ATF moving for Amnesty Period to register pistol braced guns as SBRs
- Thread starter MadMardigan
- Start date
- Replies 1,652
- Views 65,759
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
Imaduckin
Well-Known Member
exactly
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 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.
Last edited:
alpharius
Well-Known Member
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.
I've seen people say that they think all laws should pass through the courts as part of the process before becoming actual law.
No. Absolutely not.
Government is, by definition, political. There's more to separation of the branches at work in how our government functions, and time is an important factor. How the people are selected for the different roles in our government is varied and interwoven. I won't go into all the differences, but with respect to the federal judges, they're appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the Senate in the legislative branch. With respect to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices are determined by the legislative branch...with heavy influence by the executive branch.
You want MORE tyranny? Make it so that all the laws have to go through the court system before becoming law. This will immediately result in the legislative and executive branches working on getting immediate judicial "verification" of the constitutionality of all the laws that any given political entity in power wants put in place. And the longer term consequences of this are absolutely horrible for the citizens themselves.
We already see what happens between the House and the Senate just within the legislative branch when they're both controlled by the same political party. Especially when overwhelmingly controlled by the same political party.
We already see what happens between th executive branch and the legislative branch when they are all controlled by the same political party. Especially when overwhelmingly controlled by the same political party.
And the Great Liberal King himself (FDR...and his side kick Truman) very clearly demonstrated what happens when they COMPLETELY stacked the ENTIRE Supreme Court and had ALL THREE branches overwhelmingly in control of the same political party.
Time allows for shifts in political powers, which works against political alliances like this.
No. Absolutely not.
Government is, by definition, political. There's more to separation of the branches at work in how our government functions, and time is an important factor. How the people are selected for the different roles in our government is varied and interwoven. I won't go into all the differences, but with respect to the federal judges, they're appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the Senate in the legislative branch. With respect to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices are determined by the legislative branch...with heavy influence by the executive branch.
You want MORE tyranny? Make it so that all the laws have to go through the court system before becoming law. This will immediately result in the legislative and executive branches working on getting immediate judicial "verification" of the constitutionality of all the laws that any given political entity in power wants put in place. And the longer term consequences of this are absolutely horrible for the citizens themselves.
We already see what happens between the House and the Senate just within the legislative branch when they're both controlled by the same political party. Especially when overwhelmingly controlled by the same political party.
We already see what happens between th executive branch and the legislative branch when they are all controlled by the same political party. Especially when overwhelmingly controlled by the same political party.
And the Great Liberal King himself (FDR...and his side kick Truman) very clearly demonstrated what happens when they COMPLETELY stacked the ENTIRE Supreme Court and had ALL THREE branches overwhelmingly in control of the same political party.
Time allows for shifts in political powers, which works against political alliances like this.
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.
alpharius
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
I can't post the retort the Founding Fathers would say to that.
On a completely unrelated historical tidbit; a Colt salesman put watermelons up at varying distances to demonstrate the accuracy and ease of use of the AR-15. It impressed Curtis "Ashes to Ashes" LeMay so much it gave us the M16.
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.