lemaymiami
Member
Noted lots of well thought out responses to the problem posed in this thread... My response is still "just can't wait until November..."
Constitutional Crisis?
- Thread starter D.B. Cooper
- Start date
- Status
denton
Member
I think Brown is probably a good model for what we can expect, the antis playing out the last cards of a losing hand for as long as they can make it last.
Eisenhower was willing to use federal troops to break the resistance. We may see something remotely equivalent in Bruen, though I have no idea what form that would take.
Last edited:
CapnMac
Member
SCOTUS does have a Bailiff, though just who that worth would perform Service upon is a much larger question.
Could a sitting Governor be served a warrant to Appear to answer for Contempt charges? Or would such have to be put upon the leaders of the State Houses?
These questions remain "easy" for those of us in the "gun community." We also see the questions in very strict binaries as a rules, too.
But Law is complex, even convoluted, it's not cast in the simple terms "our side" would prefer (or insist upon). It's a fine point, but, despite our protests to the contrary, the Second Amendment is not, in fact, incorporated in all of the States (individual State Constitutions largely serve this role).
The larger question does remain, what do we, in the gun community "do" about the intransigent States?
Pretty much, that's answered already--we vote. And we keep voting. We also need to communicate, including making donations to organizations "on our side" (political donations are free speech after all). We also, to my thinking need to stay in touch with our compatriots in NY, NY, IL, CA, MA, etc., to remind them that they are not forgotten, that they are not alone. To reminds them to keep persevering, to keep working with their State organizations, too. Change appears to be "in the air"--this may be fueling those antithetical to personal liberty.
It was not all that long ago that the notion of Shall Issue carry permits was a crazy notion, unlikely to "catch on" in any but the most backwater of States, who would rescind it as a bad idea after a short while. History now tells us otherwise.
Could a sitting Governor be served a warrant to Appear to answer for Contempt charges? Or would such have to be put upon the leaders of the State Houses?
These questions remain "easy" for those of us in the "gun community." We also see the questions in very strict binaries as a rules, too.
But Law is complex, even convoluted, it's not cast in the simple terms "our side" would prefer (or insist upon). It's a fine point, but, despite our protests to the contrary, the Second Amendment is not, in fact, incorporated in all of the States (individual State Constitutions largely serve this role).
The larger question does remain, what do we, in the gun community "do" about the intransigent States?
Pretty much, that's answered already--we vote. And we keep voting. We also need to communicate, including making donations to organizations "on our side" (political donations are free speech after all). We also, to my thinking need to stay in touch with our compatriots in NY, NY, IL, CA, MA, etc., to remind them that they are not forgotten, that they are not alone. To reminds them to keep persevering, to keep working with their State organizations, too. Change appears to be "in the air"--this may be fueling those antithetical to personal liberty.
It was not all that long ago that the notion of Shall Issue carry permits was a crazy notion, unlikely to "catch on" in any but the most backwater of States, who would rescind it as a bad idea after a short while. History now tells us otherwise.
No.
What we’ll see is protracted litigation as the courts venture into the tall grass of what sensitive places are within the scope of the Second Amendment and what are not.
I mean in theory in the face of open defiance the court can try to enforce the law. In practice we are not there yet, more in the territory of pushing boundaries to see what they can get away with.
But while it isn’t a perfect example because it was in Canada not the US there was a case where the Canadian military acted in open defiance of the courts refusing to comply with an order to turn over a witness and the court call upon its “officers” to take all means to enforce the ruling.
It didn’t amount to much and it was eventually settled peacefully but the image of a bunch of lawyers trying to go up against the military by force tickles me so.
and at least in theory the marshals service exists as the enforcement branch of the courts. But in practice they answer to the attorney general and their leadership is appointed by the president so.
But while it isn’t a perfect example because it was in Canada not the US there was a case where the Canadian military acted in open defiance of the courts refusing to comply with an order to turn over a witness and the court call upon its “officers” to take all means to enforce the ruling.
It didn’t amount to much and it was eventually settled peacefully but the image of a bunch of lawyers trying to go up against the military by force tickles me so.
and at least in theory the marshals service exists as the enforcement branch of the courts. But in practice they answer to the attorney general and their leadership is appointed by the president so.
Poper
Member
Sounds a lot like poll taxes and Jim Crow laws to me. You cannot be compelled to pay a tax or perform a task (guess the number of jelly beans in a jar) to exercise the right to vote. Nor can you be similarly compelled to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights to either "keep" (possess) or "bear" (carry) arms.
JMHO, of course.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,134
Andrew Jackson maintained that the 3 branches of government were separate and EQUAL and that as President he had just as much right to interpret the Constitution as the Court.
Poper
Member
I would answer: (Probably, yes.) And why, you ask?
Because he/she is the ultimate authority of the state that makes it "law" in his state. If he/she did not want his state running afoul of a SCOTUS decision, he/she would simply veto the bill. The governor is responsible for the constitutionality of all laws passed during his/her tenure. With the exception of those passed by overriding his/her veto.
Again, JMHO.
denton
Member
42 USC 1983 is a powerful remedy against state and local actors who defy SCOTUS.
Pass and enforce a law clearly contrary to Bruen, and sovereign and qualified immunity are both out the window, and you're personally liable.
Pass and enforce a law clearly contrary to Bruen, and sovereign and qualified immunity are both out the window, and you're personally liable.
