How can this decision be reached after admitting that the guns are meet the standard for “In common use”?
If any and all of our rights can be suspended so that the “state” can meet it’s governmental interest of public safety and crime control, We are now living at the day to day whim of our Govt.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/matt-in-fl/breaking-federal-judge-upholds-ct-gun-ban/
The text of the judges decision is attached.
I’ll be honest - no one cares what a district court judge says on issues like this. Whatever said judge rules, it’ll be appealed. The appeals court is when it really matters.
Although this reasoning is pretty bad:
A: Unlike the law struck down in Heller, the legislation here does not amount to a complete prohibition on firearms for self-defense in the home.
B: Indeed, the legislation does not prohibit possession of the weapon cited as the “quintessential self-defense weapon” in Heller, i.e., the handgun.
Therefore… C?: In other words, “the prohibition of [assault weapons] and large-capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.” Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1262.
That third statement does NOT follow the first two. This comes from page 20 of the decision.
This ruling is one step towards the Supreme Court, should they cert a case on a state AWB. The outcome is a crap shoot depending on who is on the court when it is heard.
And even then, quite honestly, I don’t bestow deity-like powers to black robes. We must remember that at one time the SCOTUS upheld slavery…was that “right”?
The left hates being reminded of this…and Plessy V. Ferguson
A Bush 41 appointee, no less! Another loser, from the gang that couldn’t shoot straight… :rolleyes:
According to the constitution, they are the final word in interpreting the constitution.
They don’t have deity-like powers, but there is no one higher in America’s legal system for constitutional matters. They’re human and can and do get things wrong from time to time (I mean you can almost tell how the court is going to vote based on their liberal/conservative leanings). But overturning their judgment requires A) the court changing its mind, B) a constitutional amendment that renders their decision moot, or C) a new government. The only likely cause is the court changing its mind, and that only rarely happens.
Prior the 13th Amendment it was “right” as slavery was protected by the US Constitution. You have to be careful with these analogies.
Yep. Slavery was mostly put aside in order to get the Constitution ratified. They figured it would get sorted out later. I don’t think they had the civil war in mind but at the time ratification was more important than addressing slavery.
Yes but the point is that SC should rule based on the law rather than what they wish the law was. Or if the law violates the Constitution as understood by the States that ratified it.
Unfortunately this has never been the case…ever. As soon as the Constitution was ratified those that didn’t like it aimed to get like minded judges appointed for life to twist it to their liking.
It was based on law.
Actually, the Constitution does NOT saythe SC gets to decide what is and is not constitutional. This is a power seized by the court for itself beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 1802. In fact, the court only used the power of Judicial Review twice before the Civil War. Jefferson and Madison, one the author of the Declaration, the other the “father of the Constitution,” both believed assessing Constitutionality of federal laws was a right of the states and or people, not an unelected Judge; the doctrine of Nullification–the same one the First Continental Congress used to nullify the Intolerable Acts in 1774.
So, before the Civil War,Democratic-Republicans and later Democrats both North and South believed in Jefferson and Madison’s view, whereas Federalists, and later Whigs and Republicans, generally held to the view of Chief Justice John Marshall–the guywho started Judicial Review. (Except, of course, for when some Federalist New Englanders, advocating States’ Rights, threatened to secede from the Unionin 1814…)
I stand by my analogy. Was slavery “right” or perhaps better put, “proper”? No, it wasn’t. Keep that in mind with future gun decisions.
Another is Kelo. Sorry, but how Eminent Domain use was construed to include financial gain for a community is beyond me (and a lot of others too).
My point was that just because the SCOTUS rules is to be such doesn’t necessarily make it “right”, “proper”, “moral”, or “ethical”.
Oh, I know. I was just saying that their ruling on something, especially something big (like the RKBA), wouldn’t necessarily be correct.
You shouldn’t because slavery was written into the constitution. The 2A is an amendment. Do you get amend?
Do you get the point I’m trying to make or are you being deliberately obtuse? Don’t split hairs, you know perfectly well what I’m driving at: there is no infallibility with the judiciary despite what some may like to think.
Oh, Plessy vs. Ferguson should suffice for hair-splitting. It was post-13th Amendment and was wrong in both an ethical and moral sense, yet the SCOTUS upheld it.
Plessy vs Ferguson was really a 14th Amend case. I have issues with the 14 th because of the way it was ratified and for how it weakens Federalism.
However, I disagree with a few strict originalists when it comes to Natural Rights. I don’t believe that that Founders intended for States to interfere with the basic natural rights delt with in the Bill of Rights…including the right to protect oneself from a bear, a bad guy, or the government.
IMHO States should NOT be able to regulate firearms in any way shape or form.
This has been my opinion from the start. After the Clinton ban, When NY. voted to install their own AWB I felt that the state violated the 2A. These are rights granted by God and only put on paper in the bill of rights, not something a state can take away or infringe on. We aren’t talking gay marriage or prohibition here.