Pretty much, yes. There might be some small changes or differences but nothing radically different than now.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AR-15s Before Supreme Court - Kolbe v Maryland
- Thread starter steve4102
- Start date
Pretty much, yes. There might be some small changes or differences but nothing radically different than now.
ATN our current rights would be very different if the Heller decision said that only firearms issued to active NG members were protected by the 2A. That interpretation is a popular one in many circles. While imperfect, Heller was a victory for our right to keep and bear arms. Leaving the states free to define what we can keep and bear allows for restrictions that go well beyond the intent of the amendment, but I can legally carry a concealed handgun in Illinois as a direct result of Heller.
I think Frank Ettin is right that in the current climate rolling the dice is a risky gamble.
I think Frank Ettin is right that in the current climate rolling the dice is a risky gamble.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, between 1939 and 2007, SCOTUS did not hear any challenges on Second Amendment grounds. So much so that by the time Heller nee Parker came around, the 5th Circuit and D.C. Circuit were the only two courts of appeal left that hadn’t ruled the Second as a collective right.
So we’ve certainly come back from worse. However, my big concern is that universal background checks/registration gets pushed through Congress before any type of SCOTUS rulings treating the Second comparable to the First or Fourth. If that happens, it will be Chamberlain’s choice between war and dishonor.
So we’ve certainly come back from worse. However, my big concern is that universal background checks/registration gets pushed through Congress before any type of SCOTUS rulings treating the Second comparable to the First or Fourth. If that happens, it will be Chamberlain’s choice between war and dishonor.
Until the SCOTUS gets a conservative replacement for one of the liberal justices on the Court, I wouldn't role the dice, because I don't trust Kennedy. And the lower courts show that the anti-gun judges will resort to some outright crazy reasoning to uphold these gun control laws. I really wish Scalia had singled out the AR-15 as an example of a Constitutionally-protected weapon.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
Scalia really could have gone all day without saying any of this. It absolutely SHOULD have been objected that banning militarily-useful rifles is contrary to the second and that should have happened in a subsequent case and been considered at that time.
publius said:Scalia really could have gone all day without saying any of this. It absolutely SHOULD have been objected that banning militarily-useful rifles is contrary to the second and that should have happened in a subsequent case and been considered at that time.
What if there weren't a fifth vote for that?
If the NFA were invalidated by Scalia's opinion, it almost certainly would have been a minority opinion. You may recall from oral argument that the solicitor general made it clear that his office opposed the DC ban at issue in Heller, but did not seek invalidation of the NFA.
Gura also made it plain that the NFA was beyond his argument.
brian33x51
New member
When it comes down to it the states need to step in and force the the government to uphold the contract of the constitution or recognize that the contract has been irrevocably broken and act to protect their citizens. Its unfortunate that IMHO the federal income tax and popular election of senators together effectively broke the back of the states' power against the federal government. As my mother pointed out (german immigrant) the US is now more of a democracy now than some of the european nations.
The courts will always be left. That's the nature of the rank and file that have been coming out of law schools.
The courts will always be left. That's the nature of the rank and file that have been coming out of law schools.
Psychedelic Bang
New member
The courts will always be left. That's the nature of the rank and file that have been coming out of law schools.
A well educated sober society is a free society. A poorly educated, addicted society is an enslaved society.
My father was a lawyer. A great lawyer. Not sure if those types of lawyers exist anymore. You are correct in your assumption that the lack of great lawyers is in essence a danger to our rights.
Government always wants a society to control - goes straight back to the 2nd Amendment - the security of a free state. When society disarms, the result is: a state secured under government control.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Research demonstrates, as I have said before, that justices of all ilk vote their personal beliefs but then search past precedents or interpretations to justify their politics. It is not just a characteristic of the left.
To the basic debate, the rhetoric and what might have been on Heller on votes, etc. does not negate the fact that Scalia (interpreted correctly or not) is used to justify state bans that clearly should be unconstitutional and these precedents are becoming stronger.
Positive behavioral outcomes of Heller besides rhetoric vs. negative usage of the decision will decide it the case was ill-advised and whether the follow ups are ill-advised.
