Federal Red Flag

BIPARTISAN GUN SEIZURE BILL PROMISED IN CONGRESS

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/08/06...ed-in-congress

No real details yet but...

Quote:

---

U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., have crossed the aisle to put the finishing touches on a proposed Emergency Risk Protection Order statute that would allow local courts to authorize law enforcement to temporarily suspend the gun rights of someone thought to be at risk. The proposal would provide grants and incentives for states to adopt such a measure on their own.

---

This is worse than a Fed law IMHO. If GOPers are going to cross the aisle they could write legislation that honored some sort of due process. But asking the states to do it will generate inconsistent and unConstitutional results like we have here in CO.

We can probably count on USSC denying cert to the challenges.

It is getting pretty slippery ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

BIPARTISAN GUN SEIZURE BILL PROMISED IN CONGRESS

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/08/06...ed-in-congress

No real details yet but...



This is worse than a Fed law IMHO. If GOPers are going to cross the aisle they could write legislation that honored some sort of due process. But asking the states to do it will generate inconsistent and unConstitutional results like we have here in CO.

We can probably count on USSC denying cert to the challenges.

---

I wouldn't count on the USSC to be that favorable to gun owners. I do see a lot of, send it back to the lower courts for clarification happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

I wouldn't count on the USSC to be that favorable to gun owners. I do see a lot of, send it back to the lower courts for clarification happening.

---

The only thing I can figure is they don't want to have to consider previous precedents and like the status quo of states/localities violating gun rights. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find some "greater good" type thinking behind this.

McDonald is good but not in NYC.
Heller is good but not for the scary black guns.


From a strategic perspective, all the Conservatives who want to be gun owners mostly already are (thank Obama!). These rules restrict Libs far more than us. Blue states/cities are surrounded by gun owners.

The Supreme Court is much like the Pope, even more so like the british queen.

Most of the justices care much more about their popularity than they should; and they don't want to touch controversial subjects even if they have opinions about those subjects.

Quite literally, the Supreme Court worries about "how twitter will react".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

The Supreme Court is much like the Pope, even more so like the british queen.

Most of the justices care much more about their popularity than they should; and they don't want to touch controversial subjects even if they have opinions about those subjects.

Quite literally, the Supreme Court worries about "how twitter will react".

---

Citizens United generated a lot of hate, and they did it anyway.

I think they use cert to avoid controversy and if they grant then they have a duty to make an effort. Roberts' contrived "third way" was at least an attempt in the Obamacare case.

I never thought there was a chance in my lifetime that the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, would be reduced to a mere notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

The only thing I can figure is they don't want to have to consider previous precedents and like the status quo of states/localities violating gun rights. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find some "greater good" type thinking behind this.

McDonald is good but not in NYC.
Heller is good but not for the scary black guns.


From a strategic perspective, all the Conservatives who want to be gun owners mostly already are (thank Obama!). These rules restrict Libs far more than us. Blue states/cities are surrounded by gun owners.

---

With regards to black guns, read Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

I never thought there was a chance in my lifetime that the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, would be reduced to a mere notion.

---

The difference is you had an indoctrinated belief about the constitution.

Ever since the 18th century, individual judges have rewritten it at their whims and to suit their personal agendas\fancy. You just didn't realize this because while U.S.C. and F.C.R. combined is 250,000 pages and passed with legislature; the opinions that rewrite your constitutional rights are generally decided by one person each, and number - most likely - in the millions of pages, with no comprehensive organization or index in which you - or anyone else - can determine all the ways in which they have subtly been rewritten, often times now being interpreted completely opposite of the plain language of the right.

That's possibly the biggest problem with our system of government:

There is virtually no check on the judicial power, and they are little changed from the judges of the appointed kings. Whatever agenda a single judge has, they can, should they so decide, impose the same level of power as all of congress. And there's no check on that. The Supreme Court only hears about 1-2% of cases presented to it; everything it doesn't have time for is considered "law of the land" from thenceforth.

