kwc Posted March 28, 2016 at 08:45 PM Posted March 28, 2016 at 08:45 PM This one should bring back some memories of the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling that overturned Chicago's ban on handgun possession and made it clear that the 2nd amendment applies to the states. The Second Amendment Foundation just won a federal case in the Northern Mariana Islands (U.S. territory). The district judge ruled yesterday in Radich v. Guerrero (original topic archived) that the statutory ban on handgun possession was unconstitutional. Good summary here: http://www.guns.com/2016/03/28/judge-drop-kicks-last-handgun-ban-in-the-u-s/ and here: https://www.saf.org/federal-judge-rules-northern-mariana-islands-handgun-ban-violates-2a/ The Marianas fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Radich couple was represented by Attorney David Sigale who (among other 2A successes) litigated the McDonald case. He also represents the plaintiffs in one of Illinois' non-resident concealed carry ban cases, Culp v. Madigan.
BobPistol Posted March 29, 2016 at 12:12 AM Posted March 29, 2016 at 12:12 AM Does this also cover American Samoa? Marianas and Samoa are the only pieces of red left.
skinnyb82 Posted March 29, 2016 at 06:00 PM Posted March 29, 2016 at 06:00 PM I have zero doubt that CA9 will come up with some convoluted reasoning as to why McDonald isn't controlling in re a U.S. territory such as the Marianas. Possibly drag its feet to wait for a uber liberal Justice to be confirmed, let it get kicked up to SCOTUS and may God help us all if cert is granted. Could end up with a reconsideration of both Heller and McDonald. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Mr. Fife Posted March 29, 2016 at 06:53 PM Posted March 29, 2016 at 06:53 PM Does this also cover American Samoa? Marianas and Samoa are the only pieces of red left. No, the workers at Pelosi's fish cannery might start demanding higher wages.
skinnyb82 Posted April 16, 2016 at 03:39 PM Posted April 16, 2016 at 03:39 PM Anyone wanna take a guess what the terroritory decided to do after this? Pass more restrictive gun control measures with the acronym "SAFE" Act. AWB, "high capacity magazine" ban, GFSZ, regulated the crap out of time, place, manner to the point where it essentially makes it impossible to own a handgun and even if it's possible to own a handgun, the $1,000 excise tax on importation of a handgun (a regulation mechanism which was already struck down by the court, so contempt of court). And we thought that Illinois is bad when complying with court orders. Illinois drags its feet, CNMI says "screw you" and immediately passes legislation which places it in contempt of court. These clowns have a permanent injunction entered against the enforcement of previous, unconstitutional laws, and pass new, more restrictive and unconstitutional law. Including one regulation specifically addressed by the order (importation barriers, the ban on importation....a $1k excise tax is a ban, more or less) and the Commonwealth passed a regulation which accomplishes the same goal as a total ban. It's not just non-compliance, it's flagrant contempt. Looks like Sigale has a lot more ahead of him litigating another lawsuit which has yet to be (but will be) filed. Here's the text of the SAFE whatever. http://www.cnmilaw.org/pdf/public_laws/19/pl19-42.pdf Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
BobPistol Posted April 16, 2016 at 09:39 PM Posted April 16, 2016 at 09:39 PM http://www.cnmilaw.org/pdf/public_laws/19/pl19-42.pdf "The Legislature finds that human life is the most precious thing in the entire world." So they'll ban abortion right? Oops....Nope. Just guns.
skinnyb82 Posted April 19, 2016 at 05:20 PM Posted April 19, 2016 at 05:20 PM It's a de facto handgun ban since who's willing to drop $1600 on a new Glock, S&W, SA, whatever pistol manufacturer. Not too many can afford that. It's an excise tax designed to DISCOURAGE the taxed activity which, in this context, is facially unconstitutional as it discourages citizens from exercising a protected right. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk
DoverGunner Posted April 19, 2016 at 08:37 PM Posted April 19, 2016 at 08:37 PM It's a de facto handgun ban since who's willing to drop $1600 on a new Glock, S&W, SA, whatever pistol manufacturer. Not too many can afford that. It's an excise tax designed to DISCOURAGE the taxed activity which, in this context, is facially unconstitutional as it discourages citizens from exercising a protected right. Sent from my VK700 using TapatalkI just love the way Politicians ,and Judges Thumb their noses at the law and rulingsSeems we have more Judges that are not Qualified to be a Judge
kwc Posted April 19, 2016 at 08:55 PM Author Posted April 19, 2016 at 08:55 PM Seems we have more Judges that are not Qualified to be a Judge While that may be true, this judge got it right IMHO. Unfortunately, the legislature messed things up again. I'm guessing the judge will get another shot at this one (no pun intended).
skinnyb82 Posted April 19, 2016 at 11:26 PM Posted April 19, 2016 at 11:26 PM Government will argue the passing of the $1000 import tax moots the case as the flat ban was struck down. Kinda a stretch to argue that making it unaffordable to import a firearm isn't a de facto ban. "There's no import ban. It's only $1,000 more to import a handgun, double the price of the firearm which is a reasonable regulation." Nope heh it fails rational basis. There is no rational basis for the excise tax...other than revenue (last thing on their minds when they passed it) and to continue to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of residents of The Commonwealth. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.