9th Circuit says Mag Capacity Restrictions Unconstitutional

Doctor_M · Aug 17, 2020

Four little words for our friends in CA while the courts quibble about the state of their rights. WWNC.

pcfixer · Aug 17, 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

1 in 4 now in the 4th circuit

bigmancrisler · Aug 17, 2020

pcfixer said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

1 in 4 now in the 4th circuit

Where is the 4th circuit? Is that us?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

delaware_export · Aug 17, 2020

Take a look outside. That yous guys.

bigmancrisler said:
Where is the 4th circuit? Is that us?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Steel Hunter · Aug 17, 2020

bigmancrisler said:
Where is the 4th circuit? Is that us?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/about-the-court

Yes. Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

rambling_one · Aug 17, 2020

Steel Hunter said:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/about-the-court

Yes. Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Four out of five being pro-gun, sigh.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Aug 17, 2020

rambling_one said:
Four out of five being pro-gun, sigh.

But that doesn't really matter...it's the makeup of the bench that counts. You have judges that believe in the meaning of the Constitution and some who are faithless to it and follow political trends and fads.

pcfixer · Aug 18, 2020

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
But that doesn't really matter...it's the makeup of the bench that counts. You have judges that believe in the meaning of the Constitution and some who are faithless to it and follow political trends and fads.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...ieve-in-restrictions-on-the-2nd-amendment-no/

One of the most disheartening excuses is that “The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.”

This sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi’s view of the Constitution.

And it’s flat-out wrong. You won’t find an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

The text of the Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As this Court explained in Heller, “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584. “When used with ‘arms,’ . . . the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Ibid. Thus, the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted).

from ROGERS v. GREWAL Discent. All equally true. I don't care what circuit or federal judges "say or write".

The truth is government can not take away what God has given us.. Free Will. John Locke is correct. Life, Liberty and Property!

bigmancrisler · Aug 18, 2020

pcfixer said:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...ieve-in-restrictions-on-the-2nd-amendment-no/

One of the most disheartening excuses is that “The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.”

This sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi’s view of the Constitution.

And it’s flat-out wrong. You won’t find an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

from ROGERS v. GREWAL Discent. All equally true. I don't care what circuit or federal judges "say or write".

The truth is government can not take away what God has given us.. Free Will. John Locke is correct. Life, Liberty and Property!

This^^^^

Any infringement upon our rights (any of them) is unconstitutional. And I agree with the fact that there is no Asterisk after shall not be infringed, there is no limit to what we can have. I’m tired of worrying about “oh will the crown allow me to have this” it should be the other way around. They should ask us if it’s ok if they do something .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

arts · Aug 18, 2020

JerseyMike said:
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachment...9e63a83234/94d604dc/DuncanvBecerraOpinion.pdf

You read correctly, the 9th Circuit. They found that, even under intermediate scrutiny, it would fail.

Now get Maryland to buy it.

pcfixer · Aug 18, 2020

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.

This^^^^^^ It is your moral responsiblity to resist un lawful order/laws.

The UCMJ actually protects the soldier in this situation as he/she has a moral and legal obligation to the Constitution and not to obey unlawful orders and the people who issue them.

These have to be strong examples of a direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ and not the military member’s own opinion.

jcutonilli · Aug 18, 2020

pcfixer said:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...ieve-in-restrictions-on-the-2nd-amendment-no/

One of the most disheartening excuses is that “The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.”

This sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi’s view of the Constitution.

And it’s flat-out wrong. You won’t find an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

from ROGERS v. GREWAL Discent. All equally true. I don't care what circuit or federal judges "say or write".

The truth is government can not take away what God has given us.. Free Will. John Locke is correct. Life, Liberty and Property!

“The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.” This is not an excuse, it is essentially what Heller stated. More specifically Heller stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

While you will not find an asterisk, you will find a number of historic case that have historical prohibitions such as concealed carry. To ignore these issues and insist that it is an absolute right is a position that is demonstrably false. You will continue to loose because you don't have a base to stand on.

There are ways to address these issues, just don't claim it is an absolute right.

Allen65 · Aug 18, 2020

jcutonilli said:
“The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.” This is not an excuse, it is essentially what Heller stated. More specifically Heller stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

While you will not find an asterisk, you will find a number of historic case that have historical prohibitions such as concealed carry. To ignore these issues and insist that it is an absolute right is a position that is demonstrably false. You will continue to loose because you don't have a base to stand on.

There are ways to address these issues, just don't claim it is an absolute right.

A right that cannot withstand any assertion, no matter how specious or unsubstantiated, of a "public safety" argument by the State, is no right at all.

That is what we're stuck with in 4th CA, 2nd CA, and a few others.

spoon059 · Aug 18, 2020

And the issue becomes the fact that congress can repeal the 2nd amendment. Conservatives have long allowed minor infringements rather than open the possibility of repeal.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

rbird7282 · Aug 18, 2020

spoon059 said:
And the issue becomes the fact that congress can repeal the 2nd amendment. Conservatives have long allowed minor infringements rather than open the possibility of repeal.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Takes more than Congress to repeal an amendment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

randomuser · Aug 18, 2020

rbird7282 said:
Takes more than Congress to repeal an amendment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Basically it takes 2 groups with guns. One group who wants it and one group doesn't.

Funny though, how both groups ultimately would go to guns to protect their right or enforce taking of another man's right.

As long as that could be the case I'd say you need guns.

spoon059 · Aug 18, 2020

rbird7282 said:
Takes more than Congress to repeal an amendment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct, but that's how it starts. While it's unlikely to happen, who knows.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

jcutonilli · Aug 18, 2020

Allen65 said:
A right that cannot withstand any assertion, no matter how specious or unsubstantiated, of a "public safety" argument by the State, is no right at all.

That is what we're stuck with in 4th CA, 2nd CA, and a few others.

The public safety argument is not exactly unsubstantiated. Firearms are certainly used by a few to commit crimes.

Sounds a lot like Korematsu to me. You have not seen SCOTUS explain why Korematsu was not properly decided. They have only recently said in dicta that it was wrongly decided. No plaintiff has made this argument.

There is no argument presented as to who provides public safety either.

Poor arguments are going to get poor decisions.

Occam · Aug 18, 2020

spoon059 said:
Correct, but that's how it starts. While it's unlikely to happen, who knows.

It takes most of the country (37? 38? states agreeing) to ratify such a change to the constitution. So why would congress start such a thing, knowing they'll never get that much of flyover country to agree?

For the same reason recently went through with a preposterous impeachment charade they KNEW would never make it out of the senate. Because they're petulant children pandering to the petulant children that make up their constituents. It feels good to have the tantrum.

spoon059 · Aug 19, 2020

And don't forget they live in an echo chamber. They control the media and believe their own hype. Just like they KNEW Hillary would win in 2016, they KNOW that the country supports their progressive ideology. False confidence is enough for them to push a lot of their ideas through...

If they keep trying, they'll eventually win.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

9th Circuit says Mag Capacity Restrictions Unconstitutional

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Certified Mad Scientist

Ultimate Member

2A Preacher

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

2A Preacher

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics