Alabama's Amendment 3 Could Jeopardize Gun Rights

Renew America ^ | October 9, 2014 | Gina Miller

[Dead Corpse]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_ATF_approved_post_1986_machine_guns_for_NFA_trusts__legal_action_pending__updated_10_7_14.html

Tells the whole tale up to date...

[zeugma]

Sorry, Zeugma, I’m the writer, and I know the trouble our nation is in right now with the commie enemies of our nation who are running the show. This may be too little too late, but I would not give an inch to “legal terms” that are easily manipulated (despite your claim) by men with nefarious intentions. It is clear that lawyers wielding “legal terms” are who have decimated our Constitution as it stands.

I understand, and generally share your distrust with lawyers. The trouble we get into though, is that they refuse to understand simple declarative phrases like "shall not be infringed" because it is not couched in legal terms of art they recognise as language.

IANAL, but I read through most decisions of the supreme Court, and many others that pique my interest, and it is clear to me that the particular term of art in question was chosen quite specifically to require the strongest burden on the government available in legal terms.

There was a long discussion in both the decision and dissents in the Heller and MacDonald cases about exactly what level of scrutiny was applicable to the constitutional question at issue. If I recall correctly the Nasgul decided on one that was lower than "strict scruitiny", though I can't remember the particular term at the moment. I'd spot it immediately if I scanned through them though. 

Bottom line to me is I think the wording is good, and is an attempt to force courts in Al to use the hughest level of scruitiny for decisions related to the right to keep and bear arms. Sure, there will be judges who will still try to weasel around it, but they'd be doing so anyway, and they are at greater risk of being overturned if they do because of the specific scruitiny specified for them to use.

 

[zeugma]

Thanks dead, I'll look through it. If you haven't looked at the Dalton and RIA cases before, they are worth a read. You'll find them linked here.

[zeugma]

Read through a bunch of that. It's pretty interesting. Will have to keep their actions in mind. Once they get to the point of really needing funding to roll, I'd be open to it, even though I can't really even afford to feed an NFA weapon. Anything that shows up the ATF faggots for being the asses they are is worth the time.

[Dead Corpse]

I have, but thank you for the consideration.

As for Nolo’s NFA lawsuits, this would re-affirm the full scope of our RKBA. Once they get funding figured out, and more particulars for interested parties, I’ll ping folks over here as well.

FReegards...

RDC.

[Sasparilla]

Accuracy means that in Second Amendment cases that since strict scrutiny has been consistently applied by SCOTUS, the ultimate authority, gun rights have been expanded. Care to name recent SCOTUS cases applying strict scrutiny where they have not. Keep trying.

[Dead Corpse]

Strict scrutiny has never been applied by the SCOTUS re:RKBA.

So your “consistently” quip is a lie.

[Dead Corpse]

Didn’t take them nearly as long as I thought...

http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk