established, ( nope the feds hate creating more bureaucracy and bigger budgets).
That leaves “will not fix the 9th court to be more in line with the other courts”.
….just eyeballing the map population wise California alone might be equal to population of the 1st and 2nd courts' population density.
The 8th and 10th courts could use an adjustment also.
 
Last edited:
PeaceMaker 03 said:
……More power in fewer hands means easier to control, coerce, corrupt, bribe, blackmail, and spin.
As for

Not enough to upset the cart from how it is, logic may say keeping the 9th court covering the same area as 4 other courts appears rather incompetent.
Sorry, I miss spoke incompetent assumed they can not change lines on a map and create more government bureaucracy by creating a new court be established, ( nope the feds hate creating more bureaucracy and bigger budgets).
That leaves “will not fix the 9th court to be more in line with the other courts”.
….just eyeballing the map population wise California alone might be equal to population of the 1st and 2nd courts' population density.
The 8th and 10th courts could use an adjustment also.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why none of the two-way geography splits manage to avoid having a 21+ judge district. The territory of the 9th is truly massive and bizarre, covering nine states with twice the population of the next biggest district. Even with 29 judges, the 9th is badly understaffed and overloaded.

Congress even has split districts before; they split the 5th District back in '81 (completely ignoring the 9th that was already far more overloaded).
 
Jesus Christ, every single amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in Rahimi (domestic violence gun owning) case has been in favor of the 2nd Amendment (duh) and fucking over 922(g)(8).

The list of submitters is nuts:
Article:
Oct 02 2023 Amicus brief of National Association for Gun Rights submitted.

Oct 03 2023 Amicus brief of Cato Institute and Goldwater Institute submitted.

Oct 03 2023 Amicus brief of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles and Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund submitted.

Oct 03 2023 Amicus brief of Alameda County Public Defenders submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Nicholas Johnson submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of National Association of Federal Defenders submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. and Gun Owners of California submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Angus Kirk McClellan, PhD. submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Law Enforcement Groups and Firearms Rights Groups submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Center for Human Liberty submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Crime Prevention Research Center submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of The Bronx Defenders Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Independence Institute, Second Amendment Law Center submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of The Second Amendment Foundation submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of National African American Gun Association, Inc. submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Firearms Policy Coalition submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of William English, Ph.D. and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Virginia Citizens Defense League, America's Future, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of Foundation for Moral Law submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of FPC Action Foundation submitted.

Oct 04 2023 Amicus brief of National Rifle Association submitted.


I guess everyone listened to the Four Boxes Diner guy at the 2nd Amendment Foundation conference a week or two ago and decided to spam every damn argument possible to make sure the Bruen standard isn't fucked with.
 
Saint Benitez delivers once again:

Article:
From the opinion: "The Supreme Court carefully uses the phrase 'dangerous and unusual arms,' while the State, throughout its briefing, refers to 'dangerous [or] unusual arms.' That the State would advocate such a position is disheartening."

Article:
"The problem is that the alternatives-remain argument has no limiting principle and would justify incremental firearm bans until there is only a single-shot derringer remaining for lawful self-defense. Heller demolished that argument."

F8086PeW4AEm7Rd
Article:
"After all, testimony supports what is generally observed: people want to buy AR-15s for home and self-defense, so much so that modern semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are as ubiquitous as Ford F-series pickup trucks (which are the most popular vehicles in America)."

F809j2-W8AAbd-3
Article:
"Incredibly, the State asks this Court to treat as analogues 38 laws on the State's list which applied only to particular disfavored people groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos... this Court would give such discriminatory laws little or no weight."

F80-2wHWQAA8hCE
Article:
"Even today, the CMP sells surplus actual weapons of war to citizens, including the .45 caliber M1911 pistol and the .30 caliber M1 Garand rifle and the M1 Carbine."

