Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:50 pm



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Supreme Court to Hear Major Gun Case on Concealed Firearms 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012
Posts: 7649
Pvanderzee wrote:
martin248 wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

The demonrats are already beginning a campaign to emergency pack the court before this case is heard and specifically FOR this case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... carry.html


They can't. They would either need 60 votes in the Senate, or they would need to eliminate the filibuster. The idea of eliminating the filibuster died and no way they get ten Republican senators on board with packing the court. They can introduce House legislation and make headlines but they can't get this done.



Unless Biden decides to simply nominate judges anyway, and challenge the law that limits the number to nine. Confirming them may be problematic, but he's likely able to nominate as many as he wants.

They've already been quoted too many times acknowledging congressional action is needed, and the laws that have governed SCOTUS size are literally centuries old, I doubt they'll try to circumvent congress.

In the end this comes down to Manchin. He's already been hammered by his home state constituents , Trump won it by almost 70%, one of the highest. Manchin knows he has to tread very carefully and that's why he's fairly pro-gun. For him to help nuke the filibuster for an anti-gun bill or to reshape SCOTUS for the purposes of harming gun rights would end his political career and he knows it. He has no future outside his home state, the progressives hate him.

As long as he holds the line we should be OK.

_________________
If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto).
If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/
Quote:
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.”

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738
Quote:
[Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"


Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:15 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2688
Real Name: Phill
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
martin248 wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

The demonrats are already beginning a campaign to emergency pack the court before this case is heard and specifically FOR this case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... carry.html


They can't. They would either need 60 votes in the Senate, or they would need to eliminate the filibuster. The idea of eliminating the filibuster died and no way they get ten Republican senators on board with packing the court. They can introduce House legislation and make headlines but they can't get this done.



Unless Biden decides to simply nominate judges anyway, and challenge the law that limits the number to nine. Confirming them may be problematic, but he's likely able to nominate as many as he wants.

They've already been quoted too many times acknowledging congressional action is needed, and the laws that have governed SCOTUS size are literally centuries old, I doubt they'll try to circumvent congress.

In the end this comes down to Manchin. He's already been hammered by his home state constituents , Trump won it by almost 70%, one of the highest. Manchin knows he has to tread very carefully and that's why he's fairly pro-gun. For him to help nuke the filibuster for an anti-gun bill or to reshape SCOTUS for the purposes of harming gun rights would end his political career and he knows it. He has no future outside his home state, the progressives hate him.

As long as he holds the line we should be OK.


If they stick to that law, great. I think we're solid.

But what I'm saying is that I think the law may be unconstitutional. Has it ever been challenged? The constitution grants the executive the power to appoint supreme court justices to the SCOTUS. It doesn't explicitly grant power to congress to limit that. You could argue that the law limits the power of congress to confirm judges, but that's just congress telling congress what congress can and can't do, which is pointless on it's face. I think if push came to shove, the president could appoint as many judges as he wants, and the senate could confirm as many as they want, regardless of the law currently in place.

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:00 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012
Posts: 7649
Pvanderzee wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
martin248 wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

The demonrats are already beginning a campaign to emergency pack the court before this case is heard and specifically FOR this case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... carry.html


They can't. They would either need 60 votes in the Senate, or they would need to eliminate the filibuster. The idea of eliminating the filibuster died and no way they get ten Republican senators on board with packing the court. They can introduce House legislation and make headlines but they can't get this done.



Unless Biden decides to simply nominate judges anyway, and challenge the law that limits the number to nine. Confirming them may be problematic, but he's likely able to nominate as many as he wants.

They've already been quoted too many times acknowledging congressional action is needed, and the laws that have governed SCOTUS size are literally centuries old, I doubt they'll try to circumvent congress.

In the end this comes down to Manchin. He's already been hammered by his home state constituents , Trump won it by almost 70%, one of the highest. Manchin knows he has to tread very carefully and that's why he's fairly pro-gun. For him to help nuke the filibuster for an anti-gun bill or to reshape SCOTUS for the purposes of harming gun rights would end his political career and he knows it. He has no future outside his home state, the progressives hate him.

As long as he holds the line we should be OK.


If they stick to that law, great. I think we're solid.

But what I'm saying is that I think the law may be unconstitutional. Has it ever been challenged? The constitution grants the executive the power to appoint supreme court justices to the SCOTUS. It doesn't explicitly grant power to congress to limit that. You could argue that the law limits the power of congress to confirm judges, but that's just congress telling congress what congress can and can't do, which is pointless on it's face. I think if push came to shove, the president could appoint as many judges as he wants, and the senate could confirm as many as they want, regardless of the law currently in place.

Quote:
Article 3:
"Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

_________________
If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto).
If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/
Quote:
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.”

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738
Quote:
[Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"


Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Issaquah
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020
Posts: 1033
Alpine wrote:

Quote:
Article 3:
"Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...


You could get a lot of debate about that second comma, but it's hard to read the comma as somehow defaulting the establishment of the supreme court to the President, who isn't even mentioned.


Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:37 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2688
Real Name: Phill
martin248 wrote:
Alpine wrote:

Quote:
Article 3:
"Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...


