2A VICTORY: Obama Judge Stops 'Assault Weapon' Ban, Cites Bruen

[bmyers]

 

 

Short video talking about the first Federal case citing Bruen. The town had a magazine ban and AWB, the judge said the guns and magazines were/are common use by Americans and are protected arms. 

[Johnnybgood]

Could it be this judge is up for re-election?

 

[2A4Cook]

On 7/25/2022 at 5:07 PM, Johnnybgood said:

Could it be this judge is up for re-election?

 

They're not elected.  IBTL, this is a dupe thread, I think.

[Flynn]

On 7/25/2022 at 5:07 PM, Johnnybgood said:

Could it be this judge is up for re-election?

 

Federal Judge appointed for life, if anything pushing for another appointment or just doing the right thing.

[illinois_buckeye]

Glad to see this though.  The language sounds very similar to the house bill.  Oops lol.  
 

Haven’t had a chance to finish it, but this guy seems to think the democrats may not even have the votes.

 

https://youtu.be/qAtUlZqgtz4

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Sounds to me like this Obama appointed judge looked for ways to keep the ban, but because Bruen was such a solid well-written decision, the judge had no choice.

IMO, the Bruen decision is going to be the most influential decision by the SCOTUS in the last 50 years or so.  And I have a strange feeling that at least a couple of states are going to just declare they no longer recognize the US Supreme Court after their AWBs are declared null and void.    

[illinois_buckeye]

On 7/25/2022 at 7:52 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Sounds to me like this Obama appointed judge looked for ways to keep the ban, but because Bruen was such a solid well-written decision, the judge had no choice.

IMO, the Bruen decision is going to be the most influential decision by the SCOTUS in the last 50 years or so.  And I have a strange feeling that at least a couple of states are going to just declare they no longer recognize the US Supreme Court after their AWBs are declared null and void.    

Let me know how that works if a republican gets back in the White House.  I saw something today saying there are rumors if Trump would get back in that he’d start cleaning house in the federal government and could fire north of 10,000 people.

[ragsbo]

On 7/25/2022 at 7:57 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

Let me know how that works if a republican gets back in the White House.  I saw something today saying there are rumors if Trump would get back in that he’d start cleaning house in the federal government and could fire north of 10,000 people.

He should have done that the FIRST time he got in office!

[Flynn]

On 7/25/2022 at 7:52 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

And I have a strange feeling that at least a couple of states are going to just declare they no longer recognize the US Supreme Court after their AWBs are declared null and void.    

 

If that happens, I'm betting after a few of them are found to have violated people's civil rights and are locked away in Federal prison others will choose a wiser path, that or we face a real Constitutional crisis like this country has not seen for 161 years.

[illinois_buckeye]

On 7/25/2022 at 8:04 PM, ragsbo said:

He should have done that the FIRST time he got in office!

While we agree, I get to listen to a lot of talk radio since I commute 1 hour each way to work, and they had Don Jr on one day.  Pretty much from what I gathered, they expected going in that the republicans would work with them and not attack them the way many did.  I know one of Trump’s campaign slogans was he was going to drain the dc swamp, but I get the feeling that he didn’t realize how entrenched people actually were.  So if he wins again after what people did to him and his family this time it might be personal.

[GTX63]

It was obvious that Trump and his people were not aware of how deep and entrenched the swamp was. Members of his own cabinets, staff, etc.

Yes, we are at the point, and have been for some time, where there would have to be so much turnover in DC, there would be howls that we are trying to overturn our own government. Corruption in American government is as bad as any 3rd world country, the difference is that ours is sophisticated and unified. It is  both corruption and a coup.

[soundguy]

On 7/25/2022 at 7:57 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

Let me know how that works if a republican gets back in the White House.  I saw something today saying there are rumors if Trump would get back in that he’d start cleaning house in the federal government and could fire north of 10,000 people.

 

I'm pretty sure no president has that kind of power.

[Talonap]

So this is just a temporary restraining order, correct?

[Flynn]

On 7/26/2022 at 11:48 AM, soundguy said:

 

I'm pretty sure no president has that kind of power.

