Jump to content
Indianajonze

Vanaski Retiring!! Breaking News!! 3rd Circuit to Flip Conservative!!!

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Well, the idea is that the cases create a standard for scrutiny, and that it is the states job to prove whether it meets it or not. The idea is that they use the same level of scrutiny... That the individuals right is greater than the whole when it serves a purpose to the individual. That is if there is an argument to remove it for the benefit of the public. 

I see the argument as, even if smaller mags prevent Mass shootings, at least in NJ they are so infrequent, that limiting an individuals right to better protect themselves actually out weighs the comparison. 

 

I repeated myself - the first version wasn't intended to go out. As I said in the second version, I am not arguing that the standard of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, rational basis) should not be the same regardless of the right, but whether strict scrutiny itself means the same thing when applied to burdening all rights. At least historically, it could be argued that it has not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

hold on, they cannot limit guaranteed rights because of supposed safety concerns.  He is right, no state has proved the 'gun violence' numbers and if break them down, cell phones are a far greater danger.  A right is a right, regardless and it cannot be subjugated to stall worth of public opinion which is exactly what some of these states are doing.

The SCOTUS has ruled on almost every amendment, that they are not absolute and subject to limitations.. one of those being public safety. The core right cannot be removed. I know people twist Scalia opinion  in Heller but even  he believed in limitations for public safety such as convicted felons should not own firarms, or the mentally I'll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

The SCOTUS has ruled on almost every amendment, that they are not absolute and subject to limitations.. one of those being public safety. The core right cannot be removed. I know people twist Scalia opinion  in Heller but even  he believed in limitations for public safety such as convicted felons should not own firarms, or the mentally I'll.

we've had limitations, what we are now seeing and I'm referring too is broad overreach on those rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FedUpWithNJ said:

Even if they grant en banc review, and even if the majority agrees with Bibas (which they should), I would still caution against too much optimism. Bibas, in summarizing his dissent:

There's a lot of room for NJ to come back and buttress their case with stronger evidence that magazine limits reduce gun violence. It may be that such evidence is still fairly weak (I would suspect so), but the problem with the 2nd amendment relative to, say, the 1st, is that we already accept considerable restrictions on our right to bear arms, whereas free speech is almost unfettered, limited only in corner cases like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

It's easy in a first amendment case to say whether the government has met its burden of proof; it almost certainly has not. But I have no right to keep and bear rocket launchers. Or automatic weapons. Or sawn-off shotguns. Or missile launchers. Or mortars. Or even to concealed carry (although this may change). And none of those restrictions are necessarily grounded in the kind of evidence Bibas is calling for. So what does strict scrutiny mean for the 2nd amendment?

I would think that any weapon where the power of that weapon can be fully controlled by law abiding citizens should be protected by the 2nd amendment. You can make an argument that even fully automatic weapons can be controlled by the user. On the other hand weapons like nukes or biological/chemical weapons that can indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of innocent people, where the power of those weapons can't be controlled, wouldn't be protected since they violate the rights of innocent people. Large magazines don't make weapons uncontrollable and indiscriminate in nature. So should restricting magazine sizes and denying large capacity magazines to law abiding citizens in an effort to reduce violence pass the 2nd amendment test? I would think not. The government should have to prove that law abiding citizens simply possessing large magazines violates the rights of others and is directly responsible for violence, and that magazines restrictions on the law abiding would somehow prevent criminals from obtaining large magazines through other means like the black market.  If the government can't prove all these points collectively and I don't believe they can, then the 2nd amendment should protect large capacity magazine possession. And notice I use the term "law abiding" because criminal behavior should have no bearing on the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding people.

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tomk62 said:

I strongly believe the 2A community does itself a great disservice by continuing to use the terms "large capacity" and "assault rifle".  This only reinforces these words with the ignorant public and plays into the hands of the opposition.

Note that the ANJRPC in it's briefs uses the term "standard capacity" while their opponents use "large capacity" in all their filings. It's entertaining.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tomk62 said:

I strongly believe the 2A community does itself a great disservice by continuing to use the terms "large capacity" and "assault rifle".  This only reinforces these words with the ignorant public and plays into the hands of the opposition.

1000 likes for you sir.   You have won the day.

I cringe every time I see "large capacity" and "Assault Rifle" no matter who speaks or writes the words.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bighungry618 said:

1000 likes for you sir.   You have won the day.

I cringe every time I see "large capacity" and "Assault Rifle" no matter who speaks or writes the words.

