Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on October 11, 2017, 11:18:30 AM
-
Case is based on zoning restrictions that ban gun stores.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/10/13-17132.pdf
Here's the insane ruling:
"The panel held that a textual and historical analysis of the Second Amendment demonstrated that the Constitution does not confer a freestanding right on
commercial proprietors to sell firearms."
Like saying you have a right to free press, but no right to sell a press to someone who wants to use it. Insane.
Will the supreme court do anything? Probably not. :mad:
-
Help us
Obi Wan Kim Jong Un, you're our only hope.
-
I think it's more like saying you have a right to a free press, but no one is allowed to sell literature in your town.
-
I agree with the court.
This case was about zoning laws, not the 2nd Amendment.
-
NOW can we {REDACTED} the {REDACTED} bunch of {REDACTED}{REDACTED}{REDACTED}?!?!
-
I agree with the court.
This case was about zoning laws, not the 2nd Amendment.
I was going to say the same thing.
-
I agree with the court.
This case was about zoning laws, not the 2nd Amendment.
Do you think it is constitutional for a city to ban selling a book within 500 feet of a residence? What would the supreme court say?
-
Chicago tried to ban gun ranges in the city. Their court didn't let them.
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol125_ezell_v_chigaco.pdf
-
There are still dry counties this long after prohibition ended.
-
I agree with the court.
This case was about zoning laws, not the 2nd Amendment.
That argument didn't work in Chicago. (BTR beat me to it.)
-
Chicago tried to ban gun ranges in the city. Their court didn't let them.
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol125_ezell_v_chigaco.pdf
Chicago tried to ban gun stores in the entire city. This case is about the county putting restrictions on where gun stores may open. Different circumstances.
-
Do you think it is constitutional for a city to ban selling a book within 500 feet of a residence? What would the supreme court say?
Yes, I do. Zoning laws are typically viewed as reasonable by the courts.
The gun store case was not going to be won by saying the county infringed on the 2nd Amendment rights of the store owners or individual customers. That was a bad tactic by the plaintiff. They may have had a better chance by showing how restrictive the zoning law is and that the zoning law is unreasonable.
-
There are still dry counties this long after prohibition ended.
Drinking alcohol is not a right.
-
Chicago tried to ban gun stores in the entire city. This case is about the county putting restrictions on where gun stores may open. Different circumstances.
It depends of how the regulation is written. A few years ago, two towns near me set out to adopt strict zoning regulations that would have effectively meant no gun stores could open in town, because the criteria could not have been met at any location in town. In one of those two towns, the zoning attorney the town consulted told them to forget it because it would never stand up to a court challenge. The town dropped it, a gun store opened, and nobody died.
The other town passed it and, to date, nobody has had deep enough pockets to challenge it. That town's municipal counsel told them it was legal. He's the same municipal counsel who told them our state law doesn't allow the use of firearms for self defense. (Hint: he be wrong.)
-
Drinking alcohol is not a right.
Time to ban BTR. =D
-
Drinking alcohol is not a right.
Cities can zone where commercial businesses can be located, even certain types of commercial businesses. I used to live in a town where pawn shops and check cashing places could only be located in 2 areas in town. There was a group that tried to push them out of town, found out they couldn't so basically the existing businesses became the only areas zoned for pawn shops and check cashing/payday loans. Same thing happened in the late 70s with porn theatres, adult books stores and topless dancing in the same town.
Also about 5 years ago due to a argument in a neighborhood with neighbors, firearms based home businesses were banned. No more kitchen table FFLs in Ames, IA. I even went to several meetings arguing for why it was a bad idea, and if they agreed to make that zoning law then all home based businesses should be zoned out, no more in home childcare, garage sales, Avon, AmWay, etc.
Biggest concern they could come up with is FedEx would drop a firearm off at the door and kid would steal the box. I tried to explain to them that it doesn't work that way according to federal law.
Why did the neighbors get into a fight? Guy had a Traeger Grill home based business already and had 2 cars in the garage, 2 in the driveway and 4 on the streets, neighbors hated him because he took up too many parking spots on the street. So when he applied to add another home based business then neighbors threw everything they could at him and got home based FFL banned for the whole city.
-
Chicago tried to ban gun stores in the entire city. This case is about the county putting restrictions on where gun stores may open. Different circumstances.
