Jump to content

Assault Weapons Ban Upheld In MA


Recommended Posts

SCOTUS is very unlikely to hear and rule on this at a time of deep passion on both sides . They will punt , for now , and wait for an appeals court to create a contradiction with the Maryland ruling . They hate entering the debate during its height .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, QuackerSmacker said:

Agreed.  What I meant to say is that we've got to get the right folks on the bench at SCOTUS in this presidential term.  We may not have another chance for a long long time.

There’s rumors that Kennedy will retire this year . They’ll definitely need to get someone on the court before November, if he does .

Link to comment
  • Admin Team

Folks would love for him to retire to make another Supreme Court appointment a midterm issue - getting out some who are likely to stay home otherwise.  

Kennedy more or less dismissed it earlier this year.  That’s not to say he couldn’t change his mind - or you could have another older justice pass away or retire.  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Folks would love for him to retire to make another Supreme Court appointment a midterm issue - getting out some who are likely to stay home otherwise.  

Kennedy more or less dismissed it earlier this year.  That’s not to say he couldn’t change his mind - or you could have another older justice pass away or retire.  

I nominate Guinsberg!

Seriously, I am so tired of the SC kicking this can down the danged road. Settle it for once!

Link to comment
  • Admin Team

She's 85, so it's certainly a possibility.  But, she's had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer and is still going strong - so she's about as tough as they come.

Heller and McDonald would be hard to undue - especially the longer they are on the books.  But, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is open to reasonable restrictions.  I hate to poke the hornet's nest when it doesn't need poking.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

She's 85, so it's certainly a possibility.  But, she's had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer and is still going strong - so she's about as tough as they come.

Heller and McDonald would be hard to undue - especially the longer they are on the books.  But, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is open to reasonable restrictions.  I hate to poke the hornet's nest when it doesn't need poking.

The wickard case has been on the books for nearly a century . Scalia had hinted that he wanted a crack at it before his demise, but the conservatives have been Leery about overturning long held precedents. The left leaning justices have shown no such hesitation in such . 

Link to comment
  • Admin Team
39 minutes ago, tntnixon said:

The wickard case has been on the books for nearly a century . Scalia had hinted that he wanted a crack at it before his demise, but the conservatives have been Leery about overturning long held precedents. The left leaning justices have shown no such hesitation in such . 

Wickard vs. Filburn gets overturned and this whole show falls apart.  

That’s why they offed him :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
  • Moderators
5 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Wickard vs. Filburn falls and this whole show falls apart.  

That’s why they offed him :)

 Well I know this was said in jest, I would also say that the amount of truth contained it is significant. Not about Scalia, of course. If Wickard were to fall I would say conservatively it would unravel a solid 30-50% of the federal government, if not more. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Chucktshoes said:

 Well I know this was said in jest, I would also say that the amount of truth contained it is significant. Not about Scalia, of course. If Wickard were to fall I would say conservatively it would unravel a solid 30-50% of the federal government, if not more. 

And this is bad ?

Link to comment
  • Moderators
3 minutes ago, tntnixon said:

And this is bad ?

 I am an anarchist, ultimately I believe it would be a good thing. On the other hand, don’t for a second think that it won’t be without a lot of serious pain all around. 

Link to comment
  • Admin Team
2 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 Well I know this was said in jest, I would also say that the amount of truth contained it is significant. Not about Scalia, of course. If Wickard were to fall I would say conservatively it would unravel a solid 30-50% of the federal government, if not more. 

I added the last sentence to add some levity to the first.  Since 1789, the federal government has been working to consolidate power.  It’s a long game, and each of the three branches have played a part. 

But, Wickard vs. Filburn is certainly one of the Judicial Branches most significant contributions.  

If you’ll remember the various firearms freedom acts from a few years ago - arguing that Wickard vs. Filburn was wrongly decided was one of its key arguments. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 I am an anarchist, ultimately I believe it would be a good thing. On the other hand, don’t for a second think that it won’t be without a lot of serious pain all around. 

And I’m a libertarian... sorta the same thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Admin Team
9 minutes ago, tntnixon said:

And this is bad ?

In the long run it might work out.  

But, empire is hard.  And so is freedom.  We’ve ceded way too much to the federal government.  Put another way - all of us depend on the government for too much.  

It could very well lead to a break up of the Union.  In the near to midterm if would be quite painful - likely causing a depressions nationally and globally. 

