Scotus lets AWB stand in NY and CT

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/assault-weapons-ban-supreme-court-224538

The court’s decision Monday to reject separate challenges to each state’s law leaves in place measures that ban weapons like the one used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 20 children and six faculty members dead. Those laws also prohibit the sale of the type of gun used by terrorist Omar Mateen to kill 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/assault-weapons-ban-supreme-court-224538#ixzz4C8Pp34NN
Click to expand...

I think that this reinforces my view (oh, I'm so smart :p) that Heller had a terrible flaw in it. Also, as in other threads, the EBR/MSR debate is not won by the lame PR nice gun strategy. Can be it won at all? Interesting question for the future.

However, if there ever was a new Federal AWB, don't count on the SCOTUS rescuing that part of the RKBA.
 
Annoying, but ultimately it leaves us no worse off than we were before. We're still fighting this battle in the legislatures on both federal and state levels- that is no different.
 
Disagree, as I see the court lately stacking up precedents for diminishing rights.

The recent decision on concealed carry at the circuit level and these SCOTUS actions start to build up an atmosphere of increasing 'reasonable' restrictions.

If Heller just means that you get a SW Model 10, bolt action rifle and O/U shotgun at home - AND this can be eventually enforced on the federal level, we really didn't make progress.

Yes, the defense is the legislature on the state and fed level but folks always liked to yell that 'Shall Not Be Infringed' was like Billy Batson yelling Shazam to become Captain Marvel to save the day. Well, SCOTUS ain't shazaming for us.

Since there are rumbles that Thomas might retire - guess what.

PS - discussion elsewhere suggests that it might be better for cases not to reach the SCOTUS to avoid the negative decision. That was the fear in the original Heller case.

Not a bad point and Frank Ettin has made it. It might be good for progun folks not to push constitutional level challenges at this time and rely more on state legislatures and blocking Federal actions in Congress.
 
They just refused to hear the cases, correct? In that case, I think it might be better than them taking the case due to the current makeup of the court.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
Disagree, as I see the court lately stacking up precedents for diminishing rights.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the Caetano brush back of lower courts, that's effectively true.

Heller was as flawed as the court that announced it. The Heller minority seem firm in their conviction that the 2d Am. isn't the sort of individual right other fundamental rights are, and that the language of the ACA isn't actually a constraint on implementation of the ACA. Kennedy swings both ways, but he has for a long time. Thomas, Scalia and Alito seem firm in their analyses.

It is difficult to escape the sense that Roberts' will fudge a conclusion to serve political ends.
 
It is difficult to escape the sense that Roberts' will fudge a conclusion to serve political ends
Click to expand...

Yes, as a casual observer it seems Roberts doesn’t want the Court to be the final arbitrator in a lot if situations. I know he has commented that while he disagrees with certain issues he feels it is the job of the Legislature to fix it and not the Court. I’m not sure how it is supposed to be in a theoretical sense, but it seems in a more practical sense the Court is the final word.
 
zukiphile said:
Thomas, Scalia and Alito seem firm in their analyses.
Click to expand...

I don't think Justice Scalia is very firm in any respect these days, as he's no longer among the living.

Since his death, it's been widely noted that that the Supreme Court is "punting" on cases involving high-profile issues, either by refusing to hear them or by explicitly sending them back to the lower courts. In the short run, it allows the side which "wins" as a result of the court ducking these issues to claim a victory, but in the long run, this strategy seems wise, given how messy it would be to have 4-4 ties on these issues.

Yet again, this shows the irresponsibility of the Senate's current, unconstitutional "hold our breath until we turn blue" stance on holding hearings on President Obama's nominee.
 
Evan Thomas said:
Yet again, this shows the irresponsibility of the Senate's current, unconstitutional "hold our breath until we turn blue" stance on holding hearings on President Obama's nominee.
Click to expand...

COTUS said:
...[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, ...
Click to expand...

It appears to be within the contemplation of the COTUS for the Senate to withhold consent to appoint.
 
BarryLee said:
Yes, as a casual observer it seems Roberts doesn’t want the Court to be the final arbitrator in a lot if situations.
Click to expand...

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it makes virtually every government policy Constitutional.
 
zukiphile said:
COTUS said:
...[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, ...
Click to expand...
It appears to be within the contemplation of the COTUS for the Senate to withhold consent to appoint.
Click to expand...

