Viramontes and Anti 2A Groups

[Lawdog]

Viramontes Amicus Brief Targets Gun Control Lobby's Likely Fallback Position – Bearing Arms

[John Kloehr]

This brief and a few similar ones build an argument for a broader ruling, something more than a simple statement AR-15s are protected. Last I looked, all but two of the filed briefs support the plaintiffs. There are a lot of briefs!

 

There are two briefs "in support of neither party," one of which at least can be read as neutral. The other of the two (Catholic bishops) reads more as a call to change the "test" as there is no clear way to justify the ban under history and tradition. By promoting a different standard, these and similar bans would be constitutional. I read that one as an appeal to Jackson who has been critical of the current methodology.

 

The state response is due 10/21. Once it is published, all the Mad Mommies and such will file their briefs supporting the ban, and if not successful, at least calling for the narrowest possible opinion.

[Sedalia Dave]

Let's hope that SCOTUS can see the trend and make a ruling broad enough to put an end to 2nd Amendment infringement via FOID, Permit to Purchase and excessive fees. 

[Lawdog]

Amen!

[Blackwater 53393]

Something to the effect of, “THOU SHALT NOT PROHIBIT OR OTHERWISE RESTRICT THE ACQUISITION, POSSESSION, OR CARRYING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS OF ANY KIND, SHORT BARRELED RIFLES, SHORT BARRELED SHOTGUNS, OR THE ACCESSORIES AND OR AMMUNITION FOR THESE ARMS FROM CITIZENS NOT OTHERWISE LEGALLY PRECLUDED FROM SUCH POSSESSION BY ANY TAX, FEE, OR OTHER LEGISLATION OR FIAT!”

should be the ruling of the court!!

 

A ruling along these lines would make the Second Amendment a right of equal importance to the other ten amendments that comprise The Bill Of Rights!!

 

Place the burden on the government, (whatever level of government) to prove that an individual should be prevented from obtaining, owning, or having in their possession the arms protected under the Second Amendment’s umbrella!!

 

 

[John Kloehr]

19 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

“THOU SHALT NOT PROHIBIT OR OTHERWISE RESTRICT, delay, or impede THE ACQUISITION, POSSESSION, OR CARRYING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS OF ANY KIND , SHORT BARRELED RIFLES, SHORT BARRELED SHOTGUNS, suitable for any lawful purpose, OR THE ACCESSORIES AND OR AMMUNITION FOR THESE ARMS FROM CITIZENS NOT OTHERWISE LEGALLY PRECLUDED FROM SUCH POSSESSION BY ANY TAX, FEE, license, permit, training, OR OTHER LEGISLATION OR FIAT!”

You are on the right track.

[Blackwater 53393]

4 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

You are on the right track.

I’ll buy those edits!! Two heads are better than one!

 

The idea is to prevent and preclude any infringement, abrogation, or circumvention of the amendment by any means!

[J.D. Daily]

I doubt Roberts or Barrett would sign an opinion that exceeds the scope of Viramontes & Grant.  Permission to acquire and/or possess laws are facially unconstitutional (See Wolford v. Lopez) and no state can satisfy their burden to prove that these laws have historical analogs that aren't outliers or for fire safety.  It is unlikely that 5 justices would sign an opinion that forecloses on states using permit to acquire laws to minimize the number of assault weapons in their state.  It will take a case challenging a state permission to acquire law to reach the stage where a circuit court issues a merits opinion.  

[Vail Vigilante]

JD,

I think you are on the right track. That said, we would still be better off than we were before.

That said, lets not think bad thoughts until we have to.