New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, how many think that SCOTUS will turn in our favor? Since nobody can really gauge anymore which conservative judge will decide to be liberal for a day, this goes to show that these judges are turning communist. I have a bad feeling that no matter how GOOD the lawyer is, its gonna always come down to the judge and that is the problem. Shooter always and/or continues to claim that Kennedy is all pro 2A but Kennedy sways both ways (no pun there). If there is ANY denial here, now is the time to bring it up in a forum like this. I am not here to ruffle feathers, I am not here to be a Debbie Downer. However, I am a realist and I am not in denial about this whole liberal/progressive BS agenda that is spreading worse than the Ebola virus. I use to NOT be in denial myself and think that we have a chance to rid us of the SAFE ACT or the parts that suck but with all these judges ruling against the assault weapons, I am not too sure of myself anymore. So, with that in mind please read the newest assault on the rights of US citizens.

District judge upholds Highland Park ban on assault weapon | Lake County News-Sun

As for me .........hi, I am ny12883 and I am in "denial" that we are going to be triumphant in all this BS. So, unless I see winning of rights to the so called "assault weapons" don't be in denial...................just saying in my own opinion!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
There is no doubt in my mind that armed conflict is coming to America, probably within the next 100 years. Hopefully our kids and our kid's kids aren't brainwashed liberal trolls by then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Here is the judges decision. Havent read through it yet. Is anyone aware of any federal cases that struck down an assault weapon ban? Wondering if the SCOTUS might deny cert due to lack of a split, or could these AW cases reach the high court about the same time and be joined?

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Entered by the Honorable John W for Friedman v. City of Highland Park :: Justia Dockets & Filings
The lack of a split worries me too but since these cases go directly against Heller maybe they will take them up... I hope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
I read the decision. The judge says due to disputed facts he can't resolve the first part of his test (are these protected arms) so he assumes they are and continues with the second question about interest balancing. Flies against Heller and McDonald but it appers this is the jurisprudence laid out by the 7th circuit. The judge makes a stong argument about the banned weapons being highly military. This completely ignores Miller! Weapons with military utility ARE protected. The interst balancing also ignores the plain language of the Constitution that makes military readiness and training of the citizens a lawful purpose to own arms. Given that this judge has found these weapons to have such strong military utility, he also ignores the guidance in Presser that the states cannot disarm the people to the point of depriving the federal government of its rightful resource of a militia that provides its own arms appropriate for military duty.

I am really amazed that when it comes to AW bans that lawyers arent pounding on Miller and Presser and allowing the States to focus on Heller to the exclusion of anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
read my many postings on STATE's Rights
State's don't have the right to trump the Bill of Rights and under Heller, "aw's" are protected under the Second Amendment. Period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
I read the decision. The judge says due to disputed facts he can't resolve the first part of his test (are these protected arms) so he assumes they are and continues with the second question about interest balancing. Flies against Heller and McDonald but it appers this is the jurisprudence laid out by the 7th circuit. The judge makes a stong argument about the banned weapons being highly military. This completely ignores Miller! Weapons with military utility ARE protected. The interst balancing also ignores the plain language of the Constitution that makes military readiness and training of the citizens a lawful purpose to own arms. Given that this judge has found these weapons to have such strong military utility, he also ignores the guidance in Presser that the states cannot disarm the people to the point of depriving the federal government of its rightful resource of a militia that provides its own arms appropriate for military duty.

I am really amazed that when it comes to AW bans that lawyers arent pounding on Miller and Presser and allowing the States to focus on Heller to the exclusion of anything else.
Absolutely absurd. We all know the reason behind the 2A. What are we supposed to do? Fight the military with sticks and rocks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,234 Posts
There is no doubt in my mind that armed conflict is coming to America, probably within the next 100 years. Hopefully our kids and our kid's kids aren't brainwashed liberal trolls by then.
You beat me to it. I was going to say that you can't even trust a vote count. You can't trust people in government to represent you. You can't trust.. period.. The only thing you can trust is that you've either won or you've lost; and when that is the only thing you can trust, the only thing left to assure freedom, is a fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,131 Posts
There is no doubt in my mind that armed conflict is coming to America, probably within the next 100 years. Hopefully our kids and our kid's kids aren't brainwashed liberal trolls by then.
I'll agree to the "within", but by your outer time point of 100 years, IMHO, the USA, as we know it, will be long gone. All that needs to happen is for Ebola to get loose here, and you know what will happen. And believe me, I do have professional background that lets me judge that scenario very well. If Ebola does get a foot hold, it will be purposeful be groups who think they can keep themselves safe from it. Think again elitist trash, a negative-sense RNA genome of less than 20 kilobases that is already showing over 250 mutations, and is still infective, is evolving very fast. By the time it's done, we'll be looking at "The Andromeda Strain" scenario.

I'll not mention the multi-drug resistant TB, enterovirus 68, and a group of really bad-a$$ tropical diseases that are already flooding across the Southern border.

Make your own conclusions - YMMV, depending on how deep the rose-tint in your glasses is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,234 Posts
I'll agree to the "within", but by your outer time point of 100 years, IMHO, the USA, as we know it, will be long gone. All that needs to happen is for Ebola to get loose here, and you know what will happen. And believe me, I do have professional background that lets me judge that scenario very well. If Ebola does get a foot hold, it will be purposeful be groups who think they can keep themselves safe from it. Think again elitist trash, a negative-sense RNA genome of less than 20 kilobases that is already showing over 250 mutations, and is still infective, is evolving very fast. By the time it's done, we'll be looking at "The Andromeda Strain" scenario.

I'll not mention the multi-drug resistant TB, enterovirus 68, and a group of really bad-a$$ tropical diseases that are already flooding across the Southern border.