People think this is new; not hardly. You've never had any of the rights innumerated in the constitution/BOR from the time you were born (even you 80 year olds), as they would be plainly interpreted. And anytime your rights are.... pesky, or get in the way of what a judge feels is necessary, whelp, now you never had that either. Then that opinion gets referenced by other courts, so on, and so forth. It's a bureaucratic solution inventing a new rule that cascades through history with unintentional consequences for a simple, ongoing problem: Every case is unique.

ETA: Research the Scopes Monkey trial sometime for a crystalline example of how the US court system has operated in the last 100 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

The difference is you had an indoctrinated belief about the constitution.

---

You don't know what I believe and are in no position to make that claim.

You said what you believe, and one can deduce you believed the Constitution was in effect at some point in your life. OxArt is just saying you believed incorrectly since the thing you didn’t believe was already a reality before your lifetime.

The Constitution has been eroded over time, as governments tend to extend their reach over time. The erosion has been significant and picked up pace since the 1920s.

What I didn't expect was what is becoming a total disregard, without any response in opposition, in my lifetime.

Now can folks stop trying to think they know what I believe, when I believed it, and whether or not it was "correct"? I feel like i'm on the 'psychic hotline'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

With regards to black guns, read Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II

---

I read that as very good, right?

But it underscores my concern... We again see the Court affirming 2A in an important and individual way. Take AWBs and mag bans off the table for a second... Every American has a fundamental and individual RTKBA some gun. How does this explain NYC? How does this explain permits in greater NY? Then we have the patchwork of laws in big cities and CA that culminate in a near-absolute prohibition on gun ownership. And certainly one outside the home which is also unConstitutional.

Even if the Court gets it right, lower governments are in rebellion and the Feds/DoJ can't enforce the law. What would DoJ do? Arrest and charge a blue city DA for prosecuting a gun owner? Never going to happen! Best we can do is spend hundreds of thousands getting that case through the system and his conviction overturned. We can't win this way!

Much easier to deny Cert going forward as not to test the authority of USSC.

When the government can force you to buy a product (health insurance) or pay a penalty, and SCOTUS twists it into a Constitutional "tax"...
http://youtu.be/u2ycDWywGls

Wait, there are still people who think that politicians (of any party affiliate) are actually concerned about our freedoms? No wonder they keep getting away with it.

"Our guy is screwing them out of their freedom but hey, at least we got our item pushed through even if it cost "their side" but eff them, they're scum who deserved it!"

Lather, rinse & repeat as necessary with "other" party in power until we're all completely without freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

The Constitution has been eroded over time, as governments tend to extend their reach over time. The erosion has been significant and picked up pace since the 1920s.

---

I don't "put thoughts in your head" but your belief is inferred in your post: e.g. you tend to think the constitution was followed more a few years ago.

I don't notice a change in the pace of "erosion" it just takes different faces. DRASTIC "revisions" were undertaken in the 1700's on many of the BOR, but more things (e.g. rights) were outright ignored then far more then now. I'm not going to pretend like we have "fewer" rights in 2019. The funny thing is if you went back in time about 150 years, you'd probably think your constitutional rights were even less respected than they are now.

That's what I'm saying - there isn't "erosion" when judges have stepped around it since the inception of our country. There's been no check or balance on the judicial power, so your "rights" have just been beliefs inside of your head since the founding of our country, but they haven't really existed outside of mere beliefs; judges have always done what they believed to be "right" irrespective of restraint whether we are talking 1700's, 1920's (Scopes trial), or today.

The system operates more on what society will tolerate - or not - in the given moment. And it's always been that way. We've never had "rights".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

The system operates more on what society will tolerate - or not - in the given moment. And it's always been that way. We've never had "rights".

---

I like that OxArt. My seventh grade English teacher would be proud....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssLMbPzEvyE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucCU_NnJ-0