DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[han_solo]

It only takes five people on the SCOTUS bench to marginalize or invalidate virtually any right you think you might have, it's sad, but true. Additionally, every single right enumerated in the constitution and all the amendments are equal, none are more sacrosanct than the others. That means they are all open to interpretation by the courts and ultimately SCOTUS.

You cannot interpret what is not there the text is plain and clear . Shall not be infringed. No change the amendment or shhhhhhh .

 

[shroom]

Who decides what an infringement is and isn't? (SCOTUS does.) The 2nd does not mean that all gun control is illegal, SCOTUS has upheld gun control many times.

 

[NedSled]

It only takes five people on the SCOTUS bench to marginalize or invalidate virtually any right you think you might have, it's sad, but true. Additionally, every single right enumerated in the constitution and all the amendments are equal, none are more sacrosanct than the others. That means they are all open to interpretation by the courts and ultimately SCOTUS.

This is probably the most accurate and reasonable statement in this whole thread.

Probably.

I ain't reading the whole thing to take an accurate survey.

You don't have to like it... but it's true.

 

[NedSled]

You cannot interpret what is not there the text is plain and clear . Shall not be infringed. No change the amendment or shhhhhhh .

There's about 230 years of various SCOTUS justices making decisions on the interpretation of the constitution and what it all means, affecting all our inalienable rights... and then we've got pretty much every gun forum full of people with their fingers in their ears shouting "Nyah nyah can't hear you" when that fact is pointed out.

I know which one I take more seriously when it comes to constitutionality of things.

Again, you don't gotta LIKE it... but it is a fact of this country.

 

[couragewolf]

There's about 230 years of various SCOTUS justices making decisions on the interpretation of the constitution and what it all means, affecting all our inalienable rights... and then we've got pretty much every gun forum full of people with their fingers in their ears shouting "Nyah nyah can't hear you" when that fact is pointed out.

I know which one I take more seriously when it comes to constitutionality of things.

Again, you don't gotta LIKE it... but it is a fact of this country.

I mean, the executive sure has a lot of enforcement interpretation they can influence

 

[skb720]

The late supreme court justice John Paul Stevens supposedly told a group of law students many years ago during a constitutional law lecture..."The Constitution is what 5 of us on the court Say it is..."

 

[Warpspeed]

Um yes one did .. He is recognized in the statements . Where do you think all men are created equal comes from ..

That statement does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Constitutional rights are conditional here. That means you have them as long as the federal government approves.

 

[han_solo]

Constitutional rights are conditional here. That means you have them as long as the federal government approves.

That depends on your disposition . Thomas jefferson once said . A man will live under exactly as much tyranny as he will allow . I do not allow any ... Lol

 

[bbp00]

The inalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence are: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Unfortunately, the DOI is NOT codified law.

You have to learn the meaning of "inalienable rights", also known as "natural rights". You also need to stop taking things out of context.
The relevant sentence is: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These "inalienable rights" are retained by people and protected by 9th amendment.

 

[MattB]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for the sake of sleeping well at night and not completely spinning out, it's good to try to keep perspective...



Just because you THINK they are your civil rights, doesn't mean they are.

Just because you want legislation, or even the constitution, to be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean everyone else does.

"The government" is not some big faceless corporation in which none of us have a say. At least it's not supposed to be...though I guess a lot of people think it should be run like a for profit business now (yikes).

Some group of US sent everyone one of these politicians to Sacramento, Washington DC, etc. Whether directly by voting for them, or indirectly by not doing enough to organize for the other guy.

So long as we have fair and free elections in this country, "The government" is elected by your fellow countrymen.

If the decision comes down and the legislation you don't like remains the law of the land, the simple truth remains: that not enough of your fellow countrymen agree with you for change to happen right now. Or...maybe...people agree with you, but they care MORE about a lot of other things and vote accordingly, and then don't care enough to dedicate themselves to organizing.

Either way, you get to the same place: Maybe it's what YOU want. Maybe it's what everyone you know wants. But you clearly don't know enough people because...by the votes...it's not what MOST want.

If the overreaching government tyranny being suggested here was actually the case (ie the majority of California voters want looser restrictions, yet the government is tightening) it would be very puzzling that California voters just voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to gerrymander the state to the max for democrats.

I completely disagree. The constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. It does not say “shall not be infringed except when the Democrat party says so”. California’s laws are unconstitutional, and I sure as heck don’t need to be a lawyer to know that.

 

[couragewolf]

That depends on your disposition . Thomas jefferson once said . A man will live under exactly as much tyranny as he will allow . I do not allow any ... Lol

Lemme know how that works out the next time you think you have a 4th ammendment right at one of the many border patrol checkpoints they’ve setup.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

some of these people have never driven through Texas

 

[jesse]

Dude...wtf is this thread about anymore, I just clicked on it to see about any updates regarding the magazine ban

For real lol

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Hyperbole much? Do people in your echo chamber really believe this sort of thing? I thought you Democrats supported the rule of law. Are you just lying when you say that?

Democrats used to understand the difference between LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration . . .

View attachment 116811

View attachment 116812

What happened to you folks? Seriously, what changed?

And if you REALLY think this is what’s happening, why on Earth would you continue to vote for people who are actively trying to disarm you?

I cannot square the idea that one believes that tyranny is upon us while simultaneously voting to limit your ability to combat it.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I cannot square the idea that one believes that tyranny is upon us while simultaneously voting to limit your ability to combat it.

thats the thing I explained several messages above, not liking the federal GOP platform does not mean you like the state Dem one and voted for it. Ill bet you could count actual Dem voters on two hands on this forum.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

thats the thing I explained several messages above, not liking the federal GOP platform does not mean you like the state Dem one and voted for it. Ill bet you could count actual Dem voters on two hands on this forum.

But thats the thing... Red states generally don't limit what we are talking about, particularly in 2025 and beyond. The Federal Government while currently is supporting the NFA is not currently attempting to limit the amount of guns, types of guns, tax you EXTRA on guns and ammo, regulate NON regulated items etc.

 

[Dvrjon]

Dude...wtf is this thread about anymore, I just clicked on it to see about any updates regarding the magazine ban

For real lol

Post #1 is regularly updated.

For those not following along, the case is scheduled for SCOTUS conference on Dec 5.

 

[exnds]

If SCOTUS does take this case will we all be friends again and do a big Kumbaya?

 

[Warpspeed]

A reminder - The title of this thread is

DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition​

If you post something that is completely unrelated, it may vanish - Fair warning


You all thought I was playing.