To the basic debate, the rhetoric and what might have been on Heller on votes, etc. does not negate the fact that Scalia (interpreted correctly or not) is used to justify state bans that clearly should be unconstitutional and these precedents are becoming stronger.
Positive behavioral outcomes of Heller besides rhetoric vs. negative usage of the decision will decide it the case was ill-advised and whether the follow ups are ill-advised.
Glenn E Meyer said:Research demonstrates, as I have said before, that justices of all ilk vote their personal beliefs but then search past precedents or interpretations to justify their politics. It is not just a characteristic of the left.
The research can't demonstrate that since the researchers just choose the conclusions they prefer then build the model that will justify their personal conclusions, right?
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well Glenn, I know we've had this conversation before. Everytime you mention Scalia's verbage, I feel like I haven't explained my view adequately; but we may just disagree.
I'd suggest that if you need to preserve some aspects of 1939-2007 gun regulation to get that crucial fifth vote, then the golden fleece is ambiguous dicta that gets you that fifth vote and allows lower courts to quote dicta without doing any real judicial analysis. That's doubly true if you have a Second Amendment case brought up before the Court is ready to take it.
In the short term, that will be a loss; but if you can get pro-2A people appointed, that is a strategy that pays off long-term because it stunts the growth of anti-2A judicial review and advances the Second, albeit very slowly.
As you've pointed out, it is also a good political sell since the only way that strategy pans out successfully is by an ability to appoint more pro-2A justices over decades, which means control of at least the White House and Senate by pro-2A folks.
I'd suggest that if you need to preserve some aspects of 1939-2007 gun regulation to get that crucial fifth vote, then the golden fleece is ambiguous dicta that gets you that fifth vote and allows lower courts to quote dicta without doing any real judicial analysis. That's doubly true if you have a Second Amendment case brought up before the Court is ready to take it.
In the short term, that will be a loss; but if you can get pro-2A people appointed, that is a strategy that pays off long-term because it stunts the growth of anti-2A judicial review and advances the Second, albeit very slowly.
As you've pointed out, it is also a good political sell since the only way that strategy pans out successfully is by an ability to appoint more pro-2A justices over decades, which means control of at least the White House and Senate by pro-2A folks.
Research demonstrates, as I have said before, that justices of all ilk vote their personal beliefs but then search past precedents or interpretations to justify their politics. It is not just a characteristic of the left.
To the basic debate, the rhetoric and what might have been on Heller on votes, etc. does not negate the fact that Scalia (interpreted correctly or not) is used to justify state bans that clearly should be unconstitutional and these precedents are becoming stronger.
Positive behavioral outcomes of Heller besides rhetoric vs. negative usage of the decision will decide it the case was ill-advised and whether the follow ups are ill-advised.
I've always maintained that unelected bureaucrats and judges have done far more damage to this country than politicians. While, technically, politicians could deal with rogue bureaucrats and judges, they rarely do as their actions/decisions are usually supported by one of the two main political parties.
62coltnavy
New member
Petition for Cert DENIED.
armoredman
New member
Let stand a Circuit Court ruling that rifles in common use for 50+ years are not protected under the 2A. I wonder what they are waiting for and why there was zero public commentary from the justices?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Well, folks I have my world view on this but appreciate the interchange. I am just frustrated on the behavioral outcomes which have been less than up to my expectations. Are they unrealistic, perhaps?
That depends on the research. That idea is well known in the philosophy and history of science.
It seems to be a facet though, of choosing justices whose writings and utterances are scoured to see if they pass litmus tests on politically loaded items. A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
Do judges come from a class of intellects whose decisions are based on a neutral and almost mathematical analysis of the law or are they individuals who decisions are based on their emotional and cognitive abilities. The latter decisions processes are filtered through the former - as happens in almost all decision making. Are they the exception, I doubt it.
The research can't demonstrate that since the researchers just choose the conclusions they prefer then build the model that will justify their personal conclusions, right?
That depends on the research. That idea is well known in the philosophy and history of science.
It seems to be a facet though, of choosing justices whose writings and utterances are scoured to see if they pass litmus tests on politically loaded items. A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
Do judges come from a class of intellects whose decisions are based on a neutral and almost mathematical analysis of the law or are they individuals who decisions are based on their emotional and cognitive abilities. The latter decisions processes are filtered through the former - as happens in almost all decision making. Are they the exception, I doubt it.
