Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Sordhau]

Or not.

Why not?

Because we should pursue revolution instead of reform.

Seize the means of production, y'know?

[American Legionaries]

Or not.

Why not?

Because I doubt a commie would recognize proper reformation if it put them in prison.

[Thermodolia]

I've just been hearing about this, but apparently HR2818 (the repeal of PLCAA) and HR1808 ("Assault Weapons" ban) have been tabled, because apparently the Democrats no longer think they have enough support in the House to pass it.

Probably scared that if they pass it they’ll lose the senate. Happened before

[Thomasi]

I've just been hearing about this, but apparently HR2818 (the repeal of PLCAA) and HR1808 ("Assault Weapons" ban) have been tabled, because apparently the Democrats no longer think they have enough support in the House to pass it.

Probably scared that if they pass it they’ll lose the senate. Happened before

Yep if we get our 53-47 or 52-48 senate the AWB will return.

[Thermodolia]

Probably scared that if they pass it they’ll lose the senate. Happened before

Yep if we get our 53-47 or 52-48 senate the AWB will return.

That’s not going to happen because the house is most likely going R.

[Thomasi]

Yep if we get our 53-47 or 52-48 senate the AWB will return.

That’s not going to happen because the house is most likely going R.

Not with Trump still essentially on the ballot democrats will turnout in force.

[Galloism]

That’s not going to happen because the house is most likely going R.

Not with Trump still essentially on the ballot democrats will turnout in force.

Your optimism notwithstanding, we have significant countervailing forces here and the election in the fall is in *severe* doubt either way.

You've got the economic troubles which will push people R, but the Supreme Court nuking Roe v. Wade will push people to D. It's going to be very interesting in November to see which is the greater force.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yep if we get our 53-47 or 52-48 senate the AWB will return.

That’s not going to happen because the house is most likely going R.

Or it gets shit canned by the courts since it pretty much bans common use firearms, and now with the standard being strict scrutiny, the new law would fail the test.
If an obama appointed judge that just recently struck down a colorado's town awb as unconstitutional and stated it was unconstitutional under the new directive since bruen.

[Galloism]

That’s not going to happen because the house is most likely going R.

Or it gets shit canned by the courts since it pretty much bans common use firearms, and now with the standard being strict scrutiny, the new law would fail the test.
If an obama appointed judge that just recently struck down a colorado's town awb as unconstitutional and stated it was unconstitutional under the new directive since bruen.

Interestingly, it is entirely possible (but i'd like to qualify the severe doubt in any result in particular) that the republicans take the house but the democrats increase their lead in the senate, just because there's so many R seats up for reelection this year.

Which then gets us the split session bill option that could happen - the outgoing house passes a bill, and the incoming senate votes on the same bill, passing it as well.

Now, it would be almost instantly stayed under the new standard in Bruen, and likely struck down, but that is a thing that could happen.

[Thomasi]

That’s not going to happen because the house is most likely going R.

Or it gets shit canned by the courts since it pretty much bans common use firearms, and now with the standard being strict scrutiny, the new law would fail the test.
If an obama appointed judge that just recently struck down a colorado's town awb as unconstitutional and stated it was unconstitutional under the new directive since bruen.

The Supreme court only overturns congressional legislation when its in clear violation of the constitution like they can read in the constitution what they violated. That's because the constitution gives them zero power to overturn congressional legislation and the courts know it, so to keep their fake power, they don't like to upset congress.

[Grinning Dragon]

Or it gets shit canned by the courts since it pretty much bans common use firearms, and now with the standard being strict scrutiny, the new law would fail the test.
If an obama appointed judge that just recently struck down a colorado's town awb as unconstitutional and stated it was unconstitutional under the new directive since bruen.

Interestingly, it is entirely possible (but i'd like to qualify the severe doubt in any result in particular) that the republicans take the house but the democrats increase their lead in the senate, just because there's so many R seats up for reelection this year.

Which then gets us the split session bill option that could happen - the outgoing house passes a bill, and the incoming senate votes on the same bill, passing it as well.

Now, it would be almost instantly stayed under the new standard in Bruen, and likely struck down, but that is a thing that could happen.

I can see your point of view. I'm also thinking, the lower courts could as you say stay the law or strike it down entirely, so as to keep it from climbing the ladder to the USSC where I'm sure the Thomas would love another crack at killing even more anti gun laws and or taking a hatchet to chevron deference.

A while back I was reading an article on Thomas and a few of the other jurists' desire to correct a terrible ruling in Slaughter-House that pretty much gutted the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment, and they used Bruen as a vehicle to start that process.

[Grinning Dragon]

Or it gets shit canned by the courts since it pretty much bans common use firearms, and now with the standard being strict scrutiny, the new law would fail the test.
If an obama appointed judge that just recently struck down a colorado's town awb as unconstitutional and stated it was unconstitutional under the new directive since bruen.