Of course it's within the power of the Senate to withhold consent; otherwise the concept of consent is meaningless. However, the constitution does not authorize them to refuse to engage in the process outlined in Article II.
 
Evan Thomas said:
Of course it's within the power of the Senate to withhold consent; otherwise the concept of consent is meaningless. However, the constitution does not authorize them to refuse to engage in the process outlined in Article II.
Click to expand...

Since the COTUS doesn't require engagement in a specific process it does by its silence authorize them to take their current course.

Art. II doesn't mandate a process, but recites the President's power to nominate. Art. II doesn't require the Senate to take any action in response.
 
Art. II doesn't require the Senate to take any action in response.
Click to expand...

I will take your word for it, I am no expert on that subject. But I do think it is a mistake not to at least start the process. Not starting is nothing but a political move and I believe there will be price to pay later.
 
I will take your word for it, I am no expert on that subject. But I do think it is a mistake not to at least start the process. Not starting is nothing but a political move and I believe there will be price to pay later.
Click to expand...

You are right. Refusing to have hearings on a BHO nominee is a political move. BHO's nomination was a political move. The decision of some senators not to see the nominee was a political move. Garland's effort to see individual senators was a political move.

It's all politics, not just politics on behalf of the senate.


What cause is advanced by holding hearings on BHO's nominee? So long as there is no vote on the nominee, there is a 0% chance he will be confirmed. Hold hearings, and the weak kneed may peel off and look for a vote. That could only increase the chances of his confirmation.
 
What cause is advanced by holding hearings on BHO's nominee?
Click to expand...

I believe many, including myself, think our elected officials are willfully negligent in performing the duties they were elected to perform.

I think this is one subject that can be readily used as an example of some officials obstructing the governmental process. I believe very few people know or care if not holding hearings is within their legal purview. They just want things to get done and are frustrated when they are not. So, the price to pay is further degradation of the public trust in our elected officials. I do not think the officials that will be affected can afford much more loss of trust at this time.
 
Chaz said:
I believe many, including myself, think our elected officials are willfully negligent in performing the duties they were elected to perform.
Click to expand...

Part of the Senate's duty is to frustrate executive action. That's the "check" in "checks and balances".

Chaz said:
I think this is one subject that can be readily used as an example of some officials obstructing the governmental process.
Click to expand...

Obstruction is one of the most important features of our government. I would like to see more of it more often.

Chaz said:
I believe very few people know or care if not holding hearings is within their legal purview. They just want things to get done and are frustrated when they are not.
Click to expand...

What is it they want to see done? They want to seal the death of Heller? They want the ACA repealed? They want a vote on the gun ban of the day? "Repeal" Sarbanes-Oxley?

What is it the Senate is supposed to do that would leave us better off?

Chaz said:
So, the price to pay is further degradation of the public trust in our elected officials. I do not think the officials that will be affected can afford much more loss of trust at this time.
Click to expand...

You aren't supposed to trust them. You are supposed to watch them and demand that they do the right thing. Blocking BHO's lock on the court strikes me as the right thing for the senate to do.
 
zukiphile said:
Art. II doesn't require the Senate to take any action in response.
Click to expand...
On the level of technicalities/semantics, it's a point that's debatable, and one I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument. I doubt, however, that the current situation is one the framers of the constitution could have imagined or considered desirable.
 
zukiphile
Click to expand...

I tried very hard to leave room to read between the lines of how this could be a bad thing. I can not make my point clearer without going way over the line on forum rules. So, at this point, I will drop it.
 
Chaz, I have little doubt that your sentiment on this is anything but rare.

If an office holder can't stand and fight when it matters, why would he bother to hold the office?

Evan Thomas said:
On the level of technicalities/semantics, it's a point that's debatable, and one I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument. I doubt, however, that the current situation is one the framers of the constitution could have imagined or considered desirable.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the framers would not have foreseen the current demand for hearings, since the Senate didn't hold hearings on nominees until most of the framers were dead for about a century.
 
If an office holder can't stand and fight when it matters, why would he bother to hold the office?
Click to expand...

OK, I have not dropped it yet. :)

Because I would like those office holders to stay in office. I think on this issue at this time, because of how it can be spun, there is a better way to handle it and still achieve a desirable result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top