Glenn E Meyer said:Well, folks I have my world view on this but appreciate the interchange.
As do I. I find your application of the idea literally anti-intellectual, but the disagreement isn't personal.
Glenn E Meyer said:That depends on the research.The research can't demonstrate that since the researchers just choose the conclusions they prefer then build the model that will justify their personal conclusions, right?
That's special pleading. It can't depend on the research if the reasoning process is an after-wrtiiten fig leaf for fundamentally irrational urges.
If you believe that people arrive at their positions emotionally then cobble together a reasoning to support that conclusion so that you can dismiss categorically the reasoning set forth in Sup Ct decisions, that same process can't only apply to some research.
Every attorney has read result oriented jurisprudence; a court decides which party should win, then mangles the caselaw and code to get where it wants to go. For a high profile decision in which that happened, I would recommend the Bush/Gore decision of the FL Sup Ct. It's a wreck.
Yet, that isn't what all judges do in all cases. There is a distance in professional analysis that allows one to tell his own client which parts of his case are terrible and why he should settle rather than lose.
Is all psychological research just the emotional ramblings of the researchers, or do you have some kind of responsibility to deal with the text of writing before you dismiss it, even if a judge wrote it?
Glenn E Meyer said:A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
That isn't actually so. Lots of people have ideas on that topic that won't fit on a bumpersticker.
Glenn E Meyer said:That idea is well known in the philosophy and history of science.
That idea is significantly more complex than the one you've presented. Kuhn's ideas about scientific revolutions describe a cognitive process by which shifting assumptions change what one can perceive. His framework builds on Gadamer and Berkeley and philosophical idealism generally. None if it is the facile dismissal of conclusions you dislike as mere "gut opposition".
Glenn E Meyer said:Do judges come from a class of intellects whose decisions are based on a neutral and almost mathematical analysis of the law or are they individuals who decisions are based on their emotional and cognitive abilities. The latter decisions processes are filtered through the former - as happens in almost all decision making. Are they the exception, I doubt it.
I understand that you doubt it, especially when you disagree with a decision. To doubt that a writer lacks emotions on an issue is reasonable. To attribute an antipathy to a writer in order to dismiss his reasoning isn't.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
Only until they are appointed. Then they can be whatever they like...
Psychedelic Bang
New member
As do I. I find your application of the idea literally anti-intellectual, but the disagreement isn't personal.
That's special pleading. It can't depend on the research if the reasoning process is an after-wrtiiten fig leaf for fundamentally irrational urges.
If you believe that people arrive at their positions emotionally then cobble together a reasoning to support that conclusion so that you can dismiss categorically the reasoning set forth in Sup Ct decisions, that same process can only apply to some research.
Every attorney has read result oriented jurisprudence; a court decides which party should win, then mangles the caselaw and code to get where it wants to go. For a high profile decision in which that happened, I would recommend the Bush/Gore decision of the FL Sup Ct. It's a wreck.
Yet, that isn't what all judges do in all cases. There is a distance in professional analysis that allows one to tell his own client which parts of his case are terrible and why he should settle rather than lose.
Is all psychological research just the emotional ramblings of the researchers, or do you have some kind of responsibility to deal with the text of writing before you dismiss it, even if a judge wrote it?
That isn't actually so. Lots of people have ideas on that topic that won't fit on a bumpersticker.
That idea is significantly more complex than the one you've presented. Kuhn's ideas about scientific revolutions describe a cognitive process by which shifting assumptions change what one can perceive. His framework builds on Gadamer and Berkeley and philosophical idealism generally. None if it is the facile dismissal of conclusions you dislike as mere "gut opposition".
I understand that you doubt it, especially when you disagree with a decision. To doubt that a writer lacks emotions on an issue is reasonable. To attribute an antipathy to a writer in order to dismiss his reasoning isn't.
If you read the decision closely.. It is a double edged sword, whether you want to believe it or not.
"The 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right." "The right to bear arms is not a protection of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
In theory, once appointed they are supposed to be pro-law, irrespective of their personal feelings and/or opinions.Bartholomew Roberts said:Only until they are appointed. Then they can be whatever they like...A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
But that's only in theory.