 

The system was put into place already, but never exectuted or tested by the courts, so if the President has the power or not is yet to be decided.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/trump-executive-order-federal-workers.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-transition-civilservants/trump-order-could-spark-mass-firings-of-civil-servants-lawmakers-warn-idUSKBN28538O

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/31/929597578/a-huge-attack-critics-decry-trump-order-that-makes-firing-federal-workers-easier

[jim123]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:00 PM, Flynn said:

 

The system was put into place already, but never exectuted or tested by the courts, so if the President has the power or not is yet to be decided.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/trump-executive-order-federal-workers.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-transition-civilservants/trump-order-could-spark-mass-firings-of-civil-servants-lawmakers-warn-idUSKBN28538O

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/31/929597578/a-huge-attack-critics-decry-trump-order-that-makes-firing-federal-workers-easier

The dates of the articles are all after let's go Brandon got in. I hope Trump can get back in and make this happen. These last couple years have really got me thinking even less of FALFs.

Edited July 26, 2022 at 06:25 PM by jim123

[Euler]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:26 PM, Talonap said:

So this is just a temporary restraining order, correct?

 

Yes. A TRO is "temporary" in that it lasts until a full hearing of the case, when the judge may or may not enjoin enforcement permanently.

[soundguy]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:00 PM, Flynn said:

 

The system was put into place already, but never exectuted or tested by the courts, so if the President has the power or not is yet to be decided.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/trump-executive-order-federal-workers.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-transition-civilservants/trump-order-could-spark-mass-firings-of-civil-servants-lawmakers-warn-idUSKBN28538O

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/31/929597578/a-huge-attack-critics-decry-trump-order-that-makes-firing-federal-workers-easier

 

It is an Executive Order, issued by President Trump.

It was revoked by President Biden on January 22, 2021.

 

Quote

 

The Trump administration has issued an executive order that would fundamentally restructure the federal workforce, making it easier for the government to fire thousands of federal workers, while also allowing political and other considerations to affect hiring.

The executive order, issued last week, would affect the professional employees in policymaking positions at the very top of the civil service — people like lawyers and scientists who are are not political appointees and serve from administration to administration regardless of which party controls the White House.

 

 

A link to Excecutive Order 13957 of October 21, 2020

Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 at 07:03 PM by soundguy

[soundguy]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:23 PM, jim123 said:

The dates of the articles are all after let's go Brandon got in. I hope Trump can get back in and make this happen. These last couple years have really got me thinking even less of FALFs.

 

President Trumps EO 13957 was signed October 21, 2020, just a couple of weeks before Joseph R Biden was elected President. The articles are all dated during the end of Trumps Presidency, after he signed the order.

 

The order was revoked on January 22, 2021 by President Joseph R Biden.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 at 07:02 PM by soundguy

[Talonap]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:43 PM, Euler said:

 

Yes. A TRO is "temporary" in that it lasts until a full hearing of the case, when the judge may or may not enjoin enforcement permanently.

Thanks! I was wondering why I didn't feel all that , "Victorious" about the decision. Good start for sure, but not final yet.

Edited July 26, 2022 at 07:25 PM by Talonap

[papa]

On 7/25/2022 at 8:04 PM, ragsbo said:

He should have done that the FIRST time he got in office!

I'm thinking he should keep his mouth shut about some of the wide reaching things he has in mind. JMHO. You know what they say about " fore warned , fore armed " .

[Flynn]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:48 PM, soundguy said:

 

It is an Executive Order, issued by President Trump.

It was revoked by President Biden on January 22, 2021.

 

And if he is elected again (or any other President) could issue could and put the mechanism back in place, the mechanism has been created and not found by a court to be beyond the powers of the President, so I stand by my claim that the power to do so or not "is yet to be decided" and that a mechinism has already been created to do so.

Edited July 26, 2022 at 08:45 PM by Flynn

[soundguy]

On 7/26/2022 at 3:44 PM, Flynn said:

 

And if he is elected again (or any other President) could issue could and put the mechanism back in place, the mechanism has been created and not found by a court to be beyond the powers of the President, so I stand by my claim that the power to do so or not "is yet to be decided" and that a mechanism has already been created to do so.

 

Arguing from the other side:

 

The never used and never tested mechanism no longer exists... it will take the creation and application of a different mechanism for SCOTUS to determine a President does not have such power.

 

I would guess Trump is not the first President to wish for such sweeping power, only the first to try and grab it. I would not want to allow such power in any administration.

