Dude, I can scroll through it and read it quite clearly on a laptop.
I will add a link for mobile users though.
United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
I will add a link for mobile users though.
Get ready guys, Saint Benetiz has another ruling to drop tomorrow, this time on Assault Weapons Bans:
www.courtlistener.com
And on Thursday at 1:30PM/4:30PM, here's the en banc hearing on Hawaii's carry laws:
Miller v. Becerra, 3:19-cv-01537 - CourtListener.com
Docket for Miller v. Becerra, 3:19-cv-01537 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
And on Thursday at 1:30PM/4:30PM, here's the en banc hearing on Hawaii's carry laws:
Hopefully it ends within five minutes with something like:
"Can anyone here give me a clean conclusive definition of what an "assault weapon" actually is? No? No ban then."
"Can anyone here give me a clean conclusive definition of what an "assault weapon" actually is? No? No ban then."
Saint Benetiz says, "No, you can't get the case dismissed, there are actual issues here":
gral
Well-known member
Ouch, right in the kisser. Reeing starts in 5, 4, 3,....
Here's a case from West Virginia that's in the early stages, involving open carry and a douchebag cop:
thecivilrightslawyer.com
Basically, the lawyer involved breaks down how dumb the argument on the police side is, and then he spent an hour talking about it some more:
The "Killing Power" of an AR-15: an Update on Walker v. Putnam County - The Civil Rights Lawyer
Finally, Mr. Walker’s argument that AR-15 style rifles may not be treated differently than less deadly firearms for reasonable suspicion purposes holds no basis in law, and is contrary to the public safety and intuitive sense. Different firearms have different utilities, purposes, and common...
thecivilrightslawyer.com
Basically, the lawyer involved breaks down how dumb the argument on the police side is, and then he spent an hour talking about it some more:
Not all cops are bastards, but these probably are. People would do well to remember that cops being mad at demorats doesn't guarantee they won't participate in gun-grabbings. If anything, they would still do it because it renders citizens impotent whereas if they are armed, the dirty cops have to stay polite.
Last edited:
Here's a non-Benetiz case to look forward to:
...What the fuck am I reading here?
Who the hell let a guy with down syndrome become a Judge?
That's pretty standard judicial writing, it's just coming to a fucking stupid conclusion.
Also, doesn't an XD-9 come with a loaded chamber indicator? The fact that a dumb ass kid wouldn't know about it would come down on them for not reading the manual.
Also, doesn't an XD-9 come with a loaded chamber indicator? The fact that a dumb ass kid wouldn't know about it would come down on them for not reading the manual.
No I mean the notion that it's Springfield's fault at all and not the moron who reenacted The Deer Hunter's most iconic scene.
That's some alarming Judicial prejudice.
Or incompetence..or both.
Think it's been standard since the 90's. Which just makes it even more absurd...I hope this doesn't go the Remmington route.
The Superior Court in Pennsylvania purporting to have the authority to declare federal law unconstitutional so that someone can sue a gun manufacturer for a "defective" product because the gun lacked a magazine safety and an idiot shot another person thinking the gun was unloaded.
It will be appealed into the federal court system, and if the Superior Court reasoning is found persuasive then the Commerce Clause gets gutted hard.
By issuing an opinion saying that they do, thus binding lower courts in said state to treat the law in question as unconstitutional.
Of course, it will end up appealed first to the state Supreme Court and then into the federal courts (and potentially all the way up to SCOTUS).
The decision that actually ends up mattering is the federal court decision as it will be binding on the state courts.
The PA Superior Court in this instance declared the law unconstitutional on the grounds that the Commerce Clause could not be used to (Constitutionally) justify a liability shield against state common law claims. The thing is, the reasoning used would result in a massive reduction of the breadth of the Commerce Clause if the federal courts were to agree with it.
Floridaman
Well-known member
They can’t but well certain courts in certain jurisdictions like practicing nullification just like they did last time.
... I see this as a win either way then? Either we cut tons of laws by shrinking the commerce clause, or we protect gun rights.
MrBirthday
Agent of Catgirl Genocide
Logically, you're right, but I can already hear the blackpills insisting that it will be held to apply only to this, not anything else. Care to give that argument a preemptive shredding?
There's too many conservative justices for this to be safe.
Oh boy, here comes the lawsuit to try and kill 80% receivers:
Honestly, it seems the big problem is that this tech, along with 3D printing, makes confiscation a complete failure before it starts, at least for common platforms like ARs, AKs, and Glocks.
Honestly, it seems the big problem is that this tech, along with 3D printing, makes confiscation a complete failure before it starts, at least for common platforms like ARs, AKs, and Glocks.