F80_gwsXQAAZod0
Article:
"Yet, the Supreme Court does not look to knife laws when reviewing a restriction about guns. Bruen teaches that a state’s burden is to identify a historical tradition of firearm regulation, not a tradition of knife regulation."

F81AFbGXAAAupFf
Article:
"In short, California weakly argues that because some states have regulated in some ways the use of some weapons, that translates into the State being able to regulate any weapon in any way."

F81Aa-8WgAAW08y
Article:
"With the benefit of academic historians who have studied historic gun laws for more than 20 years... the State identified its best analogue: a 1771 statute from the colony of New Jersey restricting the use of guns set as traps. It is an odd choice."

F81Bc_tWoAANBqn
Article:
"Of course, some might find it ironic that the State now wants to compare 'assault weapons' like the AR-15 to dirks, daggers, and knives. Undoubtedly, dirks, daggers, and bowie knives are dangerous—even Swiss Army Knives."

F81CJ0nWMAAxTVw
Article:
"Among the State’s list of firearm laws are a number of statutes based on a person’s race, color, or slave status... Here, they are disregarded."

F81ChXAWEAAJYrC
Article:
"In essence, [Vorenberg] says although there were no laws on high-capacity firearms and artillery pieces, they were still 'restricted,' as evidenced by the conspicuous absence of government support for civilian use. It is one way to interpret history."

F81C-07WAAAf--X
Article:
"The antebellum court decisions upon which professor Cornell rests, do not say what he contends they say. Perhaps he is to be forgiven because he is a historian rather than a member of the bar, but his opinions are not persuasive and are entitled to no weight."

F81DqVjXQAADLPT
Article:
"It is not at all clear what expertise Busse has to support his opinion. He does not describe any professional experience using AR-15 platform rifles for sport or self-defense."

F81D-iSXMAEUi3n
Article:
"Trying to perform a study about the frequency of a particular type of gun used in self-defense, where more than 50% of the time the gun type is unknown, is of questionable validity."

F81EY9wXoAEQHWg
Article:
"He opines that the study 'applies directly to bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.' Yet, the study noted that only one of the 511 victims studied was shot with a rifle caliber round (7.62 x 39 mm.)."

F81E_CmXYAE1o0t

F81FFWAWkAAW5Sr
Article:
"It does not take a Nobel laureate to figure out that if Americans own 400 million guns and 400 million gun crimes are not being committed, that Americans are using their guns for something other than crime."

F81FwL9XcAA7xaq

F81Fx4HXwAAmMhE
Article:
"This Court will not engage in the specious argument about whether AR-15s can fire almost as fast as a machinegun. Nor will it venture a discussion of effective versus theoretical firing capability. No one with any knowledge of firearms would accept such an argument."

F81GYq6WYAA1pgO
Article:
"Like Baghdad Bob during the first Gulf War in 1991, the State clings to a wish. The State wants to believe that the firearms prohibited by the 'assault weapon' ban are not commonly owned or are not commonly owned for self-defense."

F81GlAaWUAAD4dW
Article:
"There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are necessary."

F81HCjjW4AAHetL

F81HEnGXoAA_9Os

It'll probably get put on hold by the 9th Circuit and have to get punted to the Supreme Court, but a W is a W, especially when it puts anti-gunners on blast.
 
U6S4aeNFVTqF.png



Before you say ‘but we have the 2nd Amendment’, we have a 1st Amendment, too, but that doesn't stop rogue judges, prosecutors, federal, state and local agents, etc. from violating your rights with impunity.

Shit, an in-the-tank DNC/uniparty judge, actually two of them so far, had no problem violating Trump's 1st Amendment rights. And a $ 10,000 fine? That seems like a 4th Amendment violation, too. We all should have the ability to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects. $ 10,000 is nothing if not effects. And a judge just demanded that of Trump. So your 'rights?' Yeah, OK sure.
 
