AW bans and pending litigation

Texasgrillchef · Jan 21, 2020

It seems to me lately, that several states have jumped on the band wagon and have introduced bills, or at least are considering introducing bills to ban or at least register AW’s. (Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Georgia)

Yet at the same time there are at least two AWB cases currently being litigated in our federal courts. One that is actually pending cert with SCOTUS. (Worman v Healy) The other case in California, where the district judge found summary judgment for plaintiffs, and has indicated he will be issuing an injunction against the state. Although that hearing is scheduled for Feb 6th. The State AG having indicated he will file an appeal.

With all that being said, wouldn’t you think they would wait on some sort of decision on the Worman v Healy before attempting to introduce the legislation knowing there might be a chance that SCOTUS could strike down the AWB? At least wait to see if SCOTUS grants cert on Worman.

It should be obvious to them, that California isn’t being very successful with their AWB, and having seen the 50 page dissent of Justice Kavanaugh it doesn’t look good for the states.

If SCOTUS hears Worman and issues an opinion in our favor. It would knock down all the AWB bills and laws nationwide. Then again Democrats do love wasting taxpayers money and time.

748 · Jan 21, 2020

The antis don't care. They don't care that gun laws are always disproportionately enforced on minoritys.
Or that places with tough gun laws have higher crime rates and murder rates, but the antis decided to make it so law-abiding people can't protect them selves.

If they want to burn all their political capitol trying to banning guns, just to have the ban over tuned by the highest court of all the lands. I say let them.

jmorris · Jan 21, 2020

wouldn’t you think they would wait

Absolutely not, lawyers sole intent in life is to litigate. As long as double jeopardy isn’t a factor, they just dream up new cases even before current ones are settled.

Folks that have been around for awhile recognize this and don’t want to “give an inch” because we all know that the current position is just a starting point, rather than a destination where they want to end up.

To think a few favorable rulings by SCOTUS will forever quelch the opposition is rather naive.

GEM · Jan 21, 2020

To think a few favorable rulings by SCOTUS will forever quelch the opposition is rather naive.

That is certainly the truth. When have the warriors of some social issue given up in recent times. Even with a unfavorable decision for their issue, they will try back door approaches, continual legislative challenges (hoping the court changes) or just plain defiance.

As far as waiting for the magic decision, if one could actually get a circuit to definitively knock down an AWB, that would be a good thing, esp. if done quickly.

However, most folks don't think SCOTUS will step up to wipe out state bans. Any decision will be a bunch of mush like Heller turned out to be. Kavanaugh's dissent, so what - Thomas and Scalia strongly dissented on cases not taking up. Nothing happened.

BSA1 · Jan 21, 2020

IMO Chief Justice Roberts is not a strong supporter of the 2A. Since Justice Scalia has died Roberts is showing a liberal streak in his decisions.

Virginia Jim · Jan 21, 2020

Seems to me that before passing a bill and knowing it will be challenged, the state legislatures would meet the states high court judges and ask “What’s the chances this bill will survive?”

badkarmamib · Jan 21, 2020

Virginia Jim said:
Seems to me that before passing a bill and knowing it will be challenged, the state legislatures would meet the states high court judges and ask “What’s the chances this bill will survive?”

There you go, trying to bring common sense to the table...

Texasgrillchef · Jan 21, 2020

badkarmamib said:
There you go, trying to bring common sense to the table...

I thought that too, but naw.... our congress isn’t that smart. Lol. What’s scary is the majority of congress are lawyers. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them haven’t actually practiced much law other then making it!

Even then, I know they had to have some basic constitutional law classes in school. I haven’t ever been to law school, and even I have had 3 semesters of basic law, in which constitutional law was at least discussed. (Albeit those classes were 30 yrs ago)

Then again doesn’t take much to be elected as a Democrat lol

RickD427 · Jan 21, 2020

Virginia Jim said:
Seems to me that before passing a bill and knowing it will be challenged, the state legislatures would meet the states high court judges and ask “What’s the chances this bill will survive?”

That's not gonna work. Courts do not issue advisory or anticipatory rulings and judges are very careful not to comment on potential legal issues because they need to maintain the appearance of objectivity in the event they are presented with a case.

Texasgrillchef · Jan 21, 2020

RickD427 said:
That's not gonna work. Courts do not issue advisory or anticipatory rulings and judges are very careful not to comment on potential legal issues because they need to maintain the appearance of objectivity in the event they are presented with a case.

Some state courts are allowed to issue certain advisory issues. Not all do, and the federal courts never do.

CapnMac · Jan 21, 2020

Texasgrillchef said:
If SCOTUS hears Worman and issues an opinion in our favor. It would knock down all the AWB bills and laws nationwide.

The one does not follow the other.
As state laws, overturning one only applies to the specific State in question. None of the State laws are written with any link to any other state.

Now, many of the State AWB "share" characteristics, applicability, enforcement, etc. Were such a law in State A get struck down, attorneys in State B could try to challenge B's law on the precedent of State A. But, it would have to be within that state.

States still have sovereignty (refer Amendments 9 & 10).

Texasgrillchef · Jan 21, 2020

CapnMac said:
The one does not follow the other.
As state laws, overturning one only applies to the specific State in question. None of the State laws are written with any link to any other state.

Now, many of the State AWB "share" characteristics, applicability, enforcement, etc. Were such a law in State A get struck down, attorneys in State B could try to challenge B's law on the precedent of State A. But, it would have to be within that state.

States still have sovereignty (refer Amendments 9 & 10).

Both heller and McDonald apply nationwide, and there are cases where the 14th incorporation does apply. A lot though has all to do with how The decision and opinion is written as well. And how that compares to the current laws written.

Frank Ettin · Jan 21, 2020

Like sand through the hourglass so are the days of our lives.

Nothing but speculation/floundering here.

AW bans and pending litigation

Texasgrillchef

member

748

member

jmorris

Member

GEM

Moderator Emeritus

BSA1

member

Virginia Jim

Member

badkarmamib

Member

Texasgrillchef

member

RickD427

Member

Texasgrillchef

member

CapnMac

Member

Texasgrillchef

member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

Similar threads