You could get a lot of debate about that second comma, but it's hard to read the comma as somehow defaulting the establishment of the supreme court to the President, who isn't even mentioned.


That comma is rather important, though.
The president doesn't establish the supreme court, and neither does Congress. The constitution appears to establish it in the above article. Congress establishes and ordains inferior courts, such as the circuit courts.
And I'm not talking about establishing a court, or even organizing it. I'm talking about appointing justices to it.

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 wrote:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


So yes, even though it appears that the constitution doesn't prevent congress from organizing the SCOTUS, the president is charged, solely, with appointing judges to the SCOTUS. What isn't clear is if congress can limit that power with legislation. The senate can refuse consent regardless, but does a law requiring them to refuse consent have any teeth? Again, that's just congress telling congress what congress can do.

I'm not saying I know for a fact that the law is wrong. Just a thinking exercise. Can congress limit a constitutional power explicitly granted to the president?

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Tue Apr 27, 2021 5:05 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Pierce County
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018
Posts: 1980
Real Name: Shane
Pvanderzee wrote:
Can congress limit a constitutional power explicitly granted to the president?

Interesting thought. I would say they don't have the authority to limit the president, but they do have the authority to limit themselves. Just like you or I can set ourselves a budget, or go on a diet. And, I suppose, just like us, Congress can then choose to ignore their authority over themselves.

_________________
Posts not legal advice.


Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:59 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012
Posts: 7649
scrid2000 wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
Can congress limit a constitutional power explicitly granted to the president?

Interesting thought. I would say they don't have the authority to limit the president, but they do have the authority to limit themselves. Just like you or I can set ourselves a budget, or go on a diet. And, I suppose, just like us, Congress can then choose to ignore their authority over themselves.

10th amendment says powers not given explicitly to the feds are reserved to the states or to the people. The people exercised those powers by electing Congress and having them pass a law setting SCOTUS size. That's the backup argument in case they go after the centuries old statute that sets SCOTUS size.

_________________
If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto).
If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/
Quote:
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.”

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738
Quote:
[Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"


Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Issaquah
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020
Posts: 1033
martin248 wrote:
They re-wrote the question from

"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense"

to

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment"


Came across an interesting discussion. The new question the SC inserted discusses whether "the State's denial" .. "violated the Second Amendment" as opposed to "Whether the Second Amendement allows..."

In the past NY State has tried to avoid SC decisions on gun rights by changing their law at the last minute, then going to court and arguing the case is moot. By making the question whether it "violated" rather than whether 2A "allows" the SC prevented NY from mooting the case by repealing the law. The question remains, because the harm has already been done regardless of whether the law is repealed, so the case can't be mooted by changing the law.


Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:18 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Pierce County
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018
Posts: 1980
Real Name: Shane
martin248 wrote:
martin248 wrote:
They re-wrote the question from

"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense"

to

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment"


Came across an interesting discussion. The new question the SC inserted discusses whether "the State's denial" .. "violated the Second Amendment" as opposed to "Whether the Second Amendement allows..."

In the past NY State has tried to avoid SC decisions on gun rights by changing their law at the last minute, then going to court and arguing the case is moot. By making the question whether it "violated" rather than whether 2A "allows" the SC prevented NY from mooting the case by repealing the law. The question remains, because the harm has already been done regardless of whether the law is repealed, so the case can't be mooted by changing the law.
Yes, but the last time it was NY state changing its law to prevent a case about a statute by New York City. Different scenarios.

_________________
Posts not legal advice.


Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:59 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: AZ
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018
Posts: 6763
I don’t want to make a separate topic for this news, also I believe it’s some- related to the OP.
https://www.law360.com/access-to-justic ... -circ-case

Debate Over Immigrants' Gun Rights Ignites In 2nd Circ. Case.

“As he walked down a Brooklyn block with a loaded gun in his hand on a dry, hot summer evening in 2016, Javier Perez didn't know he was about to trigger a constitutional dilemma.

Seeing a group of youths assaulting a boy from a rival gang with bats and machetes, Perez did what he thought could defuse the situation: He fired a few shots in the air. The brawlers dispersed. No one was injured. Perez walked back to a barbecue he was attending with a few old friends on the same block, returning the gun he had just borrowed to one of them.

Months later, Perez was arrested and charged with a federal crime — being an "alien in possession of a firearm." He faced 10 years in federal prison and deportation.

His lawyers argued the federal law is unconstitutional because it strips people like Perez — millions of undocumented people with no prior criminal record — of Second Amendment rights. The government shot back that the amendment doesn't apply to Perez because of his unlawful status in the country, and even if it did, the law is reasonable in achieving a government's interest in controlling crime.

After failing in the lower courts, the case now has the potential of ending in the U.S. Supreme Court, where it could have far-reaching implications for immigrant rights beyond gun possession, legal experts say.”

_________________
FPC member
GOA member
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.


Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:13 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: AZ
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018
Posts: 6763
In addition to my previous post:
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2021/0 ... -in-texas/
3K Migrants Forced to Camp Under Border Bridge in Texas.

_________________
FPC member
GOA member
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.


Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:24 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.881s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]