I mean, they can try but they won't actually be able too because of states saying no, and they wouldn't be able to effectively enforce it
 
We already have the model they will use. They will selectively enforce any law they push force to maximize their immediate power. Wrong thinkers will have this applied when a crime needs to be found to hit them with. Supporters however may be ignored. they aren't evil bad insurrectionists.
 
Here's a great post by a 2A lawyer fighting against California's dumb gun laws:
Article:
As of this writing, Robert Card, the prime suspect in the Lewiston, Maine mass shooting, has not yet been arrested. Last night, Maine State Police announced that Card “recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard base in Saco, ME. Card was also reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks during the summer of 2023 and subsequently released.”

Assuming all of this is true, the Maine mental health and criminal justice systems will have some explaining to do. This is beginning to appear to be another systemic failure on the part of government along the lines of the those that led to the Sutherland Springs shooting.

Much will depend on when Card acquired his gun and whether his commitment was reported to the FBI. The DOJ paid families and survivors of the Sutherland Springs shooting $144 million for its failures in that case.

A mental health commitment should require the government entity handling it to confirm the individual is not armed, and if it is proven they dropped the ball on that, they should have full liability to the victims and their families.

As for background checks, the government should finally make the NICS system available as an app that anyone can access on their phones. It is ridiculous this still hasn’t been done in 2023.

I envision it working like this . . .

1. The individual buying a gun from you gives you a unique code.

2. You type it in and get an “all clear” and proceed with the sale.

3. This would be an optional system. However, using it before transferring a gun becomes an affirmative defense to any charges of knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person.

Most Americans selling guns in private transactions don’t want to sell to nutjobs or criminals. But they also don’t want to put up with what can be abusive state-level background checks.

California charges nearly $40 for such transfers and requires the buyer and seller to go to a gun store to do it (and the buyer must return again ten days later to pick up the firearm). Also, using this optional system should also allow the user to bypass state-level background check laws like California’s.

Keep your eye on the reports surrounding Card’s threats, his commitment, and his firearms once Card is finally apprehended.



Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit CRPA - California Rifle & Pistol Association.
 
DarthOne said:
U6S4aeNFVTqF.png



Before you say ‘but we have the 2nd Amendment’, we have a 1st Amendment, too, but that doesn't stop rogue judges, prosecutors, federal, state and local agents, etc. from violating your rights with impunity.

Shit, an in-the-tank DNC/uniparty judge, actually two of them so far, had no problem violating Trump's 1st Amendment rights. And a $ 10,000 fine? That seems like a 4th Amendment violation, too. We all should have the ability to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects. $ 10,000 is nothing if not effects. And a judge just demanded that of Trump. So your 'rights?' Yeah, OK sure.
Click to expand...

Link to the actual tweet, just in case anyone wants to watch it themselves.

 
Blasterbot said:
We already have the model they will use. They will selectively enforce any law they push force to maximize their immediate power. Wrong thinkers will have this applied when a crime needs to be found to hit them with. Supporters however may be ignored. they aren't evil bad insurrectionists.
Click to expand...

That wont work forever and in time the populists will use the same tactics against them. Eventually they will be defeated because lets face facts these guys suck at their jobs.
 
Zachowon said:
I mean, they can try but they won't actually be able too because of states saying no, and they wouldn't be able to effectively enforce it
Click to expand...
The same states that largely assisted Biden and Big Pharma’s bullshit during COVID? What makes you think they won’t roll over again.
 
Cherico said:
These guys go through life fat drunk and stupid, you can get buy with intertia for a long while dispite that but it does catch up with you eventually.
Click to expand...
Even it it just ends up being the infighting, and someone going "hey, I don't need these bastards; I could kill them all, and seize all the power and treasure for myself", that eventually does them in.
 
Terthna said:
Even it it just ends up being the infighting, and someone going "hey, I don't need these bastards; I could kill them all, and seize all the power and treasure for myself", that eventually does them in.
Click to expand...

Let’s not have all our hopes hinge on those people destroying themselves.
 
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