Gun Free School Zone Challenge - US v Metcalf

[SAK]

Bad news - a judge just denied Metcalf's motion to dismissed based on unconstitutionality of the act. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-metcalf-35

1) Why are courts allowing any post-1791 laws to define the meaning of the 2nd Amendment?
2) How can a court say a law that had a small fine is similar to a law that can put one in prison for years and years?
3) Why hasn't anyone successfully challenged all federal firearms laws based on the fact there is no delegated power to regulate firearms and no "police powers" delegated to the federal government within the Constitution.
4) Are all firearms laws based on the Commerce Clause?

Disappointing news for sure.  But hopefully he can win on appeal.

[Pb]

1) Because they aren't basing their rulings on the law.
2) Why do they care?
3) Because the tenth amendment has been dead since Wickard v. Filburn.
4) The federal government does whatever it wants, and has for much longer than I have been alive.

[MechAg94]

And even with the Bruen decision, there are plenty of anti-gun federal judges determined to defy it and the SC hasn't taken firm action on that stuff at this point.  IMO, the courts are a way to make things happen, but are going to be slow and you will never get everything you want.  Voting in better Congressional candidates is still the best way to change things.  Vote against your incumbent in elections and the primaries as best you can. 

Plus, a swing in the make up of the SC could undermine everything we have gained in recent years.  I hate to think of where we would be if Hillary had won in 2016 and appointed 3 SC justices.

[Perd Hapley]

  I hate to think of where we would be if Hillary had won in 2016 and appointed 3 SC justices.

We'd be in the paradise of Earth II, where the corporations are run by diverse, vegan transwomen of color, cis-hetero white men are kept happily (but not too gainfully) employed in EV factories, and Iran has finally been allowed to solve the problem in Israel that so plagued mankind in the more barbarous ages.

[lee n. field]

We'd be in the paradise of Earth II, where the corporations are run by diverse, vegan transwomen of color, cis-hetero white men are kept happily (but not too gainfully) employed in EV factories, and Iran has finally been allowed to solve the problem in Israel that so plagued mankind in the more barbarous ages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM1-0_cve1o

[230RN]

        LEGISLATIVE CHICANERY

Bad news - a judge just denied Metcalf's motion to dismissed based on unconstitutionality of the act. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-metcalf-35

3) Why hasn't anyone successfully challenged all federal firearms laws based on the fact there is no delegated power to regulate firearms and no "police powers" delegated to the federal government within the Constitution.

Because all laws passed by the legislature are presumed to be constitutional based on the silly notion that lawmakers will honor their oaths of office.

While it may be that there could be legitimate opinion differences in some phraseology in the Constitution, still, they can vote for something that is plainly contrary to the plain English language of our founding document and lie to themselves that they think the law they are voting for is "constitutional."

They also fool themselves into thinking they can get away with it based on the "no right is absolute" thesis.  While this may be technically true (e.g., incarceration, capital punishment), application of this concept can be unlimited.  That is, to put it simply, since "no right is absolute," we can "reasonably" tinker with it all we care to... without any limit.

And remember, no matter how blatantly unconstitutional a law may be, it takes a lot of money and time to have it actually declared, legally, unconstitutional, by SCOTUS.

The legislators rely on that.  Too friggin' much.

That's why.

Terry, 230RN

[zahc]

...and those convicted before the law is declared unconstitutional are not pardoned. Leading to the situation where teams of lawyers, lower circuit judges, and even the supreme court until they ruled, didn't know the law...but you are presumed to have known and been bound by the law.

[230RN]

...and those convicted before the law is declared unconstitutional are not pardoned. Leading to the situation where teams of lawyers, lower circuit judges, and even the supreme court until they ruled, didn't know the law...but you are presumed to have known and been bound by the law.

An unfortunately amusing point.  I must remember to steal that concept from you in my next rant.

Terry, 230RN