Jump to content

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


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

This is huge, as we can now officially tie this decision into gun rights and the SCOTUS. Ladies and gentlemen, anyone else feeling the positive vibes?

I’m not nearly as optimistic as you are. They refer to a firearms case as case law for how they interpret the 14th. I don’t see any direct correlation.

 

gotta go fill my glass now, as I just noticed it is half empty......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is huge, as we can now officially tie this decision into gun rights and the SCOTUS. Ladies and gentlemen, anyone else feeling the positive vibes?

 

IMO with another such strong wording in regards to the 14th's application to the States, all we need now is that 'strict scrutiny' ruling in the SCOTUS in regards to the 2nd to restore gun rights nationwide.

 

And the irony is that RBG's majority opinion here is likely to be used to restore 2nd rights nationwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is huge, as we can now officially tie this decision into gun rights and the SCOTUS. Ladies and gentlemen, anyone else feeling the positive vibes?

 

IMO with another such strong wording in regards to the 14th's application to the States, all we need now is that 'strict scrutiny' ruling in the SCOTUS in regards to the 2nd to restore gun rights nationwide.

 

And the irony is that RBG's majority opinion here is likely to be used to restore 2nd rights nationwide.

My thinking as well.

 

 

This ruling today only helps us and freedom lovers nationwide. No down side to it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could any of the more liberal judges decided this way based on Ted Cruz recent idea of using Chapo's assets to build the wall?

 

Thomas put a zinger in his concurring opinion.

 

 

 

As a constitutionally enumerated right understood to be a privilege of American citizenship, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies in full to the States.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't try to extend the Supreme Court case today far beyond what it actually deals with. In the case today, the defendant was subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 and the police seized a $42,000 vehicle, purchased with money he had received as a result of the death of his father. The state sought civil forfeiture because they argued the vehicle was used to transport heroin. The trial court, and now the Supreme Court found that such a seizure was grossly disproportionate to the penalty set out in the law for the crime. This had nothing to do with a fine being too large - just that what the police tried to take was far more valuable that the stated maximum fine.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

Now, that may be used to argue that a $1,000 per day fine far exceeds an appropriate penalty but that is a somewhat different argument. While it is a defense that should probably be raised, I would not necessarily expect it to be successful if based soley on the Timbs decision today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't try to extend the Supreme Court case today far beyond what it actually deals with. In the case today, the defendant was subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 and the police seized a $42,000 vehicle, purchased with money he had received as a result of the death of his father. The state sought civil forfeiture because they argued the vehicle was used to transport heroin. The trial court, and now the Supreme Court found that such a seizure was grossly disproportionate to the penalty set out in the law for the crime. This had nothing to do with a fine being too large - just that what the police tried to take was far more valuable that the stated maximum fine.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

Now, that may be used to argue that a $1,000 per day fine far exceeds an appropriate penalty but that is a somewhat different argument. While it is a defense that should probably be raised, I would not necessarily expect it to be successful if based soley on the Timbs decision today.

Just saying this opens the door on a variety of things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't try to extend the Supreme Court case today far beyond what it actually deals with. In the case today, the defendant was subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 and the police seized a $42,000 vehicle, purchased with money he had received as a result of the death of his father. The state sought civil forfeiture because they argued the vehicle was used to transport heroin. The trial court, and now the Supreme Court found that such a seizure was grossly disproportionate to the penalty set out in the law for the crime. This had nothing to do with a fine being too large - just that what the police tried to take was far more valuable that the stated maximum fine.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

Now, that may be used to argue that a $1,000 per day fine far exceeds an appropriate penalty but that is a somewhat different argument. While it is a defense that should probably be raised, I would not necessarily expect it to be successful if based soley on the Timbs decision today.

 

As is the case most of the time in Supreme Court rulings, you have to look beyond the specifics of the case and look at the interpretation of laws/Constitution that brought them to their judgment and how those same now set in precedent interpretations can be applied in other cases. In this case the focus is how the 14th is to be applied to the Bill of Rights, more importantly, the 8th here but 'our' focus will obviously be it's the further application to the 2nd.

 

One of the more significant passages is this, the repeating of McDonald with the 'no daylight' angle added

 

 

 

Incorporated Bill of Rights guarantees are “enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal 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.

 

Is the case a slam dunk or world changer, not yet, but as I said previously if the court rules 'strict scrutiny' applies to 2nd infringements in the future (hopefully by the end of the year) combined with this ruling and McDonald you have a strong case to get a vast majority of anti-gun laws nationwide ruled unconstitutional on both 2nd and 14th infringements. It's all about laying the legal foundation before you build the walls and put the roof on the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y’all are getting all excited. Almost like the hope and change gang!

 

The only thing I see is a curb (not ban) on civil forfeiture. The specifics in this case call out the imbalance between the “value” of the crime and the value of the forfeiture.

 

Losing a $40,000 car or a house against a crime with a max penalty of $10,000 is an unfair imbalance.

