SCOTUS Declines Gun Law Cases

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by alsaqr, Feb 24, 2014.

  1. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    117
    63
    The US Supreme Court has declined to hear three gun law cases. IMO: The NRA case challenging the Texas law was the wrong fight at the wrong time.


    http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-challenges-gun-laws-143850213.html
     
  2. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    How is that the wrong fight at the wrong time? The federal govt. has no problem arming 18 year olds to fight wars they don't want to win. You can vote at 18. You can enter into legal contracts at 18. If they aren't mature enough to carry a weapon until 21 then stop letting them vote and stop letting them join the military until 21. It's a far worse crime on humanity to put a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car.
     

  3. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,361
    33
    48
    That was the cry in the late '60s and early '70s when Vietnam was a nightmare for the US. The government relented and allowed drinking at the age of 18. But when those who were 18 demonstrated that they were too immature to handle it, the age was raised again.

    My generation and my children's generation have to prove that they are responsible parents. And if things like what is shown by participants of "Youtube" demonstrate maturity level, then I see no hope.
     
  4. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    the SCOTUS has all the will in the world to keep liberal agenda items front and center. Go figure!

    Are they saying these are 'state's rights' issues by declining to hear these cases? If so, they can be setting as precedent for shelving darn near ALL firearms-related cases

    But when it comes to crap like Obama-care, they are comfortable shoving that straight down the entire nation's throat. like I said: Go figure!
     
  5. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Again if they aren't mature enough then stop recruiting and stop letting them vote. Can't have it both ways.
     
  6. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,924
    51
    48
    I'm ok with that. Right now young adults are living with their parents longer, than they ever have. I'd at least like them to be able to read and understand a ballot, and understand the penalties for voting stupid.

    With military down-sizing, narrowing the age range could be auseful approach. By 21, enlistees may be more firmly decided when they sign up.

    I notice that the Sailors that I get who are over 20 tend to be more mature than those who came in straight out of high-school. Those who had a job are even better performers. Those who ballance some college and a job, are some of my best.
     
  7. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Active Member

    3,935
    2
    38
    Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Based upon the healthcare ruling, this is a blessing in disguise for firearms enthusiasts.
     
  8. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    117
    63
    In two previous rullings that went our way the SCOTUS said that "reasonable restrictions" on gun rights are legal. The NRA put the Attorney General of TX, a pro-gun state, on the spot by having to defend a Texas law.

    From the Heller decision:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
     
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    117
    63
    One case remains before SCOTUS. That case is Drake v. Jerejian, formerly Drake vs Filko. Its about the NJ prohibition on concealed carry by all but the rich, famous and politically connected. There is an appeals court split between the 3rd circuit court ruling that upheld the NJ "may issue" law and the 9th circuit court ruling that CA "may issue" is unconstitutional. We may have something going here.

    http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...ent-gun-cases/
     
  10. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    117
    63
    So, Bloomberg sponsors the site. That does not make it wrong. Alan Gura is the lawyer in Drake.

    http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/supreme-court-wont-hear-three-second-amendment-gun-cases/

    I find it putrid that only 34 members of the US congress signed the amicus brief. What happened to all those gun loving "conservative" congress critters?

    http://www.longislandexchange.com/p...-case-from-capitol-hill-signed-by-34-members/
     
  11. F4U

    F4U Well-Known Member Supporter

    2,564
    76
    48
    I read some where a while ago, can't remember where now that the average 11 year old in 1900 was more mature and self sufficiant than the average 26 year old today. I wish I could remember where I read it and post a link. Part of basis for it was that before child labor laws and mandatory school attendance an 11 year old with a deceased parent very well could have been the main support of the family. This is only far fetched to our youngest generation. My ex-father in law quit school when he was 12 and became a carpenters apprentice to support his mom and younger siblings, and this was in the late 50s.
     
  12. wittmeba

    wittmeba New Member

    1,097
    1
    0
    Not saying it's wrong...he just has a lot of bribery money to throw around.
     
  13. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    would not surprise me! when I was 11, I was in the Boy Scouts, where you were taught to do a whole lot of interesting and necessary things including survival skills. Had to swim a mile at summer camp, build fires, construct my own fishing pole.....

    today, a majority of 11 year olds are glued to the X-Box, gazing at the internet or playing an organized sport, etc. Boy Scouts? WAY uncool for today's kids. Would not be caught doing THAT!
     
  14. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    I'm not real comfortable with the NRA trying to stir things up in one of the gun-friendliest states in the country. They need to get busy challenging the hundreds of ridiculously restrictive gun laws either on the books or proposed in a score of other states.

    And I don't buy the argument if you're old enough to serve your country you are old enough to carry a gun in public. Bullsh*t. Military recruits are thoroughly indoctrinated and trained before they ever get hold of a live round. Your average 18-year-old's only exposure to firearms is in the movies he goes to see or Call of Duty games. Most do not have parents who teach them about firearms at an early age. Many of us who post here had the benefit of growing up in a place where guns were common or where there were places to shoot; or had parents who were hunters or ex-military and who could teach us. But there are millions of young "urbanites" in Houston and Dallas and San Antonio and El Paso who fit the age group in question and based on the numbers of murders and shootings committed by 18-21 year olds, it's obvious not all of them can be trusted with a gun.
     
  15. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    117
    63
    Same here.

    i've been a member of the NRA for over 50 years. i hate seeing donor money wasted by people who pick the wrong fights. The lawyer who advises the NRA on these matters is surely a graduate of the Jethroe Boudine school of law.
     
  16. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    73
    48
    The problem here is that many 'citizens' seen to forget the 'court' is part of the GOVERNMENT AND THE JUDGES ARE AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!:eek:
    The 'Bill of Rights' was written in simple language and to protect the citizens from the government. Therefore when the 'agents' of the government have a 'final' say in this the 'citizens' LOSE every time!!! :mad:
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2014