I think some folks here need to go read the Ezell cases. Chicago first tried to ban all gun stores. That got thrown out by the 5th Circuit. Then Chicago re-wrote the zoning ordinances to make it impossible to have a gun store or range within the city limits. That's when the 5th circuit threw out the ordinance and Judge Rovner wrote that the city "thumbed it's municipal nose at the Supreme Court" with a "too clever by half" ordinance that outlawed one of the prerequisites for owning a gun.
Ezell I (https://www.saf.org/2nd-amendment-legal-action/current-litigation/ezell-v-chicago/)
Ezell II (http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D01-18/C:14-3312:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1897637:S:0)
-
I might agree this isn't a 2nd amendment case, but I do not think the county should be able to zone out gun stores separately.
-
If you read the link I posted at the top, you can see the man trying to open the store could not find a location that wasn't more than 500 feet from a house... they are using zoning to ban gun stores.
-
If you read the link I posted at the top, you can see the man trying to open the store could not find a location that wasn't more than 500 feet from a house... they are using zoning to ban gun stores.
And that's essentially what Ezell was about.
And that's what the two towns in my state wanted to do (and one did). They didn't just set aside a commercial zone for stores that sell things (that already existed in both towns), they established special restrictions on stores that sell firearms and ammunition. And they made very careful provisions to ensure that no location in the commercial zone could possibly comply -- such as distance from a residence, and a few others. They don't have such restrictions on stores selling booze, stores selling fertilizer and (potentially) diesel fuel, stores selling propane tanks, stores selling knives, or stores selling chain saws and axes ... only on stores selling firearms and ammunition. That's discriminatory.
-
Techanically the town I live in has a restriction on home FFL's. The ordnance specifically allows only named home businesses (FFL not one of them). I recall the issue coming up at a gun club meeting. Apparently the ATF was asking FFL renewers to show explicit permission to operate from their local govt entity. The guy who had the FFL had it expire and nothing was resolved as far as I know.
But at the same time, there was a gun shop in town as well as pawn shops that sell guns. So it wasn't the same issue as the OP.
-
Techanically the town I live in has a restriction on home FFL's. The ordnance specifically allows only named home businesses (FFL not one of them). I recall the issue coming up at a gun club meeting. Apparently the ATF was asking FFL renewers to show explicit permission to operate from their local govt entity. The guy who had the FFL had it expire and nothing was resolved as far as I know.
But at the same time, there was a gun shop in town as well as pawn shops that sell guns. So it wasn't the same issue as the OP.
Yep, that was back in the 90's when Clinton had the ATF go after all the kitchen table FFL's.
-
Yep, that was back in the 90's when Clinton had the ATF go after all the kitchen table FFL's.
No, this was only several years ago. I am not sure of the exact year, but definitely within the last 10.
-
Yep, that was back in the 90's when Clinton had the ATF go after all the kitchen table FFL's.
I do recall that, since I was a kitchen table FFL back then. The approval requirement from local LE and increasing the annual fee from $ 30 to $300 caused me to let the FFL lapse.
-
80 perchentò
-
Drinking alcohol is not a right.
You are wrong!! We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Drinking is the pursuit of happiness.
-
Drinking alcohol is not a right.
What are our rights?
-
You are wrong!! We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Drinking is the pursuit of happiness.
That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
-
That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
That's a good place for a semicolon; not a comma.
The Constitution does not have, or claim to have, an exhaustive list of our rights. Neither does the Declaration, our nation's founding document, which is equally relevant (though not in the courtroom).
I'm not sure why the biggest teetotaler on this board has to say this, but you have a right to drink alcohol, in the sense that you have a right to liberty and property, and are a free adult person, generally.
-
I'm not sure why the biggest teetotaler on this board has to say this, but you have a right to drink alcohol, in the sense that you have a right to liberty and property, and are a free adult person, generally.
Agreed.
-Second biggest teetotaler on this board
-
That's a good place for a semicolon; not a comma.
The Constitution does not have, or claim to have, an exhaustive list of our rights. Neither does the Declaration, our nation's founding document, which is equally relevant (though not in the courtroom).
I'm not sure why the biggest teetotaler on this board has to say this, but you have a right to drink alcohol, in the sense that you have a right to liberty and property, and are a free adult person, generally.
