MA gun rights org pushing case to SCOTUS

[pmclaine]

AG has by fiat reinstituted AWB as prior to 2004 sunset.

MA GOAL is pushing a case to be heard by SCOTUS on grounds lower courts are ignoring Heller and that AR = in common use and exactly the firearm founders sought to protect in 2A as its original intent was meant to be - hint its not about target shooting and sport hunting.

Recent filing....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-404/126279/20191220102210778_19-404%20Reply%20Brief.pdf

Scheduled for conference on 1/10/2020 so GOAL will learn whether or not SCOTUS will hear case or uphold lower courts findings.

 

[Blue Sky Country]

----------
Respondents confirm that the First
Circuit rejected Heller to uphold an
unconstitutional ban of protected
arms...
----------

Awesome, and I am glad that the Supreme Court is taking up the case. That shit needs to be done with the hundred-plus other locations all over the USA that are still blatantly violating the Heller ruling and keeping citizens from exercising their rights. The high prices, ranging upward into $300+, that some cities charge for firearm permits, are another example of this violation, as it serves to intentionally harass and discourage lawful gun ownership.

 

[deersniper]

----------
Respondents confirm that the First
Circuit rejected Heller to uphold an
unconstitutional ban of protected
arms...
----------

Awesome, and I am glad that the Supreme Court is taking up the case. That shit needs to be done with the hundred-plus other locations all over the USA that are still blatantly violating the Heller ruling and keeping citizens from exercising their rights. The high prices, ranging upward into $300+, that some cities charge for firearm permits, are another example of this violation, as it serves to intentionally harass and discourage lawful gun ownership.

SO they confirmed they are taking the case? Surprised.

Hopefully RBG has a painful 72 hours then dies

 

[DavidK]

As a former New Englander, I can say for certain that Mass is a liberal cesspool. I wish them luck.

 

[Maxduty]

My biggest concern with this is exactly this. We want it to be okay for the states to violate federal drug laws (legalize MJ) but then complain that they can not violate federal firearms laws. This is a 2 edged sword my friends. Either the states can or they can not. I understand the argument about the Constitution, but the fact remains that states either can or can not make more restrictive laws. The Constitution restricts the .gov from restricting those rights, not the states. I was under the impression the states lost their rights in 1865. They had a war over it you know.

 

[deersniper]

My biggest concern with this is exactly this. We want it to be okay for the states to violate federal drug laws (legalize MJ) but then complain that they can not violate federal firearms laws. This is a 2 edged sword my friends. Either the states can or they can not. I understand the argument about the Constitution, but the fact remains that states either can or can not make more restrictive laws. The Constitution restricts the .gov from restricting those rights, not the states. I was under the impression the states lost their rights in 1865. They had a war over it you know.

Imagine the first amendment varying across states like the second amendment does.

It’s horse shit

 

[Maxduty]

Imagine the first amendment varying across states like the second amendment does.

It’s horse shit

The first amendment does not apply everywhere. This board is but one example.

 

[chevy_man]

My biggest concern with this is exactly this. We want it to be okay for the states to violate federal drug laws (legalize MJ) but then complain that they can not violate federal firearms laws. This is a 2 edged sword my friends. Either the states can or they can not. I understand the argument about the Constitution, but the fact remains that states either can or can not make more restrictive laws. The Constitution restricts the .gov from restricting those rights, not the states. I was under the impression the states lost their rights in 1865. They had a war over it you know.

Drugs aren't protected by the Constitution.


The argument is actually the same. Leave me the fuck alone, and only worry about those who harm others.

If they stuck to only policing the crime with a victim and quit trying to protect people from themselves we'd have a lot fewer problems.

 

[deersniper]

The first amendment does not apply everywhere. This board is but one example.

It apples the same from state to state. Unlike the 2nd

 

[Racer88]

The first amendment does not apply everywhere. This board is but one example.

Actually, this board is NOT an example. And, your assertion that it doesn't apply everywhere is incorrect. It DOES apply everywhere, in the context of the government exercising "Prior Restraint." The government cannot dictate, "You can't say _______."

I'm surprised that this bears repeating.... over and over and over again... because apparently, not everyone knows this. FAR too few know this, while EVERYONE SHOULD know this. Constitutional protections of fundamental Rights do NOT apply in the PRIVATE SECTOR.

Constitutional protections apply ONLY to the government.

You have no protections for Free Speech, RKBA, search and seizure, etc, etc.... in the PRIVATE SECTOR. That's why an employer can search your backpack or your person without "probable cause." They don't need a search warrant. They can also control your speech on company property. You can't claim 2A protections to be armed on company property. They can prohibit weapons. And, so on and so on.

 

[Maxduty]

You have no protections for Free Speech, RKBA, search and seizure, etc, etc.... in the PRIVATE SECTOR. That's why an employer can search your backpack or your person without "probable cause." They don't need a search warrant. They can also control your speech on company property. You can't claim 2A protections to be armed on company property. They can prohibit weapons. And, so on and so on.

We agree to disagree then. My state says employers can not restrict your right to carry on company property, only in the buildings. The rest of your argument bolsters my claim that the 1st does not apply everywhere. Just the fact that someone was charged with third-degree arson in violation of individual rights, third-degree harassment, and reckless use of fire for burning a LGBT flag is further proof. The 1st applys in most cases, Ill agree, but it varies by locality.

 

[Racer88]

We agree to disagree then. My state says employers can not restrict your right to carry on company property, only in the buildings. The rest of your argument bolsters my claim that the 1st does not apply everywhere. Just the fact that someone was charged with third-degree arson in violation of individual rights, third-degree harassment, and reckless use of fire for burning a LGBT flag is further proof. The 1st applys in most cases, Ill agree, but it varies by locality.

