Jump to content

Looks like Deerfield can kiss their Semi-Auto ban/fines goodbye


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-to-curb-powers-of-states-to-impose-heavy-fines-and-seize-property

 

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property, marking the first time the court has applied the Constitutions ban on excessive fines at the state level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What dollar amount are the fines set at now?

The Deerfield case is on hold, but $200-$1000 a day

 

 

This is the big takeaway

 

The high courts ruling could now limit the ability for states and cities to carry out what critics on both sides of the political divide say is an increasingly common practice of imposing steep fines and seizing property.

Case in point: there is no federal ban on firearms that are currently able to be purchased. If someone in CA gets his guns seized (like in this video) he COULD argue that the state took his lawfully purchased property (state law). Again, the lawyers need to get to the bottom of this, and Im not one

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6Lyeeq17fY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If they have a home rule ban on something and then the court fines you for breaking a local law, how are the fines going to go away under this new ruling?

"ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property"

It’s cases like this where our side has a huge chance to go on the offensive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What dollar amount are the fines set at now?

 

The Deerfield case is on hold, but $200-$1000 a day

 

Which is based on...?

 

the ordinance. And I was wrong. $250-1000/dayhttps://www.deerfield.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04022018-412http://i.imgur.com/g51Iu1O.jpg

 

Sorry. I meant what basis did they have for that range for a fine other than wanting to really stick it to the scofflaws they tried to create. It's just dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What dollar amount are the fines set at now?

The Deerfield case is on hold, but $200-$1000 a day

 

 

This is the big takeaway

 

The high courts ruling could now limit the ability for states and cities to carry out what critics on both sides of the political divide say is an increasingly common practice of imposing steep fines and seizing property.

Case and point: there is no federal ban on firearms that are currently able to be purchased. If someone in CA gets his guns seized (like in this video) he COULD argue that the state took his lawfully purchased property (state law). Again, the lawyers need to get to the bottom of this, and Im not one

 

 

I know we can only speculate at this point since we aren't lawyers but I like getting everyones 2 cents so..... In the CA case does that mean the state could no longer take a weapon or impose a fine on someone who owns a firearm not banned by the feds ? Here's another one.... Illinois passes an "assault weapons" ban and all those that own one basically tell the state to go scratch and the state could still possibly block all future sales but as far as those in possession they can't do a thing because they would be imposing fines or seizing property against people who are NOT violating federal law ? I hope this goes in a direction that causes CA and other states to be ordered to refund fines and return property or pay the value of things they seized without due process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this section mean that the States can kiss our collectives arses, and we only have to adhere to federal law when it comes to the second amendment?

Isnt the second amendment part of the bill of rights?

 

Incorporated Bill of Rights guarantees are enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those per- sonal rights against federal encroachment. Id., at 765 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, if a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.1

B

 

1The sole exception is our holding that the Sixth Amendment re- quires jury unanimity in federal, but not state, criminal proceedings. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404 (1972). As we have explained, that exception to th[e] general rule . . . was the result of an unusual divi- sion among the Justices, and it does not undermine the well- established rule that incorporated Bill of Rights protections apply identically to the States and the Federal Government. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 766, n. 14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What dollar amount are the fines set at now?

The Deerfield case is on hold, but $200-$1000 a day

This is the big takeaway

 

The high courts ruling could now limit the ability for states and cities to carry out what critics on both sides of the political divide say is an increasingly common practice of imposing steep fines and seizing property.

 

Case and point: there is no federal ban on firearms that are currently able to be purchased. If someone in CA gets his guns seized (like in this video) he COULD argue that the state took his lawfully purchased property (state law). Again, the lawyers need to get to the bottom of this, and Im not onehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6Lyeeq17fY

I know we can only speculate at this point since we aren't lawyers but I like getting everyones 2 cents so..... In the CA case does that mean the state could no longer take a weapon or impose a fine on someone who owns a firearm not banned by the feds ? Here's another one.... Illinois passes an "assault weapons" ban and all those that own one basically tell the state to go scratch and the state could still possibly block all future sales but as far as those in possession they can't do a thing because they would be imposing fines or seizing property against people who are NOT violating federal law ? I hope this goes in a direction that causes CA and other states to be ordered to refund fines and return property or pay the value of things they seized without due process.

 

That’s exactly what I’m getting at, and this case provides a valid argument towards it.

 

As for the other states, people (going forward, probably not retroactively) that have their guns seized (but have not committed another crime that led to it) and had $1000’s of dollars of fines slapped on them can maybe sue the state (whichever one it may be) using this decision because guns are, after all, property when purchased legally. IMO (for what it’s worth), this is a poison pill ruling against a gun grab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I know we can only speculate at this point since we aren't lawyers but I like getting everyones 2 cents so..... In the CA case does that mean the state could no longer take a weapon or impose a fine on someone who owns a firearm not banned by the feds ? Here's another one.... Illinois passes an "assault weapons" ban and all those that own one basically tell the state to go scratch and the state could still possibly block all future sales but as far as those in possession they can't do a thing because they would be imposing fines or seizing property against people who are NOT violating federal law ? I hope this goes in a direction that causes CA and other states to be ordered to refund fines and return property or pay the value of things they seized without due process.