Make your own conclusions - YMMV, depending on how deep the rose-tint in your glasses is.
That mutation rate is rather concerning. I read an article on that the other day and if they can't contain it, it's going exponential..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
After reading the article and doing some research it seems that this judge has upheld other bans before , one that he upheld was overturned by the 7 th which gave Illinios the right to carry . Now before every one gets upset this judge is known for being an " activist judge " and since he has been overturned before , I'm betting this will be thrown out also . The suit ( using the scope white paper analysis ) is so full of hearsay evidence that it should be over come by a lawyer who throws out the hearsay abjection . This judge has done this before so I'm waiting for the 7 th to take up the suit to watch what they do with his amalisis .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
read my many postings on STATE's Rights
On the issue of states rights in general, the States do not have unlimited power. Our Constitution is essentially an agreement between the states and they agreed to give up certain powers to the central government for the purpose of mutual benefit (one of them being defense) . Foreign relations being an example. Every state has agreed to it and was given the option of not joining the Union.

Part of that agreement included a process for modifications as well as how disputes on the meaning would be resolved and who would decide the outcome.

Even if you a strong supporter of states rights and want the 14th amendment repealed, the AW bans are bad news. If the 2nd amendment doesn't protect semi auto rifles or magazines over 10 rounds then that means the central government can prohibit them to the states, including the state government. The 2nd amendment is all that stops Congress from declaring that only federal agents can have 10 round magazines and limiting state and local police to carrying less than that. Congress could ban state and local police from having semi auto rifles while arming federal troops with select fire and full auto weapons. The Constitution prohibits the states from keeping troops during peace without consent of Congress, but with thesecourt decisions Congress could ban the states from even owning or stocking semi auto rifles or magazines needed for an effective defense in time of war. This allows Congress to render the state defense forces completely ineffectual even in time of war when the states do not need consent of congress to have troops. They would be poorly underarmed troops. If you agree in strong states rights then these are all bad outcomes that the Constitution is meant to protect against. These are clear examples (to me anyway) why these types of arms do need to be protected by the 2nd amendment. We can argue seperatly about if the 14th is or bad- or the wisdom of incorporating the 2nd on the states via the 14th; but the 2nd iyself must be considered to protect the types of arms being banned. And incorporation is a settled matter at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
After reading the article and doing some research it seems that this judge has upheld other bans before , one that he upheld was overturned by the 7 th which gave Illinios the right to carry . Now before every one gets upset this judge is known for being an " activist judge " and since he has been overturned before , I'm betting this will be thrown out also . The suit ( using the scope white paper analysis ) is so full of hearsay evidence that it should be over come by a lawyer who throws out the hearsay abjection . This judge has done this before so I'm waiting for the 7 th to take up the suit to watch what they do with his amalisis .
See my post on the SCOPE white paper. I'm trying to understand it. Does it mean we can refute the evidence or that they ****ed us and we have to deal with it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
I read the decision. The judge says due to disputed facts he can't resolve the first part of his test (are these protected arms) so he assumes they are and continues with the second question about interest balancing. Flies against Heller and McDonald but it appers this is the jurisprudence laid out by the 7th circuit. The judge makes a stong argument about the banned weapons being highly military. This completely ignores Miller! Weapons with military utility ARE protected. The interst balancing also ignores the plain language of the Constitution that makes military readiness and training of the citizens a lawful purpose to own arms. Given that this judge has found these weapons to have such strong military utility, he also ignores the guidance in Presser that the states cannot disarm the people to the point of depriving the federal government of its rightful resource of a militia that provides its own arms appropriate for military duty.

I am really amazed that when it comes to AW bans that lawyers arent pounding on Miller and Presser and allowing the States to focus on Heller to the exclusion of anything else.
Why isn't Miller argued more?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
On the issue of states rights in general, the States do not have unlimited power. Our Constitution is essentially an agreement between the states and they agreed to give up certain powers to the central government for the purpose of mutual benefit (one of them being defense) . Foreign relations being an example. Every state has agreed to it and was given the option of not joining the Union.

.
we have been over this before
I am not going to look for my voluminous post on this subject
a STATE may RESTRICT a Right

if not, please explain the Pistol Permit process in New York
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,584 Posts
we have been over this before
I am not going to look for my voluminous post on this subject
a STATE may RESTRICT a Right

if not, please explain the Pistol Permit process in New York
They may restrict a right not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights or in SCOTUS case law. They cannot restrict beyond the minimum established by the constitution or SCOTUS, but they can provide more rights than what the constitution/SCOTUS says.

So for example, Heller and McDonald established that handgun ownership within the home is a constitutional right. NY cannot legally ban handguns for use within the home. The courts are working out now just what that means. It could mean that as long as they provide a "reasonable" means to acquire a permit for a handgun (and thus a handgun) sufficiently meets the requirement. However, what they CANNOT do, is tomorrow ban all handguns in the state, void all permits, and disallow anyone else for applying for a new permit.

All of this other stuff, while seemingly protected by SCOTUS caselaw and the constitution is not mentioned by name in caselaw, so the corrupt politicians are using that as an excuse to say banning them is legal.

As I said earlier, a state may opt to give their citizens more rights. SCOTUS established a formula that probable cause for an arrest is the totality of the circumstances, or simply "is it more likely than not that a crime has occurred?" Some states, (Massachusetts is one of them) place a greater burden on officers to establish probable cause for an arrest than the SCOTUS minimum. So once again, a state could not pass legislation tomorrow that the definition for probable cause for an arrest is "if a cop feels like it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
you need to go back and read my post about " Police Power of the STATE "

you did explain how the Pistol Permit process in New York does not infringe the 2A
elucidate, please
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top