MrTriple

This is where the whole topic of guns and gun control gets really, really tricky. If we acknowledge that much of the gun violence in America is actually gang violence, and much of that gang violence is driven by young men, then we can start having a discussion about how to reach out to those young men before they turn to lives of crime and violence, and what to do when they do. But then these discussions always get derailed by calls for stronger gun control. The fact is, those who are seeking solutions to the violence must accept that gun control cannot and will not fix the issue. They seem to be on the right track with their outreach programs, although I can't really judge how successful those programs are, and if not, what the best next steps should be. When you think about it, the gangs represent several generations of lost men. That's not acceptable, and something's gotta be done to stop the crisis before more young men get sucked into that vortex. But it's also unacceptable to propose ineffective legislation that won't actually do anything, and which infringes on a right that some parties simply won't acknowledge the existence of.

They've gotten so used to getting their way, that they're not used to not getting their way. The same is true of states that keep putting forward incredibly stupid legal arguments. They've always gotten away with it, and now that they have to pivot to a new legal standard, they can't do it.

There's also the possibility that the language of the bill was problematic. Unless we read through the whole thing, how do we know?

I have to second Todd's sentiment. Very, very short on details, and frankly that paper has a habit of either reading into the details things that aren't there, or blowing things out of proportion. I'm going to need far more details before I can pass a judgment call on this one, since that's the only honest thing any of us can do at this point. I get a little tired of the knee jerk reactions from the gun community about stuff like this, without a greater analysis of what's really going on behind the scenes. It makes us look stupid and conspiratorial.

Essentially, he's just throwing a temper tantrum. He's approaching this from the viewpoint that unless the Supreme Court explicitly throws out Friedman, then it's still good law. That's wrong, of course, but he's going to play hardball until the Supreme Court tells him that Friedman doesn't apply anymore. Certainly, he'll just find some other excuse to uphold the ban even if Friedman is explicitly struck down, unless somehow we get a different panel if the case gets GVR'ed, but at this point it's hard to speculate how this is going to play out at the Supreme Court, anyway.

I understand the idea of SCOTUS taking appeals made by the federal government, those are special circumstances. But when they take them on administrative law grounds and not explicitly 2A grounds, while seemingly not taking action on actual 2A cases, I remain curious as to why. I mean, they took Dobbs despite how contentious that topic is, and frankly anything gun-related isn't even remotely as contentious a topic as abortion. So why the reticence? Also, why the refusal to use the shadow docket?

At this point, I question if the Biden administration is even trying to win,l or if they're just doing this for the optics and to play to the base.

If you think about it, the real problem here has always been the Friedman precedent, not the Supreme Court or other actors, strictly speaking. Until the Friedman precedent is thrown out, the courts are still bound by it. While that doesn't stop Easterbrook, et. al. from just making up bad case law, at least this would remove that set of arguments from the negotiating table.

Not great on the first point, but excellent on the second point. It never makes any sense to me, aside from maybe the financial burden involved, to file anywhere but federal court. You can easily get a win in Illinois courts as long as you file in a conservative judicial district, but at the end of the day if the state supreme court has to get involved, you're going to lose no matter what. I really wish that attorneys on our side would make more judicial use of the federal courts and quit trying to file in state courts. It's a waste of time, money, and resources to file anywhere else.

Standard, run of the mill grandstanding. If you fail to get results because you're not doing your job, just file a lawsuit to make it seem like you're actually doing something.

That occurred to me as well, but the problem with this strategy is when the State Supreme Court issues a ruling (like they did in Brown) that completely dodges the 2nd Amendment question in favor of some other dumb legal argument, which effectively renders that case worthless on appeal to the Supreme Court, who probably won't touch it unless it's a straightforward 2nd Amendment case that actually attempts to delve into the merits (even if the merits arguments themselves are faulty).

C'mon folks, stop filing these cases in state court, you gotta file in federal court because you can't win a gun case before the State Supreme Court. Or did we learn nothing from the Brown case?

The deficit is a big issue, but reducing spending requires a larger majority than the GOP got. Since they didn't, compromise becomes a necessity. The same goes for McCarthy: That's the best the GOP was gonna get given the circumstances, and waging a messy political battle to remove him hurts the GOP's prospects by making them stupid and unable to lead. In that light, many swing voters would rather have the Democrats, because at least they know how to get stuff done, no matter how harmful. Remember: Conservatives like Rush aren't the only voting block out there, even within the wider GOP caucus. A good leader can get all of those elements to work together, but engaging in stupid and childish fights like Gaetz, MTG, and Boebert do repeatedly doesn't do anything to advance the conservative cause or conservative policy goals. Fighting for the sake of it, without any plan for advancing long-term policy goals, is always and everywhere self-defeating and doomed to failure.

Sure, Cook ranks Bost's district as +24R, so the chances of any Republican losing are very, very remote, and either candidate would likely win in the general. But we don't need more Gaetz' in the House, since disruptive individuals disrupting House business for the sake of disruption doesn't accomplish actual policy wins. The GOP desperately needs more Kemps, DeSantises, and Youngkins: People capable of competent conservative governance without the drama and showmanship. It's the House, not a clown show. Governance is serious business, and thus far we're not getting that.

The problem with Matt Gaetz-style political gamesmanship is that it looks good to the base but doesn't achieve the sort of durable, lasting victories you need to actually enact change, while making the party look stupid to the swing voters that actually decide elections (the base never decides, the swing voters do). McCarthy's selection as a compromise Speaker was because the GOP failed to win enough seats in the midterms, and selecting unelectable candidates like Majewski and Kent didn't help in that regard. Sure, it felt good to vote for the MAGA candidate in the primary, but that's a useless gesture if they can't win in the general (swing voters matter). And then Gaetz stupidly sided against his own party (and with the opposition) to oust McCarthy which, when combined with McCarthy's pending retirement and that of other critical members of the caucus, reduces the GOP's effective lead in the House to a single seat. That doesn't bode well for 2024. And for what? So that Gaetz can claim he's "MAGA" and fought the "RINOs"? What does that really accomplish if they lose the House and Hakeem Jeffries becomes the next Speaker? It's nothing more than a massive self-own. That's why disruption for disruption's sake is always poor policy, and that's the problem with candidates like Bailey. The base loves a "fighter," but fighting without a long-term strategy to win over the persuadable middle and achieve lasting victories, especially when your actions result in self defeat, is dumb and counterproductive. It doesn't matter if the GOP base disagrees with that assessment, you're not a swing voter. And Bailey, like Gaetz, is big on fighting but lacks any sense of a long-term strategy.