 

 

That’s exactly what I’m getting at, and this case provides a valid argument towards it.

 

As for the other states, people (going forward, probably not retroactively) that have their guns seized (but have not committed another crime that led to it) and had $1000’s of dollars of fines slapped on them can maybe sue the state (whichever one it may be) using this decision because guns are, after all, property when purchased legally. IMO (for what it’s worth), this is a poison pill ruling against a gun grab.

 

Yeah, This throws a wrench into the anti gun works. They may be able to have their bans but won't be able to enforce them with fines or confiscation !!! This is way outta left field isn't it ? who saw this big can of worms opening up for the anti's ? HAHAHAHA !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this was a drug seizure case! Civil drug seizures have become a HUGE source of revenue for police departments and communities, now that entire practice is in jeopardy and lawsuits are bound to start flying to the tune of millions in not billions in previous damages against the states and municipalities it's bound to get ugly.

 

I'm guessing the days of police departments flaunting high-end seized vehicles and flipping $100s of thousands of dollars in civil seizures, and refusing to give back cash when you dare use cash instead of credit, is coming to an end real soon.

 

I lived in a small village years ago and even that small village was benefiting into the tune of $10s of thousands for their share of civil drug vehicle seizures from just routine traffic stops within the village, they would brag about the revenue windfall, all the time in the village minutes when the seized vehicles were auctioned off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, This throws a wrench into the anti gun works. They may be able to have their bans but won't be able to enforce them with fines or confiscation !!! This is way outta left field isn't it ? who saw this big can of worms opening up for the anti's ? HAHAHAHA !!!!

I may have been the first (public post anywhere at least), as I havent seen the thought anywhere else, even on social media. Then again, I live for fighting the antis lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To further the thought, many observers are noting that Ginsburg's majority opinion cited MacDonald FOUR times in applying the Bill of Rights' Immunities and Privileges clause. Doing so tends to "settle" the law regarding the MacDonald holding that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Ginsburg!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, This throws a wrench into the anti gun works. They may be able to have their bans but won't be able to enforce them with fines or confiscation !!! This is way outta left field isn't it ? who saw this big can of worms opening up for the anti's ? HAHAHAHA !!!!

I may have been the first (public post anywhere at least), as I havent seen the thought anywhere else, even on social media. Then again, I live for fighting the antis lol

 

Steve, You're without a doubt the #1 investigator when it comes to finding the good stuff and the bad stuff in the farthest corners of the fight. This revelation has brightened my whole week. THANKS and keep up the good work, It is appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah, This throws a wrench into the anti gun works. They may be able to have their bans but won't be able to enforce them with fines or confiscation !!! This is way outta left field isn't it ? who saw this big can of worms opening up for the anti's ? HAHAHAHA !!!!

 

I may have been the first (public post anywhere at least), as I havent seen the thought anywhere else, even on social media. Then again, I live for fighting the antis lol

Steve, You're without a doubt the #1 investigator when it comes to finding the good stuff and the bad stuff in the farthest corners of the fight. This revelation has brightened my whole week. THANKS and keep up the good work, It is appreciated.
I didn’t do anything on this other than form an immediate opinion on how it could be used for our fight, but thank you. And I have more stuff brewing :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To further the thought, many observers are noting that Ginsburg's majority opinion cited MacDonald FOUR times in applying the Bill of Rights' Immunities and Privileges clause. Doing so tends to "settle" the law regarding the MacDonald holding that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Ginsburg!

Can you post examples????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To further the thought, many observers are noting that Ginsburg's majority opinion cited MacDonald FOUR times in applying the Bill of Rights' Immunities and Privileges clause. Doing so tends to "settle" the law regarding the MacDonald holding that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Ginsburg!

Can you post examples????

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

 

This could be pivotal in regards to gun rights.

 

 

 

When ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government. Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). “The constitutional Amendments adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War,” however, “fundamentally altered our country’s federal system.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 754. With only “a handful” of exceptions, this Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the protections contained in the Bill of Rights, rendering them applicable to the States. Id., at 764–765, and nn. 12–13. A Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, we have explained, if it is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Id., at 767 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis deleted).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) This safeguard, we hold, is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” with “dee[p] root in [our] history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (2010)

2) “fundamentally altered our country’s federal system.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 754.

3) fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald,

4) But when a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, the protection applies “identically to both the Federal Government and the States.” McDonald,

 

These are the 4 I found and only through page 10 of 26 in the opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...