Large-capacity gun magazine possession law on pause while Supreme Court petitioned

[C_Clayton_Jones]

your premise is a lie

Laws banning high-capacity magazines are not an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to their constitutionality.

Likewise, waiting periods and background checks are not an ‘infringement.’

License and permit requirements are not an ‘infringement.’

Prohibiting firearms in schools and police stations is not an ‘infringement.’

Should the Supreme Court rule that any of the above are un-Constitutional, it’s at that point a firearm regulatory measure becomes an infringement.

 

[Rogue AI]

You’re entitled to your personal, subject opinion – provided you understand it's devoid of legal merit.

Needless to say, if a law you supported was subject to a court challenge, you’d be an aggressive advocate of the doctrine of presumed constitutionality.

You are simply being silly. If all anyone had to do to make a case for Constitutionality they would cite Renquist. Did the liberals do so during Heller? Did Texas do so during their abortion briefing with the Supreme Court? No, they did not.

Of course my argument has merit, you simply don't like it. Very different things.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws banning high-capacity magazines are not an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to their constitutionality.

Just like the TX abortion law that bans abortions after 6 weeks is constitutional, because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to its constitutionality.
Glad you agree.
Funny how you can't muster up the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Laws banning high-capacity magazines are not an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has not ruled as to their constitutionality.

Likewise, waiting periods and background checks are not an ‘infringement.’

License and permit requirements are not an ‘infringement.’

Prohibiting firearms in schools and police stations is not an ‘infringement.’

Should the Supreme Court rule that any of the above are un-Constitutional, it’s at that point a firearm regulatory measure becomes an infringement.

if it restricts me getting one thats called an infringement,,

so once again your premise is a lie,,

 

[2aguy]

And their argument falls apart at every turn....

Let's limit the number of words an author can use for political tracts.....for novels......and before they can write anything, they have to get a government permit, and take a test, and pay a licensing fee .... a test that would make sure they knew all of the laws on Libel. If they fail that test, they don't get the permit to write........

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Those hostile to Constitutional firearm regulatory measures

Oxymorons

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

“Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577—578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress’ power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.”

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

www.law.cornell.edu

Based on that argument, ALL federal gun laws are presumed unconstitutional immediately.

 

[Abatis]

No one said they did.

Uhhhhhh, . . . What response did you expect to elicit from me by asking: "Within the next 150 days, will the Court agree to hear the case?"

You had a reason for asking it, didn't you?

Take note; this is a chance for you to demonstrate that you recognize your question above was, in context, nonsensical and now understand what I was saying in post 32 and are ready to answer my question:

"What's the status of Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban? SCOTUS denied cert on that appeal . . ."​

Currently the appellate courts are in agreement with the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions. . . . The same is true concerning AWBs.

True. they all (excepting the 4th Circuit in Kolbe) agree that those laws implicate actions protected by the 2nd Amendment which means that those lower courts have determined those laws, on their face / as applied, violate the 2nd Amendment.

That is indisputable fact because those lower courts then move to the second step of their process, undertaking various interest balancing tests to discern the degree of violation. I say indisputable fact because the second step of their process can only be begun after those lower courts have recognized the challenged laws implicate the RKBA, as secured by the 2ndA.

These lower courts, through this two-step process that they invented, then find ways to decide that the violations are only minimal burdens on the right to keep and bear arms, which is the illegitimate legal justification why the laws were sustained.

As such it is likely the Supreme Court will continue to refuse to hear such a case until there’s disagreement among the appellate courts.

No, these courts employing this bullshit two-step process guarantees the Court is going to slap them down because the Supreme Court already excluded and will reaffirm that the core protection of the constitutionally enumerated RKBA, should not be subjected to such interest-balancing tests, see Heller (quoted below*).

That is why I argue that overruling / invalidation of these lower courts will not come by any direct cert appeal and decision by SCOTUS on any of these AW or LCM ban cases; it will be included in the Supreme Court's ruling in NYSRPA v Bruen (did you listen to the oral argument?)

NYSRPA will result in a deluge of rehearings in these Circuits and reversals of all these AW and LCM bans . . . Just like the challenge to Chicago's handgun ban was already written and filed in the 7th Circuit immediately after Heller was handed down, (which subsequently became McDonald) there will be a tsunami hitting these Circuits immediately following NYSRPA . . .



*

"Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10.​

​

After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.​

​

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.​

​

We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views.​

​

The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."​

.