3rd Circuit rules NJ AW/LCM bans unconstitutional!!

[Gawernator]

Did the roster go away? Did the 10 round mag limit go away? Did the AW "ban" here go away? Can I order barrels and ammo here without paying fees or jumping through hoops?

Can I build a semi auto AR pistol and show it to the cops?

I must have missed this.

Soon uncle

 

[grandpapeepap]

people always forget the guns banned by name too, both at the state level and federal, and ones for "no sporting purpose"

 

[Gawernator]

people always forget the guns banned by name too, both at the state level and federal, and ones for "no sporting purpose"

bro why are your democrat buddies trying to keep the bans in place

 

[grandpapeepap]

bro why are your democrat buddies trying to keep the bans in place

they like to keep the ones enacted by HW and reagan to say "see gop does it too"

 

[Gawernator]

they like to keep the ones enacted by HW and reagan to say "see gop does it too"

those are dinosaurs your whataboutism won't work on me

 

[grandpapeepap]

those are dinosaurs your whataboutism won't work on me

oh i thought we were vibin since you said my democrat buddies. my bad read it wrong.

 

[ar15robert]

we are past that, the supreme court is going to hear our cases

I know and thats the only way they will get overturned.Hopefully you guys win that one too,

But i wouldnt doubt the lawmakers there make another attempt at a ban or restriction right after just reworded and start the fight all over again.Look at the microstamping aint it set to come back in 28?Ca has a reputation for defying the courts which i hope the feds actually start to arrest and charge the ones doing so starting with the ag.

 

[morningbird]

ITT: California hopeless calling for the feds. We live in strange times…

 

[dvoncock]

It’s shockingly rare a Democrat judge actually follows the constitution these days. Good on her. And this is all thanks to the Supreme Court ruling she cites

Framing judges as Democrats or Republicans based on who appointed them isn’t a useful exercise. Controversial/hot button cases get all the attention. But when it comes to wonky, below-the-radar cases, there are lots of (nearly) unanimous decisions or splits that don’t fall along conservative-liberal lines. For instance, back in the day Scalia and Ginsberg voted together just as often as they voted in opposition, and were famously very good friends.

The vitriol directed at Barrett over the birth right citizenship issue is a good example of why viewing justices as “ours” or “theirs” isn’t useful. You cannot and should not expect judges to interpret the law a certain way because you desire a particular result. Freeman’s opinion in Weinberg is also a good example. ACB wrote an opinion based on 150+ years of jurisprudence analyzing the Civil War amendments and Freeman wrote an opinion that simply applied Bruen; neither was, frankly, that surprising.

I’ve been saying ever sense Bruen was published that—unlike Heller or McDonald—it represented a paradigm shift that would reshape firearms regulation for decades.

 

[RustVendor]

Framing judges as Democrats or Republicans based on who appointed them isn’t a useful exercise. Controversial/hot button cases get all the attention. But when it comes to wonky, below-the-radar cases, there are lots of (nearly) unanimous decisions or splits that don’t fall along conservative-liberal lines. For instance, back in the day Scalia and Ginsberg voted together just as often as they voted in opposition, and were famously very good friends.

The vitriol directed at Barrett over the birth right citizenship issue is a good example of why viewing justices as “ours” or “theirs” isn’t useful. You cannot and should not expect judges to interpret the law a certain way because you desire a particular result. Freeman’s opinion in Weinberg is also a good example. ACB wrote an opinion based on 150+ years of jurisprudence analyzing the Civil War amendments and Freeman wrote an opinion that simply applied Bruen; neither was, frankly, that surprising.

I’ve been saying ever sense Bruen was published that—unlike Heller or McDonald—it represented a paradigm shift that would reshape firearms regulation for decades.

One of the biggest issues with out political landscape is that people actually think that politics is linear; right vs left means the ideas are necessarily opposite and being in the middle means equal parts of the two. But that's complete nonsense obviously. The partisanship as a team sport is exhausting and unproductive. Most people want the same things they just have different manifestations, they aren't inherently opposite they are just different. I'll say something that is surely wildly unpopular here, but when a run-of-the-mill Democrat want to restrict guns they do it because they want to be safe and keep guns away from criminals. But you see those same people warming up to self defense arguments when they feel unsafe. The people like us that are comfortable and enthusiastic about guns also want to be safe and keep guns away from criminals, they are choosing a different tactic to get there. But which group is actually more safe? only time can tell but the reality is that most of America is pretty safe even with a lot of guns available and is probably more a result of income inequality than anything else.

