National What do you think a SCOTUS win on "assault weapon ban" will look like?

[arakboss]

I dont think it will stop anything. from what I am seeing, they dont seem to bother with the Constitution when they are writing laws, they just write them, pass them and wait for someone to blow alot of money to challenge them.

Thanks for the moral boost

 

[B009779]

2nd amendment cases need strict scrutiny as Goosebrown mentioned.

 

[arakboss]

2nd amendment cases need strict scrutiny as Goosebrown mentioned.

Do you think it will get it?
Notably, the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment. source: Strict scrutiny

 

[Boats]

Under you paragraph on bans you indicated that in US vs Miller that they gave higher protections to firearms useful for common defense. My understanding of the case was that Justices didn't see the short barreled shotgun as suitable for use in a military application therefore regardless of it's suitability for self defense it was ok to be included as an NFA weapon. Was that not the case?

Here is the passage in question:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

It was not the weapon that failed the test, it was Miller. He was dead. The proof was never offered that such a weapon is useful to the common defense. The court was not going to assume it so, (judicial notice).

The obvious implication of such a test is this: They would have taken it for granted that the American service rifle, the semi-auto Garand, was easily within the ambit of 2A protection. The semi-auto 1911 certainly was, as was the M1917 revolver. The slam fire capable M1912 shotgun would have been as well. Of course, the M1903 Springfield rifle was still fielded too, as a sniper rifle in the Army and as still standard issue to the Marines and Navy.

And as Heller has already stated, rights aren't frozen in time. The successors of these firearms in service in 1939 all have ironclad 2A protection today.

 

[Boats]

Do you think it will get it?
Notably, the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment.

"Strict scrutiny" is a legal fiction from 1A jurisprudence. It will not EVER be applied to the 2A because Scalia didn't want these spurious tests applied to the 2A in Heller, which is why the decision doesn't have clear guidance into what the standard would be, beyond a blurb that any test should be rooted in an historical analysis.

Kavanaugh took Scalia's notion and ran with it on the DC Circuit in a semi-automatic rifle ban case that he was on the losing side of. Now, he'll be on the winning side. Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment - SCOTUSblog

The link shows what is in store for gun control. You can boil it down to this: If a proposed gun control has no deep historical precedent to it, it should be struck down.

 

[Ura-Ki]

And by extension, ALL mil issue, or mil based ( out side of NFA restrictions) Would also be covered! It could be argued that every semi auto firearm, or other action type outside full auto that was issued at one time to ANY country would easely qualify for those same protections!
That could be twisted against non mil types such as the Benelli R-1 and Remington 7000 series or the Browning BAR ( Not the Machine gun) as these were never issued mil small arms!
The other trick is going to be the definition of "Assault Rifle, or Assault Weapons" there needs to be a hard and fast rule established, and the U.S. Army has in fact already defined exactly what that is, and what it isnt!
Washington State has arbitrarily offered its own definitions which differ from what the Army defined, that should be brought to SCOTUS in a case!

 

[B009779]

Do you think it will get it?
Notably, the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment.

I am hopeful.

I included a screenshot of a podcast about women's rights. It goes into detail about how they got strict scrutiny.

 

[arakboss]

"Strict scrutiny" is a legal fiction from 1A jurisprudence. It will not EVER be applied to the 2A because Scalia didn't want these spurious tests applied to the 2A in Heller, which is why the decision doesn't have clear guidance into what the standard would be, beyond a blurb that any test should be rooted in an historical analysis.

Kavanaugh took Scalia's notion and ran with it on the DC Circuit in a semi-automatic rifle ban case that he was on the losing side of. Now, he'll be on the winning side. Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment - SCOTUSblog

The link shows what is in store for gun control. You can boil it down to this: If a proposed gun control has no deep historical precedent to it, it should be struck down.

Good article but now I am even less optimistic that any big wins for AW bans are going to be coming out of the SCOTUS anytime soon. I think Justice Thomas will be one of my favorites.

 

[Ura-Ki]

"Strict scrutiny" is a legal fiction from 1A jurisprudence. It will not EVER be applied to the 2A because Scalia didn't want these spurious tests applied to the 2A in Heller, which is why the decision doesn't have clear guidance into what the standard would be, beyond a blurb that any test should be rooted in an historical analysis.

Kavanaugh took Scalia's notion and ran with it on the DC Circuit in a semi-automatic rifle ban case that he was on the losing side of. Now, he'll be on the winning side. Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment - SCOTUSblog

The link shows what is in store for gun control. You can boil it down to this: If a proposed gun control has no deep historical precedent to it, it should be struck down.

Agreed, and your last part has historical implications, it was common practice to ban the carry of firearms when entering town or even certain buildings in town! It was common to require the surrender of weapons, usually to the Sheriff or business owner who required it, like a bar owner!

 

[Boats]

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York - SCOTUSblog

Your one stop shop for the case that is going to make the gun grabbers cry.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Good article but now I am even less optimistic that any big wins for AW bans are going to be coming out of the SCOTUS anytime soon. I think Justice Thomas will be one of my favorites.

This is the reason to get a ruling on the definition of what an assault weapon is and what it isnt! There are and will be good solid cases that can be pushed up the flag poll on that, and with Wash States legal definition, that sets presedent!

 

[Boats]

Agreed, and your last part has historical implications, it was common practice to ban the carry of firearms when entering town or even certain buildings in town! It was common to require the surrender of weapons, usually to the Sheriff or business owner who required it, like a bar owner!

That last bit was actually a time honored premises thing. If you want to be, and remain, a business invitee, you play by the house rules.

Today, the restrictions on carry and boozing at the same time are essentially the identical rule.

 

[Goosebrown]

Do you think it will get it?
Notably, the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment. source: Strict scrutiny

Yes I do. In the case they just took, New York rifle and pistol.

This is important because on aw bans some courts have stated it places a burden on the 2nd amendment rights but under mediate scrutiny that is ok. With strict scrutiny a lot of those rulings become untenable. That's the wedge to break the log.

 

[Stomper]

When it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them up.

Why, so they can vote... again?!

 

[coyote223]

First you need to get them to take a case, they sure seem to be dancing around the second amendment issues. Which was fine in the past. But now, with so many states jumping on the gun control bandwagon,,,

 

[teflon6string]

Why, so they can vote... again?!

My guns don't vote. Sadly, dems do, and sometimes more than once.

 

[awshoot]

I think the most important first step is to require strict scrutiny on all gun rights cases. This would be a sea change. ...

This!

Strict scrutiny would mean that the states would need real evidence that the law directly and effectively address a public safety issue.

The watered down intermediate scrutiny that has been applied at the circuit level basically means that the state wins if any state operative will sign an affidavit saying the law intends to address X and without it Y might happen. Even if actual evidence to the contrary exists -- sort of like in the NYC gun transportation case where the law is supposedly designed to keep people from roaming the city with their guns by making it ILLEGAL to do anything but roam the city in search of one of the approved ranges because the person in charge of the program said that having a gun locked in a container separate from the ammo might make road rage problems worse. It's pure conjecture.

 

[MannyGlocks]

I've only read the first post: My response - Most serious gun folk will not obey baloney gun restrictions and that number will be massive.

 

[Stomper]

All of them are merely mealy-mouthed lawyers wearing black robes... don't ever lose sight of that.

 

[No_Regerts]

What does a pro-2A ruling from SCOTUS look like?

Hardcore Pornography.

Unable to define it, but I know it when I see it.