It would affect every man, woman, and child in America. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Moderators

Yep.  All the federal gun  laws, all of the drug laws, all of the USDA laws, almost every federal regulation in this country is built upon the basis of the commerce clause. Undoing Wickard what undo almost all of it.  There would be a lot of chaos, and a lot of layoffs.  I would venture that it would also trigger a constitutional amendment, if not a convention to redo the whole shebang. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

In the long run it might work out.  

But, empire is hard.  And so is freedom.  We’ve ceded way too much to the federal government.  Put another way - all of us depend on the government for too much.  

It could very well lead to a break up of the Union.  In the near to midterm if would be quite painful - likely causing a depressions nationally and globally. 

We survived long before wickard and we could do it again. The problem is the weaning from the teat.

Link to comment
  • Admin Team
2 hours ago, tntnixon said:

We survived long before wickard and we could do it again. The problem is the weaning from the teat.

In 1942 when Wickard was decided, global GDP was about $3 trillion dollars.  Today it’s a little north of $80 trillion dollars. 

Mind you, there are a lot of things at work here - but the foundation for most of that growth has been built on a stable, predictable American economy.  

The growth has happened in a short time historically - basically in a few generations. Think about that.  Until 1942, the collective value of every effort of man to that point in history was about $3 trillion dollars.  In a lifetime, we’ve grown to 25x that.  

We could go back.  

But it would mean a global reset. All bets are off if that happened. It would be painful. 

Link to comment

 The problem is that the effects have not been economic. The affects of this decision to have mostly been on a personal liberty level. And it’s allowed the government to intrude into our personal lives much more Dan into our finances. 

Link to comment

Man, you guys are good!  I studied Wickard  in law school at Kansas  way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.   (Boo, March Madness.....guess there's always next year!)

Seems to me our society would have to make a huuuge turn to the conservative side before we'd ever see SCOTUS unravel Wickard.  I just can't see the court doing something that momentous without the stage having been completely set. 

In other words, I see the court as following more than leading in matters like this.  And if they're following, I don't see where all the massive disruption would come from.

Am I missing something?   This is a fascinating topic.

 

 

Link to comment
  • Admin Team

I’d argue that both parties are just as dependent on Wickard at this point - as they’re two sides of the same coin - both serving their own interests over the people’s  

Wickard may be one of those rulings that we’ve simply moved too far to go back. It would take justices willing to set the whole system on fire to decide it was wrongly decided in ‘42.

As much as we decry the loss of freedom - the states have willingly ceded authority to the federal government.  What was originally a few bucks here and there has turned into a lot of states that wouldn’t be able to support basic services for its people if that happened. A lot of states here in the south would be at the top of that list.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment/ar-AAvyIYD?li=BBnbcA1 
Sounds like someone needs to tell this judge that a flintlock was an assault weapon in 1787. I'm getting so tired of this crap! 




Caetano opinion (2016)

Reaffirmed Heller/McDonald allows ownership of weapons in common use “today” and reprimanding Massachusetts Supreme Court for denying Heller by allowing a conviction of a woman who used a stun gun against a domestic abuser which was unlawful in Massachusetts because it was “not invented in 1789” - an argument the court in Heller found “bordering on frivolous”. Particularly relevant today since the same Massachusetts supreme court followed the same line of arguments to uphold the state “assault weapons ban”. Expect it to be overturned on appeal for the same reasons as Caetano.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hershmeister said:

 

 

 


Caetano opinion (2016)

Reaffirmed Heller/McDonald allows ownership of weapons in common use “today” and reprimanding Massachusetts Supreme Court for denying Heller by allowing a conviction of a woman who used a stun gun against a domestic abuser which was unlawful in Massachusetts because it was “not invented in 1789” - an argument the court in Heller found “bordering on frivolous”. Particularly relevant today since the same Massachusetts supreme court followed the same line of arguments to uphold the state “assault weapons ban”. Expect it to be overturned on appeal for the same reasons as Caetano.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I doubt they would issue a per curium order on this. I could be wrong 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, tntnixon said:

There’s rumors that Kennedy will retire this year . They’ll definitely need to get someone on the court before November, if he does .

I don't know how any of the liberal judges could retire in good conscience as long as Trump is around with a senate majority. They will hang on for dear life, I figure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.