New York Firearms Forum banner
41 - 60 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Has there been a ruling regarding NY and CT AWB on the Fed court level yet. Or was the last ruling on state level??
Regardless I expect Northeast Fed. courts to rule in favor of ban
Yes a NYC based court(second circut) has rulled in favor of the safe act.

this is huge as differing circuits=SCOTUS

a law cannot be unconstitutional and constitutional in two different places.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
Yes a NYC based court(second circut) has rulled in favor of the safe act.

this is huge as differing circuits=SCOTUS

a law cannot be unconstitutional and constitutional in two different places.
The High Courts make up is 4.5 conservatives and 4 (gun grabbing) liberals
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,999 Posts
My understanding is that the strict scrutiny is a great legal standard in which even an anti-gun judge might go with it HOWEVER it was knocked back to the judge where he can find a different legal excuse to keep the law and I have little faith that SCOTUS will keep this standard after their ruling against the guy bought a gun for someone else but transferred the gun thru a a second FFL .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
The High Courts make up is 4.5 conservatives and 4 (gun grabbing) liberals
NOT true, regarding gun rights, the Court has 3 good justices (Scalia, Thomas, and even the swinger Kennedy) and two pretend "conservative" justices (Roberts and Alito), Roberts is fond of Obama Care (the ACA) not gun rights, Roberts and Alito have yet to support granting cert. on an AWB case (another example of poor choices by W. Bu$H along with his open border).

I for one believe this decision is a major development in the right direction, Strict Scrutiny is not going to be easy to overcome, tortured logic and "Mother Jones" will not do, the government usually loses the test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Since awbs have never lowered crime and sorting rifles are very rarely used in violent crime it would be very hard to defend bans on strict scrutiny. But I also don't see a judge saying "gosh I got it all wrong last time". They will find a way that it passes stricken scrutiny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
It's nice to see a court say NO, your wrong, your not following the precedent. It equates too, absolutely nothing, It gets knocked back down to the lower courts gets tied up for a few more years only for the lower court to re word there descsion. We applied strict scrutiny and have decided X law is constitutional. Judges don't get fired for being wrong. They can come up with any descsion they want and suport it with absolutly no logic and they keep there job.

This descsion means nothing, Heller means Nothing, it all means nothing when politicians and the courts consistantly and blatantly ignore cases that have already been decided on. Even if found unconstitutional politicians will change 2 words in the existing law, that law will pass and take another 5-6 years to get shot down and the cycle repeats.

I'd love for somone to write an algorithm to analyze all laws and apply them as written. Remove agenda and personal opinion. 75 percent of the law in this country wouldn't pass muster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,393 Posts
It's nice to see a court say NO, your wrong, your not following the precedent. It equates too, absolutely nothing, It gets knocked back down to the lower courts gets tied up for a few more years only for the lower court to re word there descsion. We applied strict scrutiny and have decided X law is constitutional. Judges don't get fired for being wrong. They can come up with any descsion they want and suport it with absolute no logic andthey keepmthere job.

This descsion means nothing, Heller means Nothing, it all means nothing when politicians and the courts consistantly and blatantly ignore cases that have already been decided on. Even if found unconstitutional politicians will change 2 words in the existing law, that law will pass and take another 5-6 years to get shot down and the cycle repeats.

I'd love for somone to write an algorithm to analyze all laws and apply them as written. Remove agenda and personal opinion. 75 percent of the law in this country wouldn't pass muster.
The part these over-educated fools seem to miss is that their blatant attempts to create a two-tier legal framework to suit their agenda (by criminalizing every activity except the ones they approve of) will diminish the rule of law to the point where the law will simply become ignored. Even though BLM (Black Lives Mater) was instigated and fomented by a bunch of race-baiters, it doesn't mean there isn't some legitimate basis for the anger behind it, and it was barely controlled. The other BLM (Bureau of Land Management) situation out west is simmering also, but for different reasons, yet with equally legitimate anger.
These moron progressives (both sides) never pass up an instance to rub one groups nose in legal poop to appease another group. Sooner or later they will rub too many noses, and there will be a "re-set" if they piss off too many otherwise law abiding citizens. They might find themselves in the FEMA camps, instead of the rabble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
Not similarly situated, privileged class of citizens. So what your saying is all vets should be allowed to own M16s and M14s because they too have been situated to use such guns.

For all these reasons, we affirm the district court's decision on the equal-protection issue. Retired police officers and the public are not similarly situated, and dissimilar treatment of these dissimilar groups does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.



[QUOTE
=livingston;1218210]Breaking: Major Win in 4th Circuit Over Maryland Assault Weapons Ban | Shall Not Be Questioned[/QUOTE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
The over-ruled court will probably just find some way to claim that they are applying "strict scrutiny" and that the government still has a "compelling interest" to ban "assault weapons."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
The District Judge is really going to have to use her imagination to find the ban constitutional under strict scrutiny. No ban applying to the law abiding in order to prevent criminals from doing something can be narrowly tailored to prevent the criminals for doing something. Even if SC takes this and rules our way, do you think NY will comply? NY has ignored Heller and McDonald. They will ignore this SC case too. Only if we have a president who calls up the National Guard to arrest all state polititions, police, district attorneys, judges etc who continue to enforce the unconditional law will any thing change. (like had to be done in the south re integration cases). They can be charged with contempt of court or maybe treason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
The District Judge is really going to have to use her imagination to find the ban constitutional under strict scrutiny. No ban applying to the law abiding in order to prevent criminals from doing something can be narrowly tailored to prevent the criminals for doing something.
"strict in theory, fatal in fact"
 
41 - 60 of 64 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top