Jump to content

Flynn

Members
  • Posts

    8,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flynn

  1. I believe that is what has to be heard and focused on. For good or bad, domestic restraining orders are literally handed out like candy by judges, and many are in fact nothing short of one party enacting 'revenge' so it's an important Constitutional issue that needs to be addressed. And as davel501 said and what really needs to be more of the focus, if the people are so dangerous that the court feel enumerated rights need to be denied to them, why are they even allowed to walk free vs being locked up? There are of course going to be 'dangerous people' and the court needs to learn to deal with them individually, because at the end of the day a lot of this domestic denial of rights are nothing short of lovers' quarrels and revenge.
  2. State impact will have to be litigated as the reason for the ATF rule getting nuked was unique to their rule-making ability... I personally don't believe serial numbers at all survive under the Bruen test, even on completed firearms, but we will have to see if the SCOTUS draws a hard line on their Bruen test or actually slightly overrules themselves and allows some wiggle room for means-ends like serial numbers...
  3. Based on history and even current events, I have fixed that for you... The left will weaponize any case against the right, that's no reason for the court to not address pertinent questions.
  4. We need more rulings worded like this against the ATF https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1688171832/VanDerStok_v_Garland_227_Opinion.pdf?1688171832
  5. I would not go there, unless there is a lot of probable cause aka you are flaunting you still have them or a domestic report. I would hope that any judge worth their robe will not be issuing any search warrants on flimsy hearsay as there is literally nothing illegal or that mandates notification about people moving their may or may not still own firearms out of state. The mere fact you may at some point purchased a firearm IMO is nowhere near the threshold for LE to get a warrant to go looking for it under the assumption you are violating the law without any actual evidence a law is being violated. Now in domestic issues, or flaunting or other instances that give probable cause there could very well be warrants issued but I would say it's unlikely to happen to most, especially as the lawsuits are still active. I have said before, that if this is not put on hold or resolved by Jan 1, anything I may or may not possess will simply be relocated out of state.
  6. It's a forked two tier test, if it's common use it's protected, and the test is over. If it's something like you proclaim that is new and/or not common use, then it's presumed protect until and only if the state can prove it's dangerous and unusual and that history and tradition supports it's banning can it be banned. The imporrant clause is in Heller, "The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms" thus by default every new arm design and every existing arm is assumed protected by the 2nd until and only if a court decides otherwise, and the entire burden to prove to yhe court that it's not protected is entirely on the state. The primary problem we face right now is that activist Judges refuse to accept the test(s) established in Heller/Bruen, that is our primary problem right now. We also need to focus on classes of arms vs individual models, Heller ruled on the class of 'pistols' Caetano ruled on the class of 'stun guns' there is no reason to believe the SCOTUS is going to start ruling on every model of firearm, they are almost certainly going to rule on the entire class of 'rifles' or possibly 'semi-auto rifles' vs the silly never ending game of ruling on every specific model number.
  7. I agree, Illinois is essentially setting it self up to be the state that makes it to the Supreme Court so Heller can be explained a third time, and I fully believe the SCOTUS is closely watching IL specifically right now, due to the Judge Easterbrook and Illinois leaning on their own bad precedent post Bruen that has already red flagged Illinois' inferior courts as not paying attention to the SCOTUS in Bruen...
  8. There is some comic irony that Heller and Bruen demand infringments be rooted in history and tradition and the state uses the fact that such bans (on ammo types 🤪) were historically rejected (even well past the founding era) in their argument to justify the ban on cherry picked firearms that use that ammo but allow other firearms that use that ammo. That is some real 🤡🌎 word soup.
  9. I believe the Supreme Court in Caetano, begs to differ... The Court did not limit their opinion to 'necessary' components or accesories of arms, they said...
  10. Their entire 'means ends' argument is invalid under Bruen, but regardless... I honestly can't believe their argument is now that AR-15s a semi-auto rifle chambered in 9mm for example and every other firearm they are banning is somehow more deadly than an early model 1,200 round per minute 45 caliber Thompson... 🤡🌎🤣 If that is the case they should instantly legalize those inferior whimpy guns like full auto Thompsons 🤣
  11. Yep, growing up and plinking with 22LR I was always impressed at how much impact and destruction they did to 'liquid' filed items and even more so as the calibers got bigger. Clearly pistol ammo is just like stabbing something with a nail...