Other than the Bill of Rights, the Constitution does not convey or guarantee rights, it establishes constraints on the federal government. Even the Tenth Amendment doesn't mention "rights," only powers.
Basically, we have a right to do anything that some law doesn't say is illegal, but unless constrained by the Constitution that which is legal today can be legislatively deemed illegal next week.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-
Third biggest teetotaler on the board.
Agree. Unenumerated right, left to the States, or to the People. (I see Hawkmoon beat me to it.)
Don't know if any right to drink was incorporated to the states when Prohibition was eliminated.
But the particular fundamental right of keeping and bearing arms has been incorporated to the States and hence to the people therein. And shall not be infringed upon.
-
Total teetotaller myself for a good while now. The VA frowns mixing narcotics and some of my other meds with alcohol and seeing as I wasn't a heavy drinker anyway, I just completely gave it up. You pretty much have the right to drink what you damned well please. You can brew your own alcohol, within limits, in most states, counties these days. My father and the family priest had a still when I was growing up. Made White Lightning for fun and friends. Best "Holy Water" ever(clear)!
-
Total teetotaller myself for a good while now. The VA frowns mixing narcotics and some of my other meds with alcohol and seeing as I wasn't a heavy drinker anyway, I just completely gave it up. You pretty much have the right to drink what you damned well please. You can brew your own alcohol, within limits, in most states, counties these days. My father and the family priest had a still when I was growing up. Made White Lightning for fun and friends. Best "Holy Water" ever(clear)!
It is illegal to distill alcohol for consumption without a permit in the US. I know lots of folks do it, but it's still illegal, and the ATF does snatch people up for it.
So your "within limits" is: you can brew beer or wine.
-
^ "It is illegal to distill alcohol for consumption without a permit in the US."
I was surprised to learn that "distill" also meant freezing out the water from fermented mixtures. To most folks, "distillation" means the application of heat to evaporate the alcohol off the mixture.
-
^^^Interesting. Just north of me in the Okanogan region of Canada, they are famous for their ice wines, which I believe are prepared in exactly that method: freezing and removing water from the base wine. There are a lot of wineries in the US making ice wines this way, too, and I wonder if they must have a special license from ATF, or does the regular winery license cover it.
-
See first post at:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=399422
QUOTE OF A QUOTE:
The term applejack falls into the standards of identity for distilled spirits and as such could not be produced without a permit. The process of freezing a mixture of alcohol and aqueous fermented material, like wine, causes some water to freeze and separate from the alcohol mixture. The resultant mixture has a higher alcohol content than the original and is called a “high alcohol wine fraction.” Any person who separates alcohol spirits from any fermented substance, as stated in 26 U.S.C. § 5002(a)(4)(c), is known as a distiller; therefore, if you freeze wine or hard cider in an effort to extract water from the alcohol mixture, you are a distiller, and Federal law prohibits operations of a distillery in a residence. As a distiller, you would have to file an application with TTB and follow our regulations regarding the manufacturing processes approved for making distilled spirits.
Ronda Merrell, MPA
Technical Advisor
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
1-877-882-3277
But then a semantic argument crops up. Are you merely removing ice from a mixture, or are you actually concentrating the alcohol in the mixture?
It depends.... For beer, it's sorta OK. But:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/comments/2sgzw4/psa_regarding_freeze_distillation_for_us/
QUOTE OF A QUOTE AGAIN
However, wine and cider may not be frozen for the express purpose of increasing the alcohol content. TTB has previously held that freezing a mixture of alcohol and aqueous fermented material, like wine, causes some water to freeze and separate from the alcohol mixture. The resultant mixture has higher alcohol content than the original and is called a “high alcohol content wine fraction” and any person who separates alcoholic spirits from any fermented substance is known as a distiller. Because Federal law requires a permit to operate as a distiller and prohibits the operation of a distillery in a residence, in order to freeze wine or cider you will have to file an application with TTB and follow our regulations regarding the manufacturing processes approved for making distilled spirits.
Aaaand I suspect that calling it "Apple Beer" won't cut it.
Aaaaaaand, y' gotta keep in mind the difference between for sale and for personal consumption.
Hey ! Reminds me of the ATF rules on pistol stocks and shoelaces, don't it?