Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

The ACA has seemingly disappeared from the Republican's list of things they want to address, now that they have the power to do so. Exactly like I predicted, for pretty much the reasons I predicted.

They wouldn't do anything until they got a president in office if they were even thinking of it.

[Rukentuts]

They wouldn't do anything until they got a president in office if they were even thinking of it.

Didn't stop them from voting for repeal 50+ times. Or have we hit 60?

[Stormdash]

If by prove you mean defend, then yes. But this isn't a court case. You insisted it was unconstitutional. Not that it "may be". This either assumes you have evidence that shows it IS unconstitutional, or you're making an assumption. Given your inability to cite, my money is on the latter.

No, by prove I mean prove. The burden of proof in cases in which strict or intermediate scrutiny apply is on the government, full stop. Rational basis review puts the burden on the plaintiff (to prove that either there is no legitimate state interest behind the law and/or that the law is not rationally related to that interest), but that level of review does not apply in 2nd Amendment cases. Look up those handy links to strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny and you'll see that it's the state that has to provide evidence and argument to justify the restriction.

[Rukentuts]

No, by prove I mean prove. The burden of proof in cases in which strict or intermediate scrutiny apply is on the government, full stop. Rational basis review puts the burden on the plaintiff (to prove that either there is no legitimate state interest behind the law and/or that the law is not rationally related to that interest), but that level of review does not apply in 2nd Amendment cases. Look up those handy links to strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny and you'll see that it's the state that has to provide evidence and argument to justify the restriction.

Let's say I believe you (which is a stretch already), where can you cite that this proposed idea falls under one of the other.

We're not taking your word for anything.

[lockedout]

Didn't stop them from voting for repeal 50+ times. Or have we hit 60?

Either way they wouldn't risk losing office. If they manage to win though there is a good chance they will try.

[Tinykong]

People love what the ACA offers (except maybe the mandate) but hate it because it's called Obamacare.

They could have a program that gave anyone who signed up for it $500 in free cash, and if they called it Obamacash, people wouldn't use it.

[lockedout]

People love what the ACA offers (except maybe the mandate) but hate it because it's called Obamacare.

They could have a program that gave anyone who signed up for it $500 in free cash, and if they called it Obamacash, people wouldn't use it.

They wouldn't use the program but they would use the 500.
http://files.shroomery.org/files/09-...obama-cash.gif

[Stormdash]

And where can you cite that this proposed idea falls under one of the other.

We're not taking your word for anything.

I can cite, for the second time this morning in fact, for your benefit both times in further fact, DC v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010) are premised on the application of heightened scrutiny to cases bearing on the 2nd Amendment.

[Rukentuts]

I can cite, for the second time this morning in fact, for your benefit both times in further fact, DC v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010) are premised on the application of heightened scrutiny to cases bearing on the 2nd Amendment.

Really? I don't see that anywhere in the wiki. Perhaps you can cite procedure for me. Everything I can find says the burden of proof is on the plantiff.

[Stormdash]

Really? I don't see that anywhere in the wiki. Perhaps you can cite procedure for me.

"Cite procedure"? Love when you just make up things that don't mean anything.

The procedure I will cite is "read the wiki better", because the wiki entry for Heller includes the following paragraph --

The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[49] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."[50]

And if you boogie on down to the footnotes, you'll see note 49 is quoting Heller at pg 55-56 of the court's opinion. The text of the majority opinion referenced is available to any or all at law.cornell.edu, and I quote here --

Justice Breyer correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144 , n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments…”). If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.

So while the Court declined to specify a "flavor" of heightened scrutiny to apply in that case, it did explicitly reject rational basis review, which means any standard of review applied by a lower court wishing to comply with this binding precedent will necessarily be applying a standard that places the burden of proof on the government.

Keep hitting yourself, though.

[Rukentuts]

Keep hitting yourself, though.

So now let's get a case that shows our proposal is an "irrational law". This isn't a courtroom. We don't decide constitutionality. We merely cite whether it is, or whether it is not. You know how we do that? By citing cases that have proven that our explicitly cited argument.

Or you could keep dancing around the fact you have nothing. That works too.

[Stormdash]

So now let's get a case that shows our proposal is an "irrational law".