The Supreme court only overturns congressional legislation when its in clear violation of the constitution like they can read in the constitution what they violated. That's because the constitution gives them zero power to overturn congressional legislation and the courts know it, so to keep their fake power, they don't like to upset congress.

Going all the way back to US v. Miller, the court has since then ruled that firearms that are in common use cannot be banned as such bans violate the 2nd Amendment. Dipshit nadler is on the record as saying that is the purpose of the bill to ban common use firearms. Basically nadler the fat fuck retard, just outted the whole bill as unconstitutional.

[Malacanos]

Why not?

Because we should pursue revolution instead of reform.

Seize the means of production, y'know?

That's very tempting these days, I confess. I'm not a Communist myself, but I can see why many lost patience with Kerensky.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Or it gets shit canned by the courts since it pretty much bans common use firearms, and now with the standard being strict scrutiny, the new law would fail the test.
If an obama appointed judge that just recently struck down a colorado's town awb as unconstitutional and stated it was unconstitutional under the new directive since bruen.

The Supreme court only overturns congressional legislation when its in clear violation of the constitution like they can read in the constitution what they violated. That's because the constitution gives them zero power to overturn congressional legislation and the courts know it, so to keep their fake power, they don't like to upset congress.

During a session of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted on record that firearms like the AR15 are firearms in common use, which in the DC v Heller case, the Supreme Court said couldn't be banned because it's unconstitutional.

[Thomasi]

The Supreme court only overturns congressional legislation when its in clear violation of the constitution like they can read in the constitution what they violated. That's because the constitution gives them zero power to overturn congressional legislation and the courts know it, so to keep their fake power, they don't like to upset congress.

During a session of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted on record that firearms like the AR15 are firearms in common use, which in the DC v Heller case, the Supreme Court said couldn't be banned because it's unconstitutional.

You do know there is precedent for congress passing a bill and putting in it that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the bill? The supreme court has no power over congress unless they allow it. The Supreme court knows this.

[Grinning Dragon]

During a session of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted on record that firearms like the AR15 are firearms in common use, which in the DC v Heller case, the Supreme Court said couldn't be banned because it's unconstitutional.

You do know there is precedent for congress passing a bill and putting in it that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the bill? The supreme court has no power over congress unless they allow it. The Supreme court knows this.

What you are referring to are statutory rulings, when it comes to constitutional issues the supreme court is the final arbiter and fulfills its role as a co-equal branch in this regard.

[Thomasi]

You do know there is precedent for congress passing a bill and putting in it that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the bill? The supreme court has no power over congress unless they allow it. The Supreme court knows this.

What you are referring to are statutory rulings, when it comes to constitutional issues the supreme court is the final arbiter and fulfills its role as a co-equal branch in this regard.

Congress literally created the federal courts though judicial acts, the constitution does not make them the constitutional arbitrator they gave themselves that. Literally look at article 3 nothing gives them any power over congress whatsoever.

[Thermodolia]

During a session of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted on record that firearms like the AR15 are firearms in common use, which in the DC v Heller case, the Supreme Court said couldn't be banned because it's unconstitutional.

You do know there is precedent for congress passing a bill and putting in it that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the bill? The supreme court has no power over congress unless they allow it. The Supreme court knows this.

That only applies to things that don’t have an amendment. So you can’t say that the court has no authority over cases that involve amendments or any other constitutional matter

[Thomasi]

You do know there is precedent for congress passing a bill and putting in it that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the bill? The supreme court has no power over congress unless they allow it. The Supreme court knows this.

That only applies to things that don’t have an amendment. So you can’t say that the court has no authority over cases that involve amendments or any other constitutional matter

The closest thing that I can see to Judicial review is The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, though it does not say anything about striking down laws, the constitution calls the judiciary an appeals court.

the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

[Grinning Dragon]

What you are referring to are statutory rulings, when it comes to constitutional issues the supreme court is the final arbiter and fulfills its role as a co-equal branch in this regard.

Congress literally created the federal courts though judicial acts, the constitution does not make them the constitutional arbitrator they gave themselves that. Literally look at article 3 nothing gives them any power over congress whatsoever.

So I understand you. The framers created 3 equal branches of the govt, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, but yet congress created the judicial branch?
The supreme court isn't wielding power over congress. What would the point be in a Bill of Rights if congress can just pass laws that violate an enumerated right(s)?
Your posted Art. III even implies judicial review since it states the powers of a supreme court shall extend to disputes under the constitution and the laws of the nation.
If I remember correctly Marbury v. Madison firmly establishes judicial review.

[Thomasi]

Congress literally created the federal courts though judicial acts, the constitution does not make them the constitutional arbitrator they gave themselves that. Literally look at article 3 nothing gives them any power over congress whatsoever.

