That's the point of this thread. Bypass the SCOTUS by making Executive Orders. If the SCOTUS can't be bothered with working for upholding the constitution then fuck 'em. The words "shall NOT be infringed" couldn't be clearer and yet here we are.
It's better right now that they dont take up 2A cases. What if they do, and Robert's sides with the Libs. Then we lose. The best bet is to wait till Roberts or another Justice can be replaced with a conservative judge. I believe mark taylor that Roberts will be forced to resign due to a scandal.
This is perfect. Trump comes out and issues an executive order forcing the honoring of any concealed carry license in any state. The courts fight it out. It gets to the supreme court. They overturn it. Literally contradicting themselves in a few months. Jury box checked off the list.
This needs to get done. It's complete bullshit that law abiding citizens with no arrests have to even apply for a CCW license. My CCW permit should be my CLEAN FUCKING RECORD.
This state-by-state disregard for the 2nd amendment needs to be stopped. The united states leaves THINGS NOT IN THE MOTHERFUCKING CONSTITUTION up to the states. Guess what, the 2nd amendment is IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.
I appreciate the passion, but this is not a good legal strategy. You would be giving the left a golden opportunity to file a case in a cherry-picked court, whereupon said court would write an opinion declaring that the 2A doesn't confer a right to carry a weapon, only to keep one in your home. And that would be the law of the land, unless or until a superior court overturned it.
And yes, I understand that wouldn't alter already existing state law that recognizes the opposite, but it would still be a loss for our side, still creates an unnecessary legal precedent, not to mention the spectre of this fraud SC actually taking the case on appeal and deciding the original judge was right.
That would not avoid the issue at all. It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon, regardless of the legal mechanism being employed, and would still open the door to a judge ruling that no such right existed.
Keep mind, quite a few states now allow constitutional carry, which directly opens that very question.
It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon
It doesn't because someone without a valid state permit still wouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon.
What it does is raise a full faith and credit issue, which may or may not survive judicial review. But to strike it down a court would only have to say that state X can't be forced to recognize a permit from state Y.
As for constitutional carry, that's a a function of state law and state constitutions. Allowing citizens to carry without any permit is a policy choice that may be informed by the second amendment, but it's not dependent on the existence of the second amendment (because rights don't come from the constitution; they come from god and are merely protected by the constitution).
All of that legal theorizing might sound great, but it's not how any of this would work. If it were, one of the more conservative states would have filed a full faith and credit suit years ago. They haven't, and the stuff I wrote is the reason why.
It's a matter of what's right, vs. what's legal, vs. what can be moved successfully through the courts. None of those three are the same thing.
There's a fundamental difference between what you describe and what I describe.
You describe an individual suing a state to win recognition of an out-of-state permit (the second state has no standing to seek enforcement of its own permits outside of its boundaries). That implicates individual rights.
I describe a state suing to invalidate a federal rule that requires interstate recognition. That doesn't necessarily implicate any individual right.
And disband the ATF and all existing NFA laws as unconstitutional (they are.)
^^ This x 1,000,000,000
At this point, what is there to lose?
Hear!! Hear!!
This.
Do it, Mr. President.
Just do it.
Bro they would lose their shit. Lol.
After that DACA ruling, not sure how good of an idea it is to keep pushing SCOTUS into making a 2A ruling right now.
That's the point of this thread. Bypass the SCOTUS by making Executive Orders. If the SCOTUS can't be bothered with working for upholding the constitution then fuck 'em. The words "shall NOT be infringed" couldn't be clearer and yet here we are.
It's better right now that they dont take up 2A cases. What if they do, and Robert's sides with the Libs. Then we lose. The best bet is to wait till Roberts or another Justice can be replaced with a conservative judge. I believe mark taylor that Roberts will be forced to resign due to a scandal.
This is perfect. Trump comes out and issues an executive order forcing the honoring of any concealed carry license in any state. The courts fight it out. It gets to the supreme court. They overturn it. Literally contradicting themselves in a few months. Jury box checked off the list.
This needs to get done. It's complete bullshit that law abiding citizens with no arrests have to even apply for a CCW license. My CCW permit should be my CLEAN FUCKING RECORD.
This state-by-state disregard for the 2nd amendment needs to be stopped. The united states leaves THINGS NOT IN THE MOTHERFUCKING CONSTITUTION up to the states. Guess what, the 2nd amendment is IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.
You can bet your ass they would pick up the case immediately then and declare it unconstitutional
We need it more then ever right now!
Agree 100%. If they won't uphold the Constitution, then fuck em right in the ass. (Though Gorsuch and Roberts would probably like that.)
I would second this.
I appreciate the passion, but this is not a good legal strategy. You would be giving the left a golden opportunity to file a case in a cherry-picked court, whereupon said court would write an opinion declaring that the 2A doesn't confer a right to carry a weapon, only to keep one in your home. And that would be the law of the land, unless or until a superior court overturned it.
And yes, I understand that wouldn't alter already existing state law that recognizes the opposite, but it would still be a loss for our side, still creates an unnecessary legal precedent, not to mention the spectre of this fraud SC actually taking the case on appeal and deciding the original judge was right.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". I can keep them and I can BEAR them. Bearing arms means having arms with you.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" how could it not be any clearer?
Stop believing that our opponents care what the law says. They do not.
That's easily avoided by mandating reciprocity for state-issued licenses to carry (and not creating a federal permit).
Mandatory reciprocity for out-of-state gun permits is analogous to mandatory reciprocity for out-of-state marriages.
That would not avoid the issue at all. It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon, regardless of the legal mechanism being employed, and would still open the door to a judge ruling that no such right existed.
Keep mind, quite a few states now allow constitutional carry, which directly opens that very question.
It doesn't because someone without a valid state permit still wouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon.
What it does is raise a full faith and credit issue, which may or may not survive judicial review. But to strike it down a court would only have to say that state X can't be forced to recognize a permit from state Y.
As for constitutional carry, that's a a function of state law and state constitutions. Allowing citizens to carry without any permit is a policy choice that may be informed by the second amendment, but it's not dependent on the existence of the second amendment (because rights don't come from the constitution; they come from god and are merely protected by the constitution).
All of that legal theorizing might sound great, but it's not how any of this would work. If it were, one of the more conservative states would have filed a full faith and credit suit years ago. They haven't, and the stuff I wrote is the reason why.
It's a matter of what's right, vs. what's legal, vs. what can be moved successfully through the courts. None of those three are the same thing.
There's a fundamental difference between what you describe and what I describe.
You describe an individual suing a state to win recognition of an out-of-state permit (the second state has no standing to seek enforcement of its own permits outside of its boundaries). That implicates individual rights.
I describe a state suing to invalidate a federal rule that requires interstate recognition. That doesn't necessarily implicate any individual right.
NOW NOW. NOW