[bboycars]

Now that Biden and the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency we can expect any, all, or any combination of a push for:


- Universal Gun Registration

- A so-called “Assault Weapon” ban

- Magazine capacity limits

- “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation orders

- New taxes for semi-automatic rifles and handguns

- Mandatory gun buybacks

 

[joecarry]

So my question on the magazine capacity limits is this. Can Biden make an executive order or push for the legislature to create laws for magazine limits after the 9th circuit court of appeals had declared mag limits as being ‘unconstitutional”? I realize that the 9th circuit court has limited geographical jurisdiction but isn’t a precedent already set in this matter?

How exactly does that work with this precedent already being set at this level of the court system? Would his order or a future proposed law to limit the mag size be valid? Or would the courts quickly overturn the order as unconstitutional?

What says you legal scholars that are in the know of this stuff. I know I don’t have a clue.

Please help educate me on this one.

Thank you,

 

[Shark1007]

In Florida the way it works is that the state is divided up in districts, there are five. If the fifth district court of appeal has ruled on something that is binding in the fifth district. If an issue comes up in a circuit court and that district has not made a ruling but another district has then the other district court ruling is binding. If there is a novel issue that has been ruled on one way in one district and another way in another then that conflict normally gets kicked up to the state Supreme Court.

I’m not certain in the federal system. My gut tells me that the Ninth Circuit having ruled on something will not prevent legislation from occurring.

 

[joecarry]

Well thank you Debbie Downer for saying what I didn‘t want to hear.

Ok, so let’s assume that is correct and they make it a federal thing. What happens to the folks that reside in the 9th circuit court area that already got relief that mag capacities are unconstitutional? Does that over rule them or does it get kicked up to the next higher level court to decide?

How does this shake out?

 

[Shark1007]

Again, I’m not certain on this one but my gut also tells me that the ninth circuit declared a particular law unconstitutional. That means if a new law is enacted then someone would have to challenge its constitutionality. Unfortunately, with the lesson of the ninth circuit ruling, the legislators I would think would be careful in drafting new legislation. I would think the ninth circuit ruling would be considered persuasive but possibly not binding depending on the specifics of the legislation.

I live to serve, Debbie.

 

[AFJuvat]

Nothing that I will comply with.

Next question.

 

[bboycars]

Federally, if two districts rule opposed to each other on the same issue, SCOTUS will almost always hear the case. They don't like confusion or major differences in federal law across the country.

 

[joecarry]

Thank you sir! Clear as mud now.

Ok so to parse this out, hypothetically. You said the ninth circuit declared a particular law unconstitutional. Isn’t that they declared the magazine limits as unconstitutional?

So am I to understand if they craft a new law what would that mean? They couldn’t craft the same mag limits as that is already covered? So they need to craft a new law that addresses???? What, in terms of magazine capacity?

Sorry, I don’t understand how the previous precedent has to do with future rulings?

What does the previous precedent have to do with the president elect‘s plans?

 

[Shark1007]

It may be a little confusing here are some thoughts:

The ninth circuit case was a very well reasoned and thoroughly documented decision. It Discussed specifically Glocks and Beretta 92s examples of magazine capacity. It even had a great historical underpinning discussing weapons from the 1800s and repeating rifle capacity.

What it said was magazines were “protected arms” under the Second amendment. It applied the analysis regarding home defense, magazine capacity and the Second Amendment. It’s analysis or “scrutiny“ as they say was focused on a California law banning magazines with a greater than 10 round capacity.

What was actually decided was that the specific California law violated the second amendment. If someone enacts a law that’s exactly the same as California this case will be very important. If a law is enacted which is a significantly different approach to things from a different perspective, it will not be so clear.

We are basically talking two different arms of government, the legislative and judicial. I’m afraid that fear of having a law scrutinized by the court will not stop legislators from doing what they think is appropriate. I’m just hopeful that the recent run on firearms and focus on self-defense will be something that will stem the tide.

 

[safetyguy60]

I can only imagine the Patriot Soviets as their USSR fell to what is now. They could not stop it, neither can we. I will tell you this. The next time a Democrat thanks me for my service I'm gonna just spank him.

 

[Ronnie948]

The constitution does not mean a thing to the Democratic party. Creepy Joe and the laughing hyena are going to do exactly what they are told to do. They are in full control of our government and disarming America is the main focus of their agenda because they know for a fact that they can not fully control an armed population.
The government in power for the next four years is exactly why the 2nd. amendment was put in the BILL of RIGHTS. Not an afterthought but #2 (((TWO)))
There will be a lot of sheep that are going to be turning in the firearms when it is demanded of them.
There will be a lot of us that will not and be deemed criminal felons.
Today is my birthday and at 78 I should not care but I love my country, I love my freedom and I hate what the Democrats are doing.
America
R.I.P.
Ronnie

 

[joecarry]

Happy Birthday Ronnie.

 

[196THL.I.B.GUNNER]

The constitution does not mean a thing to the Democratic party. Creepy Joe and the laughing hyena are going to do exactly what they are told to do. They are in full control of our government and disarming America is the main focus of their agenda because they know for a fact that they can not fully control an armed population.
The government in power for the next four years is exactly why the 2nd. amendment was put in the BILL of RIGHTS. Not an afterthought but #2 (((TWO)))
There will be a lot of sheep that are going to be turning in the firearms when it is demanded of them.
There will be a lot of us that will not and be deemed criminal felons.
Today is my birthday and at 78 I should not care but I love my country, I love my freedom and I hate what the Democrats are doing.
America
R.I.P.
Ronnie

Ronnie I Couldn't have Said It Better ! This Is 'My Bottom Line' As Well & Always Will Be ! I will be 76 On The 15th ! I Am Livid How The Election Was Not Only Fraudulent , But Also Completely Stolen ! Amen "Gunner"

 

[safetyguy60]

Ronnie948: I have been told that the people that live the longest have the most Birthdays. I think it was AOC that told me this!!! LOL Happy Birthday Ronnie from this mere child of 71~

 

[safetyguy60]

But folks here are the real problems that each of tolerated and did not stop before it was too late. This is what a Biden Administration will be about. Make sure you have a bucket close to puke in. Bill of Rights Socialism The Socialist Party | Official Site of the American Socialists

 

[196THL.I.B.GUNNER]

But folks here are the real problems that each of tolerated and did not stop before it was too late. This is what a Biden Administration will be about. Make sure you have a bucket close to puke in. Bill of Rights Socialism The Socialist Party | Official Site of the American Socialists

Now You're Going To Make ME Puke !!! OMDB My Friend ! " Gunner "

 

[MisterEd]

How can anyone believe that schitz....????

 

[bboycars]

 

[bboycars]

Record Gun Sales and Diverse Ownership Mean Rocky Prospects for Restrictions

New gun owners are unlikely to embrace disarmament schemes from a government they distrust.

reason.com