Posted on 08/28/2024 7:42:17 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Federal courts across the country are handing back disparate rulings over federal and state gun laws despite nearly back-to-back Second Amendment cases at the Supreme Court that sought to clarify the scope of the right to bear arms.
Although the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen held that gun regulations must align with the nation’s “history and tradition” of firearms laws and a separate case this summer called Rahimi v. U.S. upheld firearm prohibitions for domestic violence offenders, lower federal courts are still struggling to achieve consistency, as shown by three major decisions last week alone.
First, a federal judge in Kansas appointed by former President Donald Trump caught national attention on Aug. 21 after he dismissed a case for a defendant facing felony charges for possessing a machinegun. Later in the week, two federal appeals courts swung the opposite direction to uphold other restrictions on firearms, with one decision upholding bans on felons possessing guns and a separate appellate court agreeing to uphold a Maryland handgun licensing law.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
...like that actually ever happens.
Yeah, the last federal judge that was impeached (that I know of) got elected to congress. Alcee L. Hastings, D-FL (of course)....
There was another in 2010, Thomas Porteous, Jr., a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
He was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Gun restrictions, with possibly the exception for mental illness, are in place to protect government officials, not citizens.
For impeachment to be considered, the Supreme Court needs to explicitly state that a trial court judge did not seem to be faithfully applying their prior decisions. Then it might get some legs.
The bumpstock banner and gun grabber gabbard are running the show. Shall be infringed by republicans.
So feel free to vote for Harris. I’m sure she will appoint strict constitutional conservatives to the courts.
L
The USSCt needs to issue a clear and unambiguous defense of the US Constitution. Bruen did that but Rahisi back=tread. “Shall not be infringed” means, well, “shall not be infringed.”
As American citizens, we are entitled to honest and forth-right USSCt rulings defending, upholding, and yes, restoring our civil rights and constitutional liberties. This includes overruling all of the infringing “laws” and “regulations” while also abolishing the “regulatory” agencies that deprive Americans of our rights on an ongoing, daily basis.
There’s a reason why there’s such widespread disdain, disrespect, and utter contempt of the law (and our judiciary).
It is because the courts are so contemptably disrespectful and disdainful of our natural law rights and liberties.
They bring all this contempt upon themselves. They’re very very very lucky that American citizens haven’t already taken the matter into their own hands
I think the strategy is to keep passing laws which are hopelessly unconstitutional and let them take effect for a couple years until they are inevitably overturned by higher courts.
“The AT4CS AST is a weapon optimised for urban combat, capable of defeating multiple target types as well as creating new entry points into buildings.”
“The AT4CS HE provides the single soldier with overmatching firepower to defeat enemy troops at range.”
“600 m (impact mode/point targets)
1000 m (airburst mode)”
“It also includes confined-space capability...Airburst mode for defeating troops behind cover or in trenches is possible using a compatible external sight mounted to the weapon.”
https://www.saab.com/products/at4
The judges have at least 150 years of precedent to be overcome.
Who are they to say that Virgil Cole and Wyatt Erp were disregarding the constitution as they enforced their rules in Appaloosa and Tombstone?
The subtleties of the new SCOTUS must all be brought to the surface and delt with.
The Supreme Court is not going to rule that a law banning possession of a machine gun is unconstitutional under the second amendment. If you look closely at the decisions the court has issued in the last 20 years, the only thing that they clearly said about the right to bear arms is that the state cannot ban you from possessing a gun in your own home. That leaves room for a lot more regulation that the court has not ruled on yet.
Exactly. There is no reason a person can not walk into a courthouse, city hall, or congress unarmed when a government official can come to the house of any person armed.
When the citizens remain armed government is more responsible.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
can the 14th Amendment section III be used to dismiss these activists who are in “rebellion” of our Constitution?
asking for a friend
*The Ninth resorted to delaying the appeal of some cases from Judge Benitez and calling an en banc hearing to overrule.
*The Fourth Circuit delayed publishing a decision against Maryland's gun control until another panel could rule in favor in another case, and then published the second case first so they could claim it established precedent and not the first. Utterly dishonest.;
*The Seventh Circuit decided to confabulate its own rule about "military arms" being exempt from Bruen without any prior precedent or legal definition to substantiate their ruling upholding Illinois' draconian gun bans.
All these circuits are simply dragging their feet hoping a death or retirement on SCOTUS will present an opportunity to undo Bruen. They should be impeached for the dishonesty and refusal to follow precedent and SCOTUS seems incapable or unwilling to enforce any discipline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.