• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maryland "assault weapon" ban gooing in the toilet maybe?

NonoBadDog

NonoBadDog

Hates Kittens
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
6,895
Location
Mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
U.S. appeals court to rehear case on Maryland assault-weapon ban
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has agreed to rehear a case that could potentially deal a blow to a Maryland gun control law that bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh asked the full 15-member court to hear arguments en banc after a three-judge panel in February ruled that the ban “significantly burdens the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home.” The panel, in a 2-1 ruling, ordered that the case be sent back to the original district judge for reconsideration under stricter constitutional standards.
Click to expand...

The court majority said laws that go that far must be subjected to the strictest scrutiny — which requires a law to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest — something the lower court didn’t do.
Click to expand...
“We think there is a better chance that the 4th Circuit, hearing it as a whole, will make the same decision that other circuits have made when they have decided on similar provisions,” spokesman David Nitkin said.
Click to expand...
U.S. appeals court to rehear case on Maryland assault-weapon ban - Washington Times

I think this is going to set a precedent or wind up in the SCOTUS. If they stick with the pro ban ruling it will create a conflict with other courts and go to SCOTUS. That would be a huge mistake on the pro ban side.
 
NonoBadDog said:
U.S. appeals court to rehear case on Maryland assault-weapon ban




U.S. appeals court to rehear case on Maryland assault-weapon ban - Washington Times

I think this is going to set a precedent or wind up in the SCOTUS. If they stick with the pro ban ruling it will create a conflict with other courts and go to SCOTUS. That would be a huge mistake on the pro ban side.
Click to expand...




if a court rules in favor of the ban, they are ignoring Heller and McDonald

if they strike it it down, other politicians who enact such nonsense need to be tried and then jailed for constitutional violations as well as being subjected to massive judgments by those whose rights were abridged
 
TurtleDude said:
if a court rules in favor of the ban, they are ignoring Heller and McDonald

if they strike it it down, other politicians who enact such nonsense need to be tried and then jailed for constitutional violations as well as being subjected to massive judgments by those whose rights were abridged
Click to expand...

Using the "strictest scrutiny" criteria I think the ruling will get tossed. If it doesn't then it sets up the ruling for the SCOTUS which would be a good thing.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Using the "strictest scrutiny" criteria I think the ruling will get tossed. If it doesn't then it sets up the ruling for the SCOTUS which would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

good point

Hopefully, one day, politicians who pass such crap that is then stricken as unconstitutional, will be subject to ruinous civil law suits based on the BIVENS Vs 6 Unnamed Agents
 
NonoBadDog said:
U.S. appeals court to rehear case on Maryland assault-weapon ban




U.S. appeals court to rehear case on Maryland assault-weapon ban - Washington Times

I think this is going to set a precedent or wind up in the SCOTUS. If they stick with the pro ban ruling it will create a conflict with other courts and go to SCOTUS. That would be a huge mistake on the pro ban side.
Click to expand...

I hope it's upheld. Local communities should be able to set their own standards on these issues.
 
Paleocon said:
I hope it's upheld. Local communities should be able to set their own standards on these issues.
Click to expand...

so you are opposed to the 14th amendment and the entire concept of incorporation of the bill of rights?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are opposed to the 14th amendment and the entire concept of incorporation of the bill of rights?
Click to expand...

Basically. I find most of the bill of rights to be foolish in the first place

Don't you yourself disagree with the concept of incorporation? I believe you've said that to me before.
 
Paleocon said:
I hope it's upheld. Local communities should be able to set their own standards on these issues.
Click to expand...

I hope it is upheld also. I would like to see a conflict with other courts so the SCOTUS can rule against this kind of over reach.
 
Paleocon said:
Basically. I find most of the bill of rights to be foolish in the first place

Don't you yourself disagree with the concept of incorporation? I believe you've said that to me before.
Click to expand...

so you don't believe in freedom of speech etc?
 
TurtleDude said:
fascism and government control on free speech is far worse
Click to expand...

Well I'm a reactionary rather than a fascist, though a fascist state would probably be better than the current one.

But in any case, free speech means that no social mores can be stable. Literally anything could become acceptable in just a century. Don't you see the problem with that?
 
Paleocon said:
Well I'm a reactionary rather than a fascist, though a fascist state would probably be better than the current one.

But in any case, free speech means that no social mores can be stable. Literally anything could become acceptable in just a century. Don't you see the problem with that?
Click to expand...

I reject your premise so your conclusion fails

the fresh sunshine of open and vigorous debate tends to be best.
 
TurtleDude said:
I reject your premise so your conclusion fails

the fresh sunshine of open and vigorous debate tends to be best.
Click to expand...

Here's a question that goes to more fundamental commitments:

If you knew (assume for the moment that this is in fact true) that continued freedom of speech would lead to pedophilia becoming socially and legally acceptable in a century, would you still support it? If your answer is yes then I think our premises are really TK far apart to have a fruitful discussion.
 
Paleocon said:
Here's a question that goes to more fundamental commitments:

If you knew (assume for the moment that this is in fact true) that continued freedom of speech would lead to pedophilia becoming socially and legally acceptable in a century, would you still support it? If your answer is yes then I think our premises are really TK far apart to have a fruitful discussion.
Click to expand...

that's a stupid hypothetical. try again
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a stupid hypothetical. try again
Click to expand...

Yes or no.

I see that you are (rightfully) resisting the conclusion that your ideology dictates.
 
Paleocon said:
No. If speech is harmful to society it should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

Harmful to society in what way and to what degree? Hurt feelings or actual, tangible harm? Society determined native and Japanese Americans were harmful to society too...
 
BretJ said:
Harmful to society in what way and to what degree? Hurt feelings or actual, tangible harm?
Click to expand...

I mean real harm. For example, promotion of moral degeneracy can very well lead (and has lead) to acceptance of moral degeneracy by society. This is very bad and thus such advocacy should be illegal.

Society determined native and Japanese Americans were harmful to society too...
Click to expand...

This doesn't really establish anything other than that bad ideas can lead to bad results.
 
Paleocon said:
I hope it's upheld. Local communities should be able to set their own standards on these issues.
Click to expand...

So, you want the gun ban to stay legal?

interesting
 
jet57 said:
So, you want the gun ban to stay legal?

interesting
Click to expand...

He's an authoritarian statist who admits he does not believe in individuals having rights
 
Paleocon said:
I mean real harm. For example, promotion of moral degeneracy can very well lead (and has lead) to acceptance of moral degeneracy by society. This is very bad and thus such advocacy should be illegal.



This doesn't really establish anything other than that bad ideas can lead to bad results.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with that and we have the history of Greece and Rome to prove it. Because of the degenerate libs, the USA is headed in that direction.
 
jet57 said:
So, you want the gun ban to stay legal?

interesting
Click to expand...

Yes . . .

I've said for a while that local communities should be able to regulate guns.

MickeyW said:
I fully agree with that and we have the history of Greece and Rome to prove it. Because of the degenerate libs, the USA is headed in that direction.
Click to expand...

Yep. The really scary part is that we're already worse off then Rome and Greece ever were, and our mores are still in a state of free fall.
 
MickeyW said:
I fully agree with that and we have the history of Greece and Rome to prove it. Because of the degenerate libs, the USA is headed in that direction.
Click to expand...

do you think that if people are allowed to discuss the "merits" of say NAMBLA that is going to make NAMBLA more popular with the general public? Palecon seems to think that if people are allowed to discuss pedophilia without being tortured by the goon squad, somehow everyone will go around wanting to bugger little boys or have intercourse with 1o year old girls
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom