|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 17, 2016 21:04:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 18, 2016 15:31:51 GMT -5
I double checked, it wasn't an appeal. It was a rehearing on the DC gun ban decision. The only reason he would ask for a rehearing on that case, is if he didn't like the outcome, which we all know was good for gun owners. A rehearing of a lower courts decision...not the Supreme Court decision on the case. Once cases are settled through the SCOTUS its pretty much a done deal. No rehearing. No appeals. Very, very, very rarely a reversal. First I found this on another web site that I read:
www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/gun-rights/opinion-a-justice-garland-would-dismantle-gun-rights/?utm_source=newsletter_031816&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Unless there is a change in the SCOTUS members. Then they can take a new case on the same old issues and give a different decision.
Garland was wanting to preserve the DC ban on having guns in the house. IE the appellate court stood with the DC ban but the Supreme Court with Scalia over turned the Appellate court and the DC ban on having the right to have guns in your home to protect yourself. The Supreme Court rules that the right to bear arms second amendment held true and people have the right to bear arms for home protection not just when they are in a militia.
A well regulated militia, the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 19, 2016 9:45:20 GMT -5
You're connecting dots that aren't there... Also, I believe your understanding of how the SCOTUS works is incorrect but I won't lose sleep over it.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Jun 11, 2016 9:37:11 GMT -5
You're connecting dots that aren't there... Also, I believe your understanding of how the SCOTUS works is incorrect but I won't lose sleep over it. swilk: I'm not sure who your post was responding to as you didn't quote anyone and your post was at the end of the thread which contained several posts and people talking about this thread.
Who were you talking to?
I have more information to add to this thread which is the main reason I'm posting right now.
The Federal Appeals Court out West recently ruled that the local authorities can pass anti gun laws and that they are not unconstitutional based on the 2nd amendment. I personally think this is wrong. But it's now the law of the land in the Western Parts of the USA. So any States in this area can pass anti gun laws and controls without regard to the 2nd amendment.
The only way to over turn Appellate Courts Decision if for the SCOTUS to take up the case and over turn their decision. Note that their decision only applies to the Western Region (approx. 8 western states). Other states will have to apply different rulings form other appellate courts.
Since the SCOTUS it now split ideologically 4 to 4 it will be nearly impossible for the conservatives on the court to overturn the California Appellate Court's Decision now.
And the Senate under the GOP will never allow Obama to appoint a anti gun liberal justice to the SCOTUS. Now this may harm the GOP in the next election coming up this November but they are making a stand and going in with all guns. Time will tell if they can retain the US Senate or the House of Representatives after taking this bold stand on not even holding a hearing on Obama's SCOTUS nominee.
I personally am glad that I live in IN and that my County Sheriff issues life time gun permits for people living in this area.
Now if Hillary gets into the White House she could appoint someone else to the SCOTUS but that doesn't mean that the GOP will block them if they can retain the US Senate in November 2016. But she could easily appoint a lot of new people to the SCOTUS if she wins and the Dems take over the US Senate. She could easily appoint up to 4 new SCOTUS justices if she stays the President for 8 years. God help us if that happens.
Right now the people living out West are going to have to follow the law as it pertains to the 2nd amendment according to how the Appellate Court ruled. If the SCOTUS takes up this case and has a tie vote of 4 for and 4 against reversing this decision then the Appellate Court's Decision will stand. But their decision will only apply to those states in it's jurisdiction. So the Country will have split decisions across the land until the SCOTUS changes it again.
This upcoming election is critical when it comes to determining the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I'm not sure what Trump would do as he flip flops so often that I can't tell where he stands on most issues. He is like a flag flying in the wind and which ever way the political winds blow the flag flows. And Hillary talks about "Reasonable" Gun control law. I'm sorry but I don't think she has a clue as to what the 2nd amendment is all about. And this judicial activism is getting out of hand. They have found a way around the Constitution which was unintended by the founding fathers. Changing the meaning of words in order to change the Constitution was not intended. IMHO.
|
|