Federal Red Flag

[Skip]

BIPARTISAN GUN SEIZURE BILL PROMISED IN CONGRESS

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

No real details yet but...

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.

[wctriumph]

It is getting pretty slippery ...

[Great-Kazoo]

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.

[Skip]

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.

[FoxtArt]

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".

[Skip]

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.

[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.

[Rucker61]

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

[FoxtArt]

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.

[Gman]

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.