Imaduckin
Well-Known Member
exactlyWhen it takes the courts years and sometimes decades to rule that something thats so obviously unconstitutional that it should only take minutes, THAT's justice denied.
Terry
exactlyWhen it takes the courts years and sometimes decades to rule that something thats so obviously unconstitutional that it should only take minutes, THAT's justice denied.
Terry
Agree, but I’ve asked and the response was that while it may appear obvious, they must be meticulous in their analysis of all related prior decisions and arguments because they both very much want to make the right decision and they don’t want their decision overturned of challenged. This, and that they are bound to decide only on what’s in front of them, is also why they don’t rule on certain cases, because they don’t present all of the issues in a way that allows them to rule on what they think is the underlying issue.When it takes the courts years and sometimes decades to rule that something thats so obviously unconstitutional that it should only take minutes, THAT's justice denied.
Terry
The case that this is all built around that has been the legal precedent that rubber stamped the NFA 84 years ago was none of what you just listed. US v Miller . The government railroaded a case through courts they knew for 100% certain they would win because the defendent never showed up and didnt present legal arguments and it never got appealed or overturned because the courts didn't want to overturn it. It had almost no legal basis in fact behind it. Those are the people you are up against. As much as you think something is unconstitutional as a matter of fact, the people who actually determine constitutionality for the record, SCOTUS, do things for pure convenience.Agree, but I’ve asked and the response was that while it may appear obvious, they must be meticulous in their analysis of all related prior decisions and arguments because they both very much want to make the right decision and they don’t want their decision overturned of challenged. This, and that they are bound to decide only on what’s in front of them, is also why they don’t rule on certain cases, because they don’t present all of the issues in a way that allows them to rule on what they think is the underlying issue.
Also, busy for government workers, you know what I mean.
The judges are supposed to rule in the context of the law and constitution. Difficult to say how regularly they actually do that but definitely in many high-profile cases they have simply decided based on what thier opinions of what the law should be and not what the law is and then rationalize that decision when writing thier opinion. You see it throughout US history, not just in the modern day.The case that this is all built around that has been the legal precedent that rubber stamped the NFA 84 years ago was none of what you just listed. US v Miller . The government railroaded a case through courts they knew for 100% certain they would win because the plaintiff never showed up and didnt present legal arguments and it never got appealed or overturned because the courts didn't want to overturn it. It had almost no legal basis in fact behind it. Those are the people you are up against. As much as you think something is unconstitutional as a matter of fact, the people who actually determine constitutionality, SCOTUS, do things for pure convenience.
Surprised he hasn't been Kennedied9th circuit is going to hang onto it and find as many ways as possible to run out the clock on Justice Thomas' time on the court. He's our best advocate of the nine, and likely the next one to go.
Why didn't they let the 3-judge panel hear the case first then? That would be months of time wasted. They just skipped that.9th circuit is going to hang onto it and find as many ways as possible to run out the clock on Justice Thomas' time on the court. He's our best advocate of the nine, and likely the next one to go.
I wondered that as well, but the way I understood some of the online attorneys, it would be better for them to just take it before the 3-judge panel calls it for our side rather than wait until our side gets another win, then violate even more of their process when they have to overturn it.Why didn't they let the 3-judge panel hear the case first then? That would be months of time wasted. They just skipped that.
When it takes the courts years and sometimes decades to rule that something thats so obviously unconstitutional that it should only take minutes, THAT's justice denied.
Actually the ruling covers any of the 3 theirs of membership to FPC being 1. People that were members before the injunction was filed, 2. People that were became members during the injunction process, 3. People that become members after the ruling of the injunction. They also put the wording on the ruling as brace OR STOCK as you mentioned which from my understanding is that we no longer have to pay a unconstitutional tax stamp anymore for a SBR, but I'm going to have to consult my attorney on that to make sure. But from what I remember about the legal process of court ruling as far as paperwork and wording the terms of the ruling is not to be taken as hypothetical but as the legal and meaning of the court and is why they are so picky about how they want everything written to cover any interpretation someone might try to take from it. So I'm sure they meant stock as well. But as a full FPC member I'm covered by the brace for sure with no question and I hope they throw out the entire NFA soon too.I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.
What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.