transplant Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:15 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:15 PM See: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/83438cdd-a0d4-45e6-9e82-e32e9e8efcae/3/doc/14-36_14-319_opn.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googe1227 Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:21 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:21 PM Well, that bites but not unexpected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:50 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:50 PM What impact do you think this will have on Friedman? The justices in Shew made the same argument, i.e. that they have nothing to go on since the SCOTUS hasn't issued a more definitive ruling on firearms, so I'm curious how this'll impact the SCOTUS' decision to grant or deny cert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:56 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 08:56 PM I think I might rather be waterboarded twice than be forced to read this tortured judicial opinion more than once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted October 19, 2015 at 09:04 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 09:04 PM I think I might rather be waterboarded twice than be forced to read this tortured judicial opinion more than once!If you read between the lines, it's clear that the courts know these laws are unconstitutional but want to do whatever they can to avoid having to strike them down. They're hoping SCOTUS does it for them so that the higher court can take the heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted October 19, 2015 at 09:15 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 09:15 PM I am sure I missed something important, (please be kind). We assume that the majority of the prohibited conduct falls within the scope of Second Amendment protections. The statutes are appropriately evaluated under the constitutional standard of “intermediate scrutiny” that is, whether they are “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.”What justified governmental interest besides infringing on our rights does this do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted October 19, 2015 at 09:19 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 09:19 PM I think I might rather be waterboarded twice than be forced to read this tortured judicial opinion more than once!If you read between the lines, it's clear that the courts know these laws are unconstitutional but want to do whatever they can to avoid having to strike them down. They're hoping SCOTUS does it for them so that the higher court can take the heat. I believe you have stated very well the essence of what's happened in this travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted October 19, 2015 at 10:03 PM Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 10:03 PM I think I might rather be waterboarded twice than be forced to read this tortured judicial opinion more than once!If you read between the lines, it's clear that the courts know these laws are unconstitutional but want to do whatever they can to avoid having to strike them down. They're hoping SCOTUS does it for them so that the higher court can take the heat. Which is absurd, and should result in some sort of censure of the court engaging in such activities which are aiding and abetting unconstitutional actions by not striking down the laws in question for being essentially illegal and a rights violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted October 25, 2015 at 11:46 AM Share Posted October 25, 2015 at 11:46 AM Under their version of "intermediate scrutiny" a complete ban on handguns would pass because most shootings are committed with handguns and reducing violence is an important government interest. Makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.