Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns
cowboystatedaily.com
cowboystatedaily.com
This opinion is mostly standing/housekeeping.
Here's a clean interpretation of the ruling https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/2...
And the actual ruling [pdf]: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...
The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.
The supreme court's ruling is basically: "Racial gerrymandering is insulated from legal recourse as long as it's packaged as partisan mapmaking"
I'm sorry but this is an unserious, bad faith nitpick. The court is absolutely packed by carefully manipulating the membership. The confirmation process for most of my lifetime has been an intensely partisan operation to ensure only the most hardened political operatives land on the court, with the intention of turning it into the 'super legislature' that it is. This argument does a disservice to the people who worked so hard to pack it.
> The VRA wasn’t struck down either
I mean, that's your opinion. but you're not on the SC and someone who is says that this decision's effect is to "eviscerate the law."
The literal public education textbook I was required to learn from explained court packing decades ago as increasing the number of justices to imbalance an existing court, which is explicitly what FDR was trying to do. If the English language has changed that much in my short lifetime, I'm pretty sure I grew up on mars.
"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.
Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string.
FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.
Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here.
Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...
Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land.
That's just BS. If the cops show up for any reason and they think they can get a DUI out of it they will try and write one.
Somehow I doubt that many 2nd amendment supporters would be okay with "You don't need a registration number on your gun, it'll just be illegal to carry/use it anywhere except private property"
The biggest problem with this (for the first group) would be conveyance from buyer to seller or to/from a range or hunting grounds.
Of course, Chinese cars in the US are effectively banned by regulations. Proof that VIN can be used for banning.
Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)
See also:
"your 4th/5th/8th amendment rights aren't being violated because this is an administrative matter not a civil one"
>Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)
On an unrelated not the people who hold up the banning of child labor as some good thing really peeve me because it's ignorant of history. Child labor went away because industrialization made a man with a machine more valuable than a child with or without a machine.
Then once child labor was mostly gone the government went back and banned it in the few places it hung on. Textbook low impact pandering. Not any sort of accomplishment or hard fought thing. And it worked, because they're still crediting the government with it over a century later.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.
'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'
Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?
Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?
The word "regulated", which has no semantic overlap with the modern meaning of the same word.
It's the ATF and congressional Democrats (who are very much not "gun rights advocates") who created that "absurd fiction".
Full case record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-assoc...
Unless there's been court packing by then of course.
I'm not even saying that shootouts are a good way to handle the situation, or that people should be trying to put things right by shooting other people but the idea that the 2nd amendment is protecting us from violations of our freedoms or the abuses of government is clearly pure fantasy.
Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical.
But on deeper reflection I would hope that we can acknowledge that violent revolution is not an impossibility, it's merely an improbability. And anybody who tries to tell you that hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight is uninformed, to put it lightly.
The fact that the current level of rights abuses (which I would agree is much too high and climbing!) has not lead to a violent revolution is a feature, not a bug.
Mutually assured destruction is what makes the literal nuclear option a valid deterrent. That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc.
Violent revolutions are a part of our history, but back at a time when having muskets was enough to get the job done. It's completely unrealistic to expect that to work out in today's environment and the government knows that. Hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight when you're fighting against planes and drones that can drop bombs while flying higher than bullets fired upwards can ever reach.
That said, while the success of outright revolution (at which point the constitution doesn't really matter) can be reasonably debated, what can't be argued is that the 2nd amendment has been effective at protecting our rights. Our rights are routinely violated. The 2nd amendment is total failure when it comes to protecting our rights and when it comes it preventing violations of those rights. The government does not fear the people and that becomes increasingly clear as the mask slips away and they stop even pretending to be anything but openly corrupt.
What are they going to do, level factories and skyscrapers when their logistics are threatened thus destroying their own logistics and economy that is supporting them? An insurgency is not like a nation state war, it is asymettrical warfare where even telling who the enemy is is incredibly difficult and many exist among your own personnel.
They've already got planes and tanks. They can also be strategic about what they target, protecting what's important to them while targeting what's important to the population. The people flying the planes and drones won't have homes in the communities they bomb. Our government has already opened fire on Americans, already dropped bombs on American cities. Like I said though, how well they'd do in a revolt is theoretical. What isn't theoretical is the failure of the 2nd amendment to protect our freedoms.
I don't want to be too blunt, but this is the "uninformed" I was talking about. The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ability to level cities is not actually that helpful when the goal is to control the population. Modern revolutions don't involve standing armies that you can kill will tanks.
> outright revolution (at which point the constitution doesn't really matter)
It doesn't matter beyond the point of revolution. It matters a lot that it was in effect before the revolution.
> what can't be argued is that the 2nd amendment has been effective at protecting our rights. Our rights are routinely violated.
I'm not sure if you just don't understand the concept of a last resort or if you actually think that we're at the point of last resort already, in which case my only question is: Do you own a gun yet?
Those also occurred overseas. The government didn't already have control over the population like they do here. They didn't have massive amounts of data on every last person there, and everyone those people knew. They hadn't been tracking all of their movements. If the founding fathers had tried to gain independence while still in Brittan the fight would have been much much harder.
We can argue over how well a revolution might go in theory, but the second amendment's failure to protect our freedoms isn't theoretical. Our freedoms are being violated all the time. It failed. That means that having the "last resort" option doesn't prevent our government from violating our rights. The second does not protect the first.
A last resort isn't effective at defending our freedoms under the government we have. It just maybe gives us a very very small chance to throw the old system away and replace it with something new that would restore our rights.
Personally, I'd like to think that it's still possible to vote our freedoms back, but there's been a lot of efforts made to reduce or prevent our ability to accomplish that and recently voter suppression efforts appear to be escalating alongside talk of "third terms" and election canceling. It's certainty not encouraging. In my case, under an absolute worst case scenario, the most effective use of a gun would be suicide. At best it might save me from looters. I can't imagine it being any use against a drone strike.
You don't seem like a violent person; quite the opposite. Most people are like that, myself included. I'm mad at the government. Steaming mad, even. But killing? Not even remotely close.
I get that it's easy to discount low-probability futures as meaningless, but I won't do that either. Maybe the insurance policy that is the 2nd amendment has paid out $0 so far. I don't think that's the case, but for the sake of argument let's say it's so. Even if it were so, history and current events indicate to me that we should keep paying for the policy. We think we've got it bad now, but our guy is an absolute kitten compared to some of the tyrants our species has cooked up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_State...
(personally i think both parties suck, but what you wrote i think refers to that)
If you're going to do a whataboutism at least try to make it work. America's gun owners were practically chomping at the bit to start shooting over Obama's imaginary Marxist revolution, as much as they couldn't care less about Trump's actual authoritarianism today.
I could see this standing, there's no point in the state appealing, as Colorado couldn't reach another appeals circuit, and appealing to the Supreme Court limits SCOTUS to an appellate court and no original jurisdiction so the court has no reason to rule on this
Additionally I was alluding to the process of using a other circuit by bringing a case in another state that has similar laws as Colorado, thats the only way for a potential circuit split, forcing SCOTUS review.