Or just keep dancing around it.

Did you miss the part where that's the standard that the Supreme Court said does not apply to Second Amendment cases? FFS kid.

[Rukentuts]

Did you miss the part where that's the standard that the Supreme Court said does not apply to Second Amendment cases? FFS kid.

Did you miss the part where no court has a ruling about a case revolving around what we're even talking about?

Or we could just say that de facto constitutionality "doesn't matter" again.

[Stormdash]

Did you miss the part where no court has a ruling about a case revolving around what we're even talking about?

No, because I, uh, just linked two binding Supreme Court precedents that established heightened scrutiny applies to any and all restrictions of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights. Those cases revolve around any restriction you fancy, whether hypothetically or which has been enacted and around which litigation is ongoing. I'm done with you, this negating-for-the-sake-of-negating has grown childish. My first impression was a good impression; you could not care less about knowing anything about the law you haven't already decided you know.

[Rukentuts]

No, because I, uh, just linked two binding Supreme Court precedents that established heightened scrutiny applies to any and all restrictions of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights. Those cases revolve around any restriction you fancy, whether hypothetically or which has been enacted and around which litigation is ongoing. I'm done with you, this negating-for-the-sake-of-negating has grown childish. My first impression was a good impression; you could not care less about knowing anything about the law you haven't already decided you know.

And we've provided rationale for it, damn good rationale. It doesn't impede ordinary citizens that may not be a danger. Felons cannot own firearms, why was that again? All you've responded with an insistence it's unconstitutional just because no ruling that it actually IS unconstitutional cannot be found. Don't lash out at my perceived legal shortcomings when you dismiss rules of law. If you "being done" means we can finally put to rest you haven't a shred of evidence to prove this actually IS unconstitutional, without ignoring that by default it actually is until a court rules otherwise, that's your problem.

[Stormdash]

And we've provided rationale for it, damn good rationale. All you've responded with an insistence it's unconstitutional just because no ruling that it actually IS unconstitutional cannot be found. Don't lash out at my perceived legal shortcomings when you dismiss rules of law. If you "being done" means we can finally put to rest you haven't a shred of evidence to prove this actually IS unconstitutional, without ignoring that by default it actually is until a court rules otherwise, that's your problem.

You posted most recently, so you won. You've made no argument for how the proposed restrictions satisfy intermediate and/or strict scrutiny, as any government must standing in your shoes in this argument, but the odds that you actually would know how the components of those tests apply even after reading their wiki entries are at the low end anyway. Hail the conquering hero

[Rukentuts]

You posted most recently, so you won. You've made no argument for how the proposed restrictions satisfy intermediate and/or strict scrutiny, as any government must standing in your shoes in this argument, but the odds that you actually would know how the components of those tests apply even after reading their wiki entries are at the low end anyway. Hail the conquering hero

I thought you were done? No matter. And we've made the same rationale that the government has made successfully in barring felons from firearms. Can you prove that this rationale is not unconstitutional? Or can't you?

[Stormdash]

I thought you were done? No matter. And we've made the same rationale that the government has made successfully in barring felons from firearms. Can you prove that this rationale is not unconstitutional? Or can't you?

It's funny how you think you've proved the rationale constitutional (because, again, your burden as the proxy for the government here) without even referring to any of the constitutional standards or how it satisfies them. I can't stop myself from telling you how comically wrong you are, it's sort of amazing. Just this idea that you'll get up from the computer later like "man, I sure showed him" without ever having had a single clue what in the hell you were talking about.

[Rukentuts]

It's funny how you think you've proved the rationale constitutional (because, again, your burden as the proxy for the government here) without even referring to any of the constitutional standards or how it satisfies them. I can't stop myself from telling you how comically wrong you are, it's sort of amazing. Just this idea that you'll get up from the computer later like "man, I sure showed him" without ever having had a single clue what in the hell you were talking about.

You can tell me wrong, but until you can prove it, it's nothing but another appeal to authority from a "lawyer" with an apparent problem providing evidence. You can take all the potshots you want; but they won't conjure links on their own.

[Tinykong]

You can tell me wrong, but until you can prove it, it's nothing but another appeal to authority from a "lawyer" with an apparent problem providing evidence.

Appeals to authority are like, your thing.