[ragsbo]

On 7/26/2022 at 3:28 PM, papa said:

I'm thinking he should keep his mouth shut about some of the wide reaching things he has in mind. JMHO. You know what they say about " fore warned , fore armed " .

Good point

 

[ragsbo]

On 7/25/2022 at 11:52 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

While we agree, I get to listen to a lot of talk radio since I commute 1 hour each way to work, and they had Don Jr on one day.  Pretty much from what I gathered, they expected going in that the republicans would work with them and not attack them the way many did.  I know one of Trump’s campaign slogans was he was going to drain the dc swamp, but I get the feeling that he didn’t realize how entrenched people actually were.  So if he wins again after what people did to him and his family this time it might be personal.

Yeah, they knew they would have to fight the democraps but not the republicans,

[Quiet Observer]

On 7/25/2022 at 7:57 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

Let me know how that works if a republican gets back in the White House.  I saw something today saying there are rumors if Trump would get back in that he’d start cleaning house in the federal government and could fire north of 10,000 people.

Reminds me of "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is a not a perfect parallel, but I am not voting for a king, regardless of party.

[illinois_buckeye]

On 7/26/2022 at 9:47 PM, Quiet Observer said:

Reminds me of "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is a not a perfect parallel, but I am not voting for a king, regardless of party.

I get where you are coming from.  But judging how far the other side has gone…I personally feel like Trump loves the country, that’s why I voted for him before.  Being realistic, with all the money he has he probably could have bought a quiet island and retired as a country to himself.  Anyway just my 2 cents for what it’s worth.

[Howard Roark]

On 7/25/2022 at 7:52 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Sounds to me like this Obama appointed judge looked for ways to keep the ban, but because Bruen was such a solid well-written decision, the judge had no choice.

IMO, the Bruen decision is going to be the most influential decision by the SCOTUS in the last 50 years or so.  And I have a strange feeling that at least a couple of states are going to just declare they no longer recognize the US Supreme Court after their AWBs are declared null and void.    

 

I concur. It seems likely that even if (for example), federal judges in the ninth circuit covering California issue an opinion declaring the California assault weapon ban unconstitutional and enjoining California from enforcing it, the Attorney General of California will direct all state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce the "law" anyway. And otherwise-law-abiding adult citizens in California will still be arrested and jailed, tried and convicted for mere posession of such banned rifles.

 

I am not certain that the AG of California will announce they intend to ignore the federal courts or admit they are ignoring it. They will simply continue as if the California law is still in effect and use false statements that it isn't so.

 

Nothing will change in California and other states that have extreme laws such as assault weapons bans. The "process is the punishment" and people can be jailed for long periods and financially bankrupted by the process, even if there is ultimately no conviction. And there will still be many corrupt convictions.

 

It is more important to the left politicians and their majority left constituents to have and enforce their gun bans than any sense of fealty toward the current US Supreme Court.

 

This problem with the left wing Democrats cuts across many issues, not just gun control. Ultimately, states like California will likely attempt to leave the USA and war is certainly possible. Not even war will stop the Democrats.

[Flynn]

I'm guessing if states keep pushing the issue much more the piercing of 'immunity' allowed under section 1983 lawsuits for civil rights violations will start happening, not something an AG, law enforcement or elected official of any state wants to risk, and that is the point of section 1983.

 

Heller combined with the Bruen ruling actually give a TON of ammo for 1983 lawsuits to prevail against those that continue to willfully infringe on ones 2nd civil rights, as the 2nd has now officially been ruled an individual right and what constitutes an infringment of that right is now a lot more clear.

[Craigcr2]

On 7/28/2022 at 8:18 PM, Flynn said:

I'm guessing if states keep pushing the issue much more the piercing of 'immunity' allowed under section 1983 lawsuits for civil rights violations will start happening, not something an AG, law enforcement or elected official of any state wants to risk, and that is the point of section 1983.

 

Heller combined with the Bruen ruling actually give a TON of ammo for 1983 lawsuits to prevail against those that continue to willfully infringe on ones 2nd civil rights, as the 2nd has now officially been ruled an individual right and what constitutes an infringment of that right is now a lot more clear.

This.

 

There isn’t qualified immunity for an officer enforcing an enjoined law. There would be a flood of lawsuits naming everyone up the chain in their official & individual capacities.