DaemonAssassin
Why should we Free BSD?
The Dude abides....Sybil the Soothsayer approves of this post
Howard Beale weeps
The Dude abides....Sybil the Soothsayer approves of this post
Howard Beale weeps
I don't claim to "have it all". COTUS can only keep those who rule over us in line if it is correctly argued. How are those 2A cases going? Are those who rule over us really being kept in check? What should be done about it?
I choose to talk about why I think the cases have been argued incorrectly. I have begun to submit these arguments to courts. See my Amicus Briefs for :
10th Circuit Bump stock Case (Aposhian v Barr), View attachment 311715
Ninth Circuit CA MAG ban (Duncan v Becerra both the panel brief and the brief in opposition to an en banc rehearing) View attachment 311717 View attachment 311716
Ninth Circuit HI carry case (Young v HI) https://pdfhost.io/v/I5m4UGe00_YoungAmicusJohnCutonillipdf.pdf
and I am planning to submit an Amicus Brief with CATO and NCLA in the DC bump stock case.
Are these detailed enough? What else should I be doing? What are you doing?
There is a point in time where somebody isn't a ally, when they constantly question you and demand that you prove something to their satisfaction or they demand to see something in writing, because they want you to do all the research and leg work for them.It takes a number of different talents to work toward a successful outcome. We are not in a position where we can afford to lose allies, however much we may disagree with their actions or abilities.
I am not as enlightened as you claim to be, Mr. Thoreau- Walden Pond, not Civil Disobedience. I have given lots of money to those I think will do what is best. Have I met you protesting in Annapolis or is that too beneath you? You act like a friggin FUDD or Glum. It'll never work, We're never gonna make it. Wowzie Woo Woo. You always answer a question with a question. You actually bore me with your Department of Redundancy Department replies. Good night.
What "recent" developments?I get it with frustration with recent developments ....
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that these elusive constitutional protections are only mythology from a time gone by. You know, just recognize reality for what it is and understand that we are watching our government seize control in every possible way. Not just the 2A, even though that's most often our focus here.
Thank you Bob, I did see that. He raises some very solid points and I agree with most of what be said, especially about us being played against one another. None of it is actually new though, the non-MSM sources have been all though those angles. I think a lot of us knew Chauvin would be sacrificed.You really ought to watch the Barricade Garage video from the thread of the same name. Feel free to skip the first two minutes to get the meat.
Seriously. It will open your eyes.
What "recent" developments?
Not targeting you, but using your concept as an example.
This stuff has been going on for so long that one really has to be delusional to think we will ever see a different outcome. Every day that goes by puts this "freedom" crap deeper in the hole. Every day gone by makes this supposed 'right' less of a reality and puts it more into our hazy past.
If the court actually wanted to affirm this purported right, they could have done so at EVERY turn. ANY case argued on behalf of the 2A could have been quite quickly decided by simply reading the amendment aloud and stating "clearly, this law/these charges violate the constitutional limits on infringement". Instead, double talk and evasion; "interest balancing", "scrutiny", "status quo", "public safety"...
I'd LOVE to keep drinking the Kool-Aid, to enjoy the blind faith that others here show, and convince myself that justice will prevail "one day", but this ongoing fantasy has been unproductive for many years now. I saw GCA '68 enacted and people immediately talked about getting this cast out in court, how there was no way it would stand. That was over 50 years ago and we're still (not) going strong.
The pattern remains the same: Bad laws are passed, people use their resources to fight the government, who uses the peoples' resources to fight them back. Time goes by, nothing changes. Another bad law and another bad law... Fight, lose, appeal, fight, lose, appeal...get to the USSC and they decide not to hear the case because...why? It would force them to make a decision and take an actual stand. The big problem is that 'the people' are not going to like the stand the USSC finally does take.
How is this NOT clear by now? With all of the in-depth analysis we have on tap, one would think it would be pretty plain.
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that these elusive constitutional protections are only mythology from a time gone by. You know, just recognize reality for what it is and understand that we are watching our government seize control in every possible way. Not just the 2A, even though that's most often our focus here.
I believe what the court is waiting for is an explanation as to why the lower courts are systematically getting the intermediate scrutiny process wrong. All of the cases to date except one have not provided an explanation. The one case was NYSRPA vs NYC. I do not think SCOTUS really understands why the courts are getting this wrong and the current cases have not illuminated the reasons why.
I believe they will take 2A cases, you just need to provide the appropriate arguments.
Why do you think the lower courts are getting the scrutiny process wrong, and what argument(s) do you think would bring the issue to a satisfactory resolution?
Are there any cases in the pipeline that might fill the bill?
Thank you Bob, I did see that. He raises some very solid points and I agree with most of what be said, especially about us being played against one another. None of it is actually new though, the non-MSM sources have been all though those angles. I think a lot of us knew Chauvin would be sacrificed.
I do have a hard time bringing any of his points to this situation, unless his discussion of the politics of the Floyd verdict is taken to reinforce that the USSC procrastinates a 2A verdict because they are afraid of public outrage.
It is a very simple call: Either the 2A is an individual right, like all the others, or it is not...but we just can't seem to get a commitment because WE constantly fail somehow. The wrong person asks the right question, the right person asks the wrong question, the right person asks the right question, but the wrong way...for YEARS...no, wait...for DECADES, hell, another 13 years will be a century since the government started overstepping its bounds on just this one subject. As long as we can sit here and TRY to believe, they can perpetuate the facade of legitimacy, a constitutional government and a citizenship with rights and not permissions.
It's not just the 2A, look at how the election challenges were handled. Our USSC has very serious problems.
We can look at the Duncan V Becerra case (CA "large capacity" mag ban) that I have written 2 amicus briefs for. The case is somewhat unique because the District Court judge is Judge Benitez and he knows how to properly evaluate the data. He ultimately found the CA mag ban law unconstitutional. The 3 judge panel in the Ninth Circuit also found the mag ban unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit recently decided to vacate the 3 judge panel decision and rehear the case en banc (11 judge panel in the Ninth) One of the likely reasons for the en banc is that every other court has decided similar laws were constitutional using essentially the same data.
The has a lot to do with how the plaintiffs (pro 2A side) challenge the data. Both sides introduce data to demonstrate their conclusions are based on empirical data.
The government data demonstrates that the “use of large-capacity magazines results in more gunshots fired, results in more gunshot wounds per victim, and increases the lethality of gunshot injuries.” They also say that that LCMs are “disproportionately used in mass shootings as well as crimes against law enforcement” and that a “reduction in the number of large-capacity magazines
in circulation may decrease the use of such magazines in gun crimes.”
The problem is that the plaintiffs introduce different data to dispute. They introduce a 1994 DOJ report concluding that concluded that there was no discernible reduction in lethality or injury. They cite a number of people that explain the benefits of having more round available.
What most judges/Courts do in this situation is perceive the situation as a version of a he said she said case. The Courts conclude the issue as political in nature, a role best suited to the legislature. The Courts defer to the legislature's judgement on the weighing of the evidence. This guarantees a win for the government.
What I believe needs to be done is to rip apart the governments data so that the court cannot rely on it to support intermediate scrutiny.
You can read my Duncan BIO amicus brief for my latest version of how to rip their data apart. I can be found in this previous post https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=6295465&postcount=200
Amici briefs are available to the court and plaintiffs, right? Do they have much sway in the outcome?