Cough @voyager9

54 minutes ago, FreeNJ said:

I would think that any weapon where the power of that weapon can be fully controlled by law abiding citizens should be protected by the 2nd amendment. You can make an argument that even fully automatic weapons can be controlled by the user. On the other hand weapons like nukes or biological/chemical weapons that can indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of innocent people, where the power of those weapons can't be controlled, wouldn't be protected since they violate the rights of innocent people. Large magazines don't make weapons uncontrollable and indiscriminate in nature. So should restricting magazine sizes and denying large capacity magazines to law abiding citizens in an effort to reduce violence pass the 2nd amendment test? I would think not. The government should have to prove that law abiding citizens simply possessing large magazines violates the rights of others and is directly responsible for violence, and that magazines restrictions on the law abiding would somehow prevent criminals from obtaining large magazines through other means like the black market.  If the government can't prove all these points collectively and I don't believe they can, then the 2nd amendment should protect large capacity magazine possession. And notice I use the term "law abiding" because criminal behavior should have no bearing on the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding people.

 

 

 

That’s called “ strict scrutiny “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tomk62 said:

I strongly believe the 2A community does itself a great disservice by continuing to use the terms "large capacity" and "assault rifle".  This only reinforces these words with the ignorant public and plays into the hands of the opposition.

It does.   I correct the usage every time I hear these or other terms like 'automatic' misused.  I invite everyone else here to do the same.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

Just saw the list released of Paul B. Matey for the third circuit. which was expected replacement for Julio M. Fuentes. There were no other nominees for the 3rd circuit. Vanaskie's seat is still vacant. Is it common to leave seats vacant?

Until “ advise and consent occurs “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 12:45 PM, FreeNJ said:

I would think that any weapon where the power of that weapon can be fully controlled by law abiding citizens should be protected by the 2nd amendment. You can make an argument that even fully automatic weapons can be controlled by the user. On the other hand weapons like nukes or biological/chemical weapons that can indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of innocent people, where the power of those weapons can't be controlled, wouldn't be protected since they violate the rights of innocent people. Large magazines don't make weapons uncontrollable and indiscriminate in nature. So should restricting magazine sizes and denying large capacity magazines to law abiding citizens in an effort to reduce violence pass the 2nd amendment test? I would think not. The government should have to prove that law abiding citizens simply possessing large magazines violates the rights of others and is directly responsible for violence, and that magazines restrictions on the law abiding would somehow prevent criminals from obtaining large magazines through other means like the black market.  If the government can't prove all these points collectively and I don't believe they can, then the 2nd amendment should protect large capacity magazine possession. And notice I use the term "law abiding" because criminal behavior should have no bearing on the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding people.

 

 

 

Sorry,  "fully controlled by law abiding citizen" has nothing to do with second amendment. I have heard liberals argue about nukes, biological weapons etc. The answer is always short and sweet. ANY manner of weapon, force or "thing" that may be commonly used against people (supposedly by rogue entities) is fair game for a law abiding citizen to "keep and bear". 

The Constitutional rights (rather declarations) are built on premise that every person is born free and have every right to protect themselves in physical, verbal, legal aspects. Same (if not better) means of those aspects must be available to regular free person. Second Amendment, specifically, is built on premise that a free person must have same (if not better) access to ANY common weapon that may be deployed against him/her.

Lets also remember that Constitution does not give special powers to people. It simply spells it out so a) Traitors like Libs / Politicians/Judges etc who trample on it cannot claim ignorance when/if time comes  b) Provides a moral compass and justification to Citizens.

Now, God Forbid, should the day come when some entity (lets not take any names) use nukes, biological weapons against common Citizens, Constitution shall remind those citizens that equal opposing force options are their birth right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

Sorry,  "fully controlled by law abiding citizen" has nothing to do with second amendment. I have heard liberals argue about nukes, biological weapons etc. The answer is always short and sweet. ANY manner of weapon, force or "thing" that may be commonly used against people (supposedly by rogue entities) is fair game for a law abiding citizen to "keep and bear". 

The Constitutional rights (rather declarations) are built on premise that every person is born free and have every right to protect themselves in physical, verbal, legal aspects. Same (if not better) means of those aspects must be available to regular free person. Second Amendment, specifically, is built on premise that a free person must have same (if not better) access to ANY common weapon that may be deployed against him/her.

Lets also remember that Constitution does not give special powers to people. It simply spells it out so a) Traitors like Libs / Politicians/Judges etc who trample on it cannot claim ignorance when/if time comes  b) Provides a moral compass and justification to Citizens.

Now, God Forbid, should the day come when some entity (lets not take any names) use nukes, biological weapons against common Citizens, Constitution shall remind those citizens that equal opposing force options are their birth right.

Ok where have you been for like 2 years 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information