So I understand you. The framers created 3 equal branches of the govt, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, but yet congress created the judicial branch?
The supreme court isn't wielding power over congress. What would the point be in a Bill of Rights if congress can just pass laws that violate an enumerated right(s)?

First the "3 equal branches" is a myth. Congress was always supreme, which is why it has the longest part and first part of the constitution. Congress has the power to make laws, impeach and convict anyone in the federal government, and is the only branch of the federal government that can have part in amending the constitution.

They only added the other 2 branches because they felt the need to. The president was simply added because the country needed an executive that could enforce the laws and the veto power is by far the strongest but even that is easily overridden by congress. The President also can't appoint anyone without the consent of congress. The Executive is very reigned in because they feared a dictator.

The constitution gave congress the instructions on how to create the judiciary but it was the first congress that actually established it. Had they not passed any judiciary acts no federal courts would exist today.

The point of the bill of rights was to protect citizens from the federal government. Even without judicial review, the courts could still protect citizens from abuses of the constitution. If congress passes an unconstitutional law, on appeal of ones conviction their conviction would be overturned for violating their rights.

So basically a law would be in place and up to the state to enforce or not, just the enforcement via the federal government would be nullified though apeals.

[Grinning Dragon]

So I understand you. The framers created 3 equal branches of the govt, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, but yet congress created the judicial branch?
The supreme court isn't wielding power over congress. What would the point be in a Bill of Rights if congress can just pass laws that violate an enumerated right(s)?

First the "3 equal branches" is a myth. Congress was always supreme, which is why it has the longest part and first part of the constitution. Congress has the power to make laws, impeach and convict anyone in the federal government, and is the only branch of the federal government that can have part in amending the constitution.

They only added the other 2 branches because they felt the need to. The president was simply added because the country needed an executive that could enforce the laws and the veto power is by far the strongest but even that is easily overridden by congress. The President also can't appoint anyone without the consent of congress. The Executive is very reigned in because they feared a dictator.

The constitution gave congress the instructions on how to create the judiciary but it was the first congress that actually established it. Had they not passed any judiciary acts no federal courts would exist today
The point of the bill of rights was to protect citizens from the federal government. Even without judicial review, the courts could still protect citizens from abuses of the constitution. If congress passes an unconstitutional law, on appeal of ones conviction their conviction would be overturned for violating their rights.

So basically a law would be in place and up to the state to enforce or not, just the enforcement via the federal government would be nullified though apeals.

Myth eh. If you say so. I mean your wrong, but what-evs.
After the preamble of the constitution are the 7 articles that describe and detail the structure of the federal govt, of those 7 articles the first three establish the 3 branches of govt.
From the onset, it has always been 3 separate but equal branches of govt as a check against one another. This is detailed in federalist papers where Madison wrote of the necessity of the separation of powers who borrowed from philosopher Montesquieu in which he coined the phrase “trias politica”.

[Haganham]

So I understand you. The framers created 3 equal branches of the govt, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, but yet congress created the judicial branch?
The supreme court isn't wielding power over congress. What would the point be in a Bill of Rights if congress can just pass laws that violate an enumerated right(s)?

First the "3 equal branches" is a myth. Congress was always supreme, which is why it has the longest part and first part of the constitution. Congress has the power to make laws, impeach and convict anyone in the federal government, and is the only branch of the federal government that can have part in amending the constitution.

They only added the other 2 branches because they felt the need to. The president was simply added because the country needed an executive that could enforce the laws and the veto power is by far the strongest but even that is easily overridden by congress. The President also can't appoint anyone without the consent of congress. The Executive is very reigned in because they feared a dictator.

The constitution gave congress the instructions on how to create the judiciary but it was the first congress that actually established it. Had they not passed any judiciary acts no federal courts would exist today.

The point of the bill of rights was to protect citizens from the federal government. Even without judicial review, the courts could still protect citizens from abuses of the constitution. If congress passes an unconstitutional law, on appeal of ones conviction their conviction would be overturned for violating their rights.

So basically a law would be in place and up to the state to enforce or not, just the enforcement via the federal government would be nullified though apeals.

You are definitely smart enough to be a cop.

[Romextly]

So I understand you. The framers created 3 equal branches of the govt, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, but yet congress created the judicial branch?
The supreme court isn't wielding power over congress. What would the point be in a Bill of Rights if congress can just pass laws that violate an enumerated right(s)?

The Executive is very reigned in because they feared a dictator.

The point of the bill of rights was to protect citizens from the federal government.

Lol. How deaf are you?

You're literally advocating for the federal government to prey on citizens. By your own definition, the bill of rights was made for someone like you

[Thomasi]

The Executive is very reigned in because they feared a dictator.

The point of the bill of rights was to protect citizens from the federal government.

Lol. How deaf are you?

You're literally advocating for the federal government to prey on citizens. By your own definition, the bill of rights was made for someone like you

Taking away your ARs and AKs isn't preying on your rights its keeping children alive.