United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Can't the ATF be sued over shit like this? Posting vaguely worded rules that allow them to abuse the system?
Qualified immunity and other sorts of immunity. The BLM at least have it right to get rid of that. Note that if the ATF literally steals your guns, they can use qualified immunity at least once, and if you don't wast money appealing it to the supreme court, they can do it once per jurisdiction.
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Here's a case that might indirectly affect 2A legal cases in the future:
On Monday, Nov. 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Cluba case that will define the bounds of the deliberative process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act. More broadly, the case implicates how to balance the public interest in transparency and accountability in government decision-making with the public policy of facilitating federal agencies’ ability to deliberate candidly. It will be the first case argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court.

FOIA provides the public with a statutory right to access federal government records. Its purpose is to promote an informed citizenry and government accountability, both vital to the functioning of a democratic society. However, FOIA exempts from disclosure certain records, including those that are “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” The Supreme Court has interpreted that exemption – known as exemption 5 – as allowing the government to withhold records that would be privileged against discovery in civil litigation, including those that fall under the deliberative process privilege. This privilege protects “documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” That is, for the privilege to apply, a document must be “predecisional” and “deliberative.”

In this case, the Supreme Court will address whether exemption 5, through incorporation of the deliberative process privilege, protects the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, “the services”) from disclosing certain documents prepared as part of a statutorily required interagency consultation process with the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the Supreme Court rules against the government in this case, I think people trying to FOIA the ATF to get info on how they make their rulings will be able to get more documents and possibly build a case to prosecute the ATF for malfeasance.

Also, get ready for a potential federal criminal case against Remington's buyer:
Multiple trusted sources close to the transaction report that [Remington CEO Ken] D’Arcy was the man behind the Roundhill Group and used another individual as the group’s public face until the asset purchase was completed. Once Roundhill closed on the asset purchase, that person parted ways with Roundhill and D’Arcy’s involvement was made public.

The heart of the pending investigation has to do with Remington’s termination of 585 Ilion, New York employees last week, refusing to honor union contracts which I am told required Remington to pay severance, vacation pay, and other employee benefits to terminated workers including health care. The benefits will be cut off as of October 31.
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Here's a shit bill being proposed to boost ATF powers:



TL;DW:
-Brain child of Chris Van Hollen of Maryland
-Remove limits on sharing traced data from crime guns
-Changes salary and expense structure of ATF
-ATF can farm out some work to other government agencies
-Indefinite retention of NICS data to make de facto registry
-Eliminates Taihart(sp?) Amendment, which restricts trace data to law enforcement agencies or prosecutors in an investigation, restricts it from being used to prosecute retailers and manufacturers
-Changes FFL revokation standards so it's easier to revoke FFLs or deny new ones
-FFLs would be forced to have physical inventory of records and guns, then ATF would go into confirm
-Blocks imports of curios and relics & non-sporting purpose shotguns
-FFLs can be denied/revoked due to "lack of business activity"
-ATF could search the records of out of business FFLs and digital records submitted by FFLs
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Holy shit, Becerra went full retard trying to win Miller v Becerra while Saint Benetiz is involved:
Because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’—‘weapons that are most useful in military service’—they are among those arms that the Second Amendment does not shield.

This directly opposes US v. Miller which says military weapons are useful for militia purpose under the Second Amendment.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Holy shit, Becerra went full retard trying to win Miller v Becerra while Saint Benetiz is involved:


This directly opposes US v. Miller which says military weapons are useful for militia purpose under the Second Amendment.

This is absurd. Even under the narrowest possible definition of the Second Amendment, the militia by definition needs military-pattern small arms. Under a narrow definition Second Amendment, you could hypothetically ban sporting arms, but not military arms.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not arguing for such a narrow definition; I'm saying that even with a narrow definition, military arms would still be protected.
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
More lawsuits against California that will probably be channeled to Judge Benetiz:

New lawsuit Renna v Becerra (S.D. CA):
@gunpolicy, @SDCGO2A, @CCRKBArms, and @2AFDN file lawsuit challenging California’s recently expanded handgun roster law.

In less good news, at least we know the upcoming ATF fuckery headed our way:

"AmmoLand News' anonymous source said Lombardo told those on the call that her priorities would be pistol braces and 80% lower receivers."
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Oh shit, people better sue over this:
Own a rifle? Got a scope to go with it? The U.S. government might soon know who you are, where you live and how to reach you.

That’s because the government wants Apple and Google to hand over names, phone numbers and other identifying data of at least 10,000 users of a single gun scope app, Forbes has discovered. It’s an unprecedented move: Never before has a case been disclosed in which American investigators demanded personal data of users of a single app from Apple and Google. And never has an order been made public where the feds have asked the Silicon Valley giants for info on so many thousands of people in one go.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
They can deny it simple as that. They don't have to comply. The reason that the NSA hates them.
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Here's something that should be entertaining and potentially very interesting to see if it gets to a higher court:

Here's what his original felony is:
unknown.png


Basically, a BS charge that he should've probably fought, but could be very legally interesting if he had the balls to push this case to the Supreme Court.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Here's something that should be entertaining and potentially very interesting to see if it gets to a higher court:

Here's what his original felony is:
unknown.png


Basically, a BS charge that he should've probably fought, but could be very legally interesting if he had the balls to push this case to the Supreme Court.

Huh I never expected to be on the same side as little wayne but here I am.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
Reading into it, it is bullshit. The weapon was not in his possession, he was likely watching his manager's bag for him or something else like that.

And Marijuana shouldn't be criminal, not saying it should be legal, I am saying it should be decriminalized. At most he should be a slap on the wrist for public intoxication and taking drugs in public if both are illegal. But either way the most the cop should do is say, "Hey man, could you take that in private? I don't think this is appropriate." And that is iffy.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
And Marijuana shouldn't be criminal, not saying it should be legal, I am saying it should be decriminalized. At most he should be a slap on the wrist for public intoxication and taking drugs in public if both are illegal. But either way the most the cop should do is say, "Hey man, could you take that in private? I don't think this is appropriate." And that is iffy.
My problem with Marijuana legislation is that congress has asserted a fact via legislative fiat that should be settled by expert testimony and a jury.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
My problem with Marijuana legislation is that congress has asserted a fact via legislative fiat that should be settled by expert testimony and a jury.

That sounds reasonable. I think the government should stay out of it, crackdown on dealers, and let people grow it for themselves. I am opposed to actual shops and think legalization does nothing to stop crime. I just want people to smoke their weed if they really want to. I don't want to make it easy, nor do I want to let people profit of it.
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Some stuff for SCOTUS watchers to keep an eye on:


TL;DW:
-Two cases en route to Supreme Court
-One case involves New Jersey's 10+ round mag ban
-Denied en banc review
-Similar law in California facing en banc review after being rule unconstitutional by St. Benetiz
-Other case is basically the same as a case ACB commented on
-It's about whether non-violent felons lose their 2nd amendment rights
-Lady committed tax fraud, did the sentence, and lost her gun rights, suing to get them back
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top