 

On the bright side, this would protect the owner of an AR15 in Deerfield from having a car or house confiscated because they were transporting or storing an AR15. I don’t see it getting any brighter.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't try to extend the Supreme Court case today far beyond what it actually deals with. In the case today, the defendant was subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 and the police seized a $42,000 vehicle, purchased with money he had received as a result of the death of his father. The state sought civil forfeiture because they argued the vehicle was used to transport heroin. The trial court, and now the Supreme Court found that such a seizure was grossly disproportionate to the penalty set out in the law for the crime. This had nothing to do with a fine being too large - just that what the police tried to take was far more valuable that the stated maximum fine.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

Now, that may be used to argue that a $1,000 per day fine far exceeds an appropriate penalty but that is a somewhat different argument. While it is a defense that should probably be raised, I would not necessarily expect it to be successful if based soley on the Timbs decision today.

 

Precisely.

 

It sets the limits based on what the law already says, you can't fine or seize more than the penalty that was imposed. The guy had a $10K fine, they tried to seize $42K car. Under this ruling, they owe him a huge refund.

 

This Deerfield ordinance is not going to be affected. They'll fine the person multiple days, and when they seize the rifle, the cost of the rifle will be far less than the fines already accumulated. As a result, this ruling will still permit that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the seizure of the ‘now contraband assault weapon’ without just compensation. The contraband was legal at time of sale and remains legal under state and federal law.

 

If the same town passed an ordinance banning the use of a certain construction material in housing. And then stated you have to either raze the house and rebuild it, remove the materials and replace it or turn your house over to the city within 30 days. This is the same scenario with a different object and a higher value.

 

 

^ this ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the seizure of the ‘now contraband assault weapon’ without just compensation. The contraband was legal at time of sale and remains legal under state and federal law. If the same town passed an ordinance banning the use of a certain construction material in housing. And then stated you have to either raze the house and rebuild it, remove the materials and replace it or turn your house over to the city within 30 days. This is the same scenario with a different object and a higher value. ^ this ***

 

That's a different scenario, and that needs to go to SCOTUS or a high level appeals court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the guy committed a drug felony, an actual crime. He did use the vehicle to move the illegal drugs so he made this mess for himself and I get that the vehicle is worth more than the fine. this person is a criminal by choice. The banned weapons owner broke no laws and committed no crimes and legally bought and owned his weapon. then along comes the town and makes him a criminal and imposes excessive fines. either way this opens a door to taking property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you’re right, a difference only in the fact that in the gun and house scenario the owners were legal and just sat around and enjoyed their property while the laws around them changed to make them unlawful. In the seizure of the vehicle, the person knowingly engaged in an unlawful act. Such act was illegal prior to his contact and remains illegal after his conduct.

 

 

^ this ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the guy committed a drug felony, an actual crime. He did use the vehicle to move the illegal drugs so he made this mess for himself and I get that the vehicle is worth more than the fine. this person is a criminal by choice. The banned weapons owner broke no laws and committed no crimes and legally bought and owned his weapon. then along comes the town and makes him a criminal and imposes excessive fines. either way this opens a door to taking property.

 

Exactly :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that heroin was legal in the United States until it was not. Once declared illegal in about 1914 it became subject to seizure. Was it a god given right to possess, use or sell heroin before 1914? What were the unenumerated god given rights? While some Supreme Court cases build on themes of constitutional interpretation, some just are based on the facts. Here, I think the facts won out but time will tell if there is some underlying constitutional issue that is reinforced down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that heroin was legal in the United States until it was not. Once declared illegal in about 1914 it became subject to seizure. Was it a god given right to possess, use or sell heroin before 1914? What were the unenumerated god given rights? While some Supreme Court cases build on themes of constitutional interpretation, some just are based on the facts. Here, I think the facts won out but time will tell if there is some underlying constitutional issue that is reinforced down the line.

Guns and the right to own them is protected by the Bill of Rights, heroin wasn't. laws against heroin could be challenged in court if someone really wanted to but the 2nd Amendment is specifically written Shall not be infringed and banning or seizing weapons from those who have not committed crimes or used those weapons to harm others is against the Constitution. BTW this "reasonable restrictions" as mentioned by the courts is B.S. IMHO, I can't find anything in the Bill of Rights written by the Founders that says anything like.... " And if the gov't we're trying to protect you from decides you don't need these protections against them they should feel free to place "reasonable restrictions" on these rights and of course they may decide what reasonable means."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all see what we want as the "rights" enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some see drug use as a right under freedom of religion. Some see the right to abortion and some don't. Sometimes that "right" has been upheld and sometimes not. Some see the Declaration of Independence "pursuit of happiness" as a right to use drugs or alcohol. Plessy segregation was fine until Bown when the Supreme Court changed its mind. I am just saying that the heroin examples discussed above do not hold up very well as a difference between drugs and guns. Just as "regulated militia", "keep", "bear" and "arms" is undefined in the bill of rights and the Supreme Court interprets those terms, happiness and religion are subject to interpretation - along with speech and every other "right". The biggest problem is that what the Supreme Court gives this year, it can take away two or twenty years from now with a different court makeup. The real answer is to change minds and elect people that won't take away what we consider to be rights.

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...