Suprem court vacates Mass. gun law

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Turtledude, Oct 6, 2022.

  1. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    what part of incorporation do you have such hard time understanding? How does licensing meet the test established in Bruen? tell me if it even meets a rational basis standard-to me it does not.
     
    Reality and Rucker61 like this.
  2. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm afraid-- actually, not at all, really-- that I don't spend a great deal of my time, memorizing the names of court cases, which deal specifically with 2nd Amendment rights. However, I DO recall hearing about the ruling, to which I alluded. As I'd said, with a bit less certainty, I think it may even have been Scalia, who wrote the opinion.

    So it sounds, to me, like somebody is a bit stuck in the past, and isn't keeping, at all, up to date on this.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2022
  3. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    is that sort of a concession? tell us why licensing does a damn thing in actually promoting public safety
     
    Jarlaxle and Reality like this.
  4. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scalia wrote Heller, which I quoted. I do spend a lot of my time memorizing the names and details of court cases, as I want to be able to debate them intelligently.

    So, Bruen overturned Bianchi v Frosh, Rigby v Jennings, RMGO v Town of Superior, Duncan v Bonta, etc.
     
    Reality likes this.
  5. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your reply, which I answered, was this:

    Turtledude said: ↑
    not at a federal level. and ever since FDR **** all over the tenth amendment, the Supreme court has made obvious errors when it comes to the tenth and second amendments. where did the federal government properly obtain the power to require licensing?


    Now I think your main point, above, has to do with the difference between state & federal laws. You, apparently, think it has to do with "incorporation," and something called, "Bruen," neither of which words, do I see, in your post. So tell me, which one of us is speaking in tongues?

    If those are the relevant things, then it appears that your post, which I had actually been answering, was a flaming turd; or else it was so extremely poorly explained, that the writer should hang is head, in shame, not scold a replier, over things that he himself had either neglected to explain, or did not mention, at all.


    Gun rights, is not at the center of my life, Turtledude. It is ridiculous, for you to assume that I have all your background knowledge, on Court decisions. I was merely giving a logical reply, to what you had written.

    If you prefer not to discuss the subject, with anyone who is not tantamount to a legal scholar on this specific issue, that is fine with me; I much prefer that, to the direction in which the tone of your response, is heading.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2022
  6. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The "someone," was a playful way of referencing Rucker. So, no: it was not a concession, at all.

    I put in my 2¢, about the topic of this thread-- novel idea, right? Since you know so much about this topic, it doesn't seem like I should need to explain to you, that this case had nothing materially to do with "licensing."

    In case you have already forgotten, it was
    you who had brought that up. I had merely noted, that this showed a fundamental difference in our perspectives, on gun rights, such that it should not be expected for us to see eye to eye, on the issue.

    Just curious-- did you have a completely different impression, of that beginning part, of this conversation? Because it makes no sense to me, why-- appropriate of nothing, really-- you seem to be wanting to debate me, over gun licensing (again: not this thread's subject).
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2022
  7. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol that's not what they said
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  8. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Intentionally deleted, was looking at the wrong post when I replied
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2022
    Turtledude likes this.
  9. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See 14th amendment incorporation.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  10. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude, the case you're alluding to that you maybe heard about one time and can't be bothered to recall specifically?

    That's Heller, and the whoever told you Scalia said licensing was ok either lied or didn't understand the case.

    The case was quoted for you. If you have another citation, provide it or stop claiming it exists. It's YOUR claim, YOU are required under the rules to back it up.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one is speaking in tongues, rather instead we're discussing basic facts and law surrounding the OP. If you don't understand or wish to discuss the jurisprudence, then leave as that is what the OP is about.

    You want to have an opinion? First read Heller v DC, Chicago v McDonald and NYSR&P v Bruen. These are the controlling cases for the 2nd amendment. Bruen especially should be read because it clarifies the test applicable to 2nd amendment questions that all statutes or orders must pass: IE there must be a historic law that is a fair analog of the provision being tested during the time of the passage of the bill of rights.
    The reasoning being if the founders allowed it after passage of the bill of rights it must not be an 'infringement'.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm going with "lied".
     
    Turtledude and Reality like this.
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,418
    Likes Received:
    51,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2022
    Jarlaxle and Turtledude like this.
  15. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Jarlaxle, Reality and Rucker61 like this.
  16. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basically nothing can except for no weapons at polling places or courthouses or actually in the jails themselves.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  17. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Looks like New Jersey needs a Supreme Court colonoscopy as well

     
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course not.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  19. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    One, I think the law pre-dated Charlie Baker.
    Two, Baker is a squish. He'd be a Democrat in most places, and a LIBERAL Democrat in probably 40 states.
    Three, he doesn't "run" anything. He is a near-powerless figurehead, because he cannot sustain a veto.

    Democrat supermajority for decades.

    That's wrong...Baker doesn't have to sign anything, because he cannot sustain a veto.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2022
    Rucker61 likes this.

Share This Page