  12. Both sides do this useless "we tried" posturing when they know their bills are entirely DOA, their fabricated spine they pretend to grow when they know it's DOA entirely vanishes as soon as they have a majority in both chambers and the presidency... The GOP does seem to do it more often though...
  13. More proof that a vast majority of Illinois Republicans are just a Democrats that lean a little to far right to succeed as a Democrat so they masquerade as a Republican... Someone correct me, but "as evidenced in my support of conceal and carry." I do not remember him supporting it until a court ordered him to, am I wrong? https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=148&GAID=11&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=84&GA=97 https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/profile/3575-candidate-for-82nd-dist/ *mauserme beat me to it as I typed up my replay
  14. I like this being added in plain text "a firearm’s military utility is not the test for whether it is protected" as that is their current goto argument to justify bans, so maybe an honest judge will put an end to that.
  15. I think it upends several things, as this is inline with Heller/Bruen in that it applies a founding era "text and history" test to the 5th now as well, instead of the much more government favorable deferment to whatever government law was passed in the last 100 years. As for civil asset forfeiture, I would say this eventually should put an end to the government's civil asset forfeitures without convictions, or at least I hope it does, as the "no need for a conviction" we just decided it was ill gotten gains and thus we are keeping it has always irked me.
  16. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that 'text and history' is the test for the 5th as well, this could have applications for 2nd cases. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf Here is the 4 Boxes Diner talking about it.
  17. In addition to the above, the 4 Boxes Diner, brought up a good point, that point being in all these states that fall under the 3rds precident, the prosecutors are now left in a gray area if they choose to pursue charges of 'unlawful possesion by a felon' under 18 USC 922(g)(1) as they have no clear clarification of what felonies are actually applicable to 18 USC 922(g)(1) prohibition anymore and what felonies could get the charges tossed as a rights violation. This is going to get quite interesting and may very well hand us that third SCOTUS case to help lay down the hammer on the inferior courts sooner than latter as the Feds are now in a pickle that almost necessitates SCOTUS action. He also brought up that majority opinion was authored by a judge that has been on the Supreme Court justice short list, meaning he is highly respected and rank judge and that gives even more weight to this ruling.
  18. It's becoming more and more clear that we will need to add to Heller/Bruen and make it a trifecta before many of these inferior courts finally get it and undestand that pre-Heller/Bruen precedent is no longer valid precedent unless it was based on the precedent established in Bruen and not something else like scrutiny, feelings or whatever else.
  19. I would say the flood gates are open in the 3rd circuit with this precedent, because it basically set the test for 18 USC 922(g)(1) inline with Bruen for the lower courts and emphasized that modern law is a moot analogy, so unless the states can come up with some new founding/reconstrution era analogy they can bluff a judge into thinking is applicable 18 USC 922(g)(1) should be moot when applied to a plethora of 18 USC 922(g)(1) convictions. What will be interesting is to see how the Feds and NICS are going to handle this, right now it would appear to be on a case by case basis, but it's almost a certain bet that some lower court will expand it beyond a single person application in short, will NICS adjust go/no go for just the 3rd circuit when that happens?
  20. BAM! Heller/Bruen just got a big boost in the 3rd circuit! US cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from owning guns-appeals court https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-cannot-disarm-people-convicted-non-violent-crimes-appeals-court-2023-06-06/ https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwyngadvw/CA3-firearms-2023-06-06.pdf This puts the entire NFA on the chopping block! As well as pretty much all gun regulations, more solid precedent!
  21. Wow, just wow, this judge is utterly retarded, seriously being retarded is the only logical conclusion!
  22. You should see my kitchen after trying to 'stab' a watermellon with a nail...
  23. It's actually kind of comical that in 2023 many are obvlivious that the line between 'pistol ammo' and 'rifle ammo' essentially no longer exist for most popular rounds that would be found on store shelves, it's basically up to the end user if it's used in a pistol or rifle. I remember way back when being asked a few times if the 22lr I was buying was for rifle use when I was under 21, never actually had an issue purchasing though.
  24. The civil disobedience has progressed from local and state registrations to federal registrations now, putting the pending and ongoing lawsuits aside, it's going to be interesting to see how the ATF moves forward in today's gun climate with such a large level of civil disobedience. https://www.theepochtimes.com/less-than-10-percent-of-pistol-braces-registered-with-atf-by-deadline_5310748.html?welcomeuser There can be a registration nag, the ?welcomeuser at the end of the URL should bypass it for most, but if not here is an archive https://archive.is/IMUcI
×
×
  • Create New...