Even in Bruen we see the linear ideology break down because Kavanaugh's opinion explicitly allows permitting regimes to remain in place. This applies to our CCW system but also to NY's permitting that is required to have a firearm AT ALL. That's here to stay, it's already been to the SC and back and they are fine with psych exams and huge fees.

 

[Gawernator]

Framing judges as Democrats or Republicans based on who appointed them isn’t a useful exercise. Controversial/hot button cases get all the attention. But when it comes to wonky, below-the-radar cases, there are lots of (nearly) unanimous decisions or splits that don’t fall along conservative-liberal lines. For instance, back in the day Scalia and Ginsberg voted together just as often as they voted in opposition, and were famously very good friends.

The vitriol directed at Barrett over the birth right citizenship issue is a good example of why viewing justices as “ours” or “theirs” isn’t useful. You cannot and should not expect judges to interpret the law a certain way because you desire a particular result. Freeman’s opinion in Weinberg is also a good example. ACB wrote an opinion based on 150+ years of jurisprudence analyzing the Civil War amendments and Freeman wrote an opinion that simply applied Bruen; neither was, frankly, that surprising.

I’ve been saying ever sense Bruen was published that—unlike Heller or McDonald—it represented a paradigm shift that would reshape firearms regulation for decades.

Tell that to the ninth circuit. lol. Judges have been increasingly polarized where in the past it wasn’t that way.

 

[dvoncock]

Tell that to the ninth circuit. lol. Judges have been increasingly polarized where in the past it wasn’t that way.

It started when Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis for the Supreme Court in 1916. Before that, confirmation hearings had never been held for judicial nominees. The Senate demanded a hearing because Brandeis was an “unusual” nominee (ie, Jewish). That injected partisan politics into the process, which has been terrible IMO.

 

[GoldensRule]

It started when Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis for the Supreme Court in 1916. Before that, confirmation hearings had never been held for judicial nominees. The Senate demanded a hearing because Brandeis was an “unusual” nominee (ie, Jewish). That injected partisan politics into the process, which has been terrible IMO.

God, I love when people actually know American history or care enough to look it up!

 

[RustVendor]

Tell that to the ninth circuit. lol. Judges have been increasingly polarized where in the past it wasn’t that way.

You are just saying that because you disagree with their outcomes. If you agreed with them you would say they are working as intended. I don't think there has ever been a magical time where the people in charge had no bias. look at cases like Dred Scott or Plessy.

 

[Gawernator]

You are just saying that because you disagree with their outcomes. If you agreed with them you would say they are working as intended. I don't think there has ever been a magical time where the people in charge had no bias. look at cases like Dred Scott or Plessy.

Not all of us are anti gun. Objectively they ignore the constitution.

And nah you’re wrong, in the past it was much less polarized, judges were often nominated by opposite parties unlike today. Just google it

 

[RustVendor]

Not all of us are anti gun. Objectively they ignore the constitution.

And nah you’re wrong, in the past it was much less polarized, judges were often nominated by opposite parties unlike today. Just google it

That started in 2016 when McConnell blocked Merrick Garland, ever since then it's fallen on party lines

 

[dvoncock]

That started in 2016 when McConnell blocked Merrick Garland, ever since then it's fallen on party lines

McConnell’s blocking of Garland was definitely an escalation because it defied all norms. But there were gnarly nomination hearings before that. When Regan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987, the hearings were brutal because of Bork’s role in the Saturday Night Massacre when he was Nixon’s Solicitor General. Thomas’s nomination hearing was also famously rough because of his (earned) reputation as a sex pest creeper.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Not all of us are anti gun. Objectively they ignore the constitution.

And nah you’re wrong, in the past it was much less polarized, judges were often nominated by opposite parties unlike today. Just google it

so true bestie only those darn rascal "s" ignore the constitution

 

[Gawernator]

so true bestie only those darn rascal "s" ignore the constitution

Amen borther

 

[grandpapeepap]