Yeah... burning someone else's property isn't protected by Free Speech Rights. LOL! But, you keep believin' what you believe. Alternatively, I'd suggest you do a bit of scholarly reading.

 

[Maxduty]

Not what he was charged with and priors not withstanding, but that's for another discussion. California, DC and New York have all made gun laws stand. Even the two gun control acts by the Federal Government stood. It may not be right, but it is a fact they can impose their will regardless of what the 2A says. I will be following this one to see how a challenge pans out and hope for the best.

 

[pmclaine]

The Supreme Court does not appear to have redistributed the petition in Worman v. Healey, the challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The justices considered the case for the first time at their conference last week; if the petition is not redistributed for this week’s conference, it could signal that the justices are holding the case until they rule on another gun-rights case that was argued in December, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.

 

[Rthur]

The first amendment does not apply everywhere. This board is but one example.

Conflating private forums with public law.

R

 

[Maxduty]

Conflating private forums with public law.

R

So you're saying the First amendment isn't absolute? That will be the argument when they take your second. But the fact that something as simple as the first can't exist everywhere only gives rise to the claim that states have the right to restrict all of the other amendments too. After all, they only apply to the government in a public space. The fact is, your rights are being violated right now. You say this is a private forum, but the .gov searches it regularly, making it a public forum, or you gave up your fourth coming here.

 

[Maxduty]

The Supreme Court does not appear to have redistributed the petition in Worman v. Healey, the challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The justices considered the case for the first time at their conference last week; if the petition is not redistributed for this week’s conference, it could signal that the justices are holding the case until they rule on another gun-rights case that was argued in December, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.

The issue with this one is the law was dropped when it was challenged. there won't be a case.

 

[Rthur]

So you're saying the First amendment isn't absolute? That will be the argument when they take your second. But the fact that something as simple as the first can't exist everywhere only gives rise to the claim that states have the right to restrict all of the other amendments too. After all, they only apply to the government in a public space. The fact is, your rights are being violated right now. You say this is a private forum, but the .gov searches it regularly, making it a public forum, or you gave up your fourth coming here.

If you'd read the the bill of rights you'd know that they are laws that limit what the government
can do. Doing or speaking my ideals in public has no protection of privacy. Just as if I had spoken it to a crowd
in public except this is recorded in text. Conflating privately owned and publicly accessed is another contradiction.
If this was a "private" forum it would be only accessible by invite. In lawyerese no reasonable expectation of
privacy is given or gauranteed.

R

 

[pmclaine]

The issue with this one is the law was dropped when it was challenged. there won't be a case.

Not absolutely.

The SCOTUS was able to see the only reason NY dropped the law was because they knew it was a loser.

SCOTUS might be wanting a case to use as an example of saying "Cut the Shit!".

 

[Maxduty]

If you'd read the the bill of rights you'd know that they are laws that limit what the government
can do. Doing or speaking my ideals in public has no protection of privacy. Just as if I had spoken it to a crowd
in public except this is recorded in text. Conflating privately owned and publicly accessed is another contradiction.
If this was a "private" forum it would be only accessible by invite. In lawyerese no reasonable expectation of
privacy is given or gauranteed.

R

I concede to you sir. That the amendment in question does not allow anyone to say anything anytime or to address a crowd in public without redress (peaceably assemble, even on a site (technology you know)) should be something that worries everyone. You make a good argument that only laws restricting it are addressed and everyone should be held accountable to their views. In laymens terms, no expectation of privacy is considered when the right to peaceably assemble is a right. It's obvious that you are right, I am wrong and there is no arguing that the First only exists on paper to restrict Congress from enacting laws against it. On that note, maybe none of them matter anymore. You might consider a run for Congress yourself.

 

[Maxduty]

Not absolutely.

The SCOTUS was able to see the only reason NY dropped the law was because they knew it was a loser.

SCOTUS might be wanting a case to use as an example of saying "Cut the Shit!".

People should be careful what they wish for. SCOTUS determined that suppressors were accessories and restricting them was perfectly within reason. I wouldn't count on a "cut the shit" ruling from them.

 

[Rthur]

I concede to you sir. That the amendment in question does not allow anyone to say anything anytime or to address a crowd in public without redress (peaceably assemble, even on a site (technology you know)) should be something that worries everyone. You make a good argument that only laws restricting it are addressed and everyone should be held accountable to their views. In laymens terms, no expectation of privacy is considered when the right to peaceably assemble is a right. It's obvious that you are right, I am wrong and there is no arguing that the First only exists on paper to restrict Congress from enacting laws against it. On that note, maybe none of them matter anymore. You might consider a run for Congress yourself.

You are misunderstanding my stance and meaning.
For example: The owner of this site can and does limit what can be said.
An example of your/mine limit on the 1st.
The government can't decide what that is for him.
Privacy expectations in public is a self evident problem.
If you believe/expect privacy on public accessible forums you'll be disappointed.
The First actually also is supposed to regulate what any part of your government can do or enact against you all the way down to local.
I'm perfectly aware of what is being done/tried.
Be happy to run for congress, are you interested in making a campaign donation?
You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm anti 1, 2 or any of the rest.

R

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The problem is not the laws or the courts, it's the lawmakers.

There are far too many of them, they are plague carriers, and the plague they carry seems only to make them less vulnerable to conventional remedies.

One Senator and two Representatives per state. Two terms. Selection by lottery from a qualified pool, exactly the way the Selective Service did it for 'Nam.

But nobody takes me for real...

Greg