Old Dog
Member
Of course. Does anyone else see the irony in that the same groups that protest mightily the concept of requiring government-issued identification in order to vote are the exact same groups strongly in favor of prohibiting lawful carrying of firearms anywhere in public while supporting taxes and fees that make it almost impossible for low-income folks (and a huge percentage of minority citizens) to buy firearms and obtain licenses to carry?
The elephant in the room is that unless voters hold these politicians accountable for non-compliance with the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings, and unless the U.S. Congress holds these governors, state legislators and mayors accountable for their failure to comply with the Constitution and SCOTUS, unrestricted gun-ownership and lawful carry of handguns will continue to be administered and regulated pretty much as it is presently.
A Constitutional issue? Well, yeah -- but the real issue to me is that gun-owners as a group don't seem to be getting out and voting throughout the country.
Well, the other side of the coin is that after Brown (and subsequent to other decisions and legislation, i.e., Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act) that during those periods a majority of the country understood these were actual civil rights, and the right thing to do was obvious. There were pockets of dissent and resistance, but Congress and the Presidents took a stand.
As things stand now, we don't have close to a majority of folks in the U.S. that see the right to keep and bear arms as a civil right, nor do enough people understand the history and intent of the 2nd Amendment. There's little U.S. History taught in our public schools now, no "social studies," American Government or Civics, either. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Our big hope now is that enough folks are alarmed by the rising violent crime rates nationwide to take a harder look at whether or not gun control works.
Probably Not. Like 99.9999% not. Just as the president has sovereign immunity for acts he makes in his official capacity as head of government, states are also sovereign and governors have sovereignty immunity for acts he or she makes in their official capacity as governor.
and I can’t imagine a situation where the governor of a state would be in contempt of court on a constitutional issue in his or her personal capacity rather than their capacity as governor.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 5,027
If the Executive of a state or the President fails to faithfully execute their office (to the best of their ability) then that would be grounds for impeachment and/or removal by Congress or other form of recall.
If Congress fails to impeach said Executive, then the people (barring vote fraud or election theft) must choose a Congress that will at the next election.
If there isn't enough people who choose to elect a new government, yet their rights are still being violated, then enhanced methods of self defense must be undertaken.
If Congress fails to impeach said Executive, then the people (barring vote fraud or election theft) must choose a Congress that will at the next election.
If there isn't enough people who choose to elect a new government, yet their rights are still being violated, then enhanced methods of self defense must be undertaken.
wbm
Member
And there ya have it! The bottom line. Well said and true.
Poper
Member
It is my understanding that there is no immunity for violation of the People's civil rights, either as a whole or individually. When a court decides a state has violated an individual's rights, the state is held liable by way of legal fees, damages and punitive damages. Sort of what happened in New Jersey where the state was ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and costs.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.452993/gov.uscourts.njd.452993.51.0.pdf
LiveLife
Member
Ponder this.
Similar situation existed back in 1776 when majority larger city states wanted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to say certain things and minority smaller rural states wanted different. What ended up being finalized into the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I am sure, were disagreed by many in larger city states, but the ink dried and their opposition failed to produce successful court challenges.
And when slavery ended and women were allowed to vote by "modernizing" the Constitution/Bill of Rights, I am sure there were some that disagreed with those decisions. (But I am sure most on THR will agree that minority rights of these slaves and women needed protection from imposition by the majority, including right to become gun owners and carry them for self-protection)
I guess not much has changed over 245 years as in 2022, majority larger city states are still pushing for things that minority smaller rural states don't want and we are back with court challenges and Supreme Court has ruled these majority imposition on minority rights of gun owners unconsitutional.
Just as minority slaves and women are entitled to being "first class citizens" to enjoy "first class Bill of Rights, all of them" like everyone else, minority gun owners are entitled to enjoy "first class Second Amendment right and rest of Bill of Rights" and not be treated as "second class right" clearly stated by justice Thomas.
So to me, the future of Second Amendment and gun rights, regardless what majority larger city states want to do, must be protected (And the Supreme Court is doing just that) so future generations of minority gun owners won't be treated as second class citizens.
That's how I see it.
Similar situation existed back in 1776 when majority larger city states wanted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to say certain things and minority smaller rural states wanted different. What ended up being finalized into the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I am sure, were disagreed by many in larger city states, but the ink dried and their opposition failed to produce successful court challenges.
And when slavery ended and women were allowed to vote by "modernizing" the Constitution/Bill of Rights, I am sure there were some that disagreed with those decisions. (But I am sure most on THR will agree that minority rights of these slaves and women needed protection from imposition by the majority, including right to become gun owners and carry them for self-protection)
I guess not much has changed over 245 years as in 2022, majority larger city states are still pushing for things that minority smaller rural states don't want and we are back with court challenges and Supreme Court has ruled these majority imposition on minority rights of gun owners unconsitutional.
Just as minority slaves and women are entitled to being "first class citizens" to enjoy "first class Bill of Rights, all of them" like everyone else, minority gun owners are entitled to enjoy "first class Second Amendment right and rest of Bill of Rights" and not be treated as "second class right" clearly stated by justice Thomas.
So to me, the future of Second Amendment and gun rights, regardless what majority larger city states want to do, must be protected (And the Supreme Court is doing just that) so future generations of minority gun owners won't be treated as second class citizens.
That's how I see it.
AlexanderA
Member
What's this talk about "minority" rights? The people that value guns are actually a majority in this country. And that includes people who don't currently own guns, but want to be able to get them when the need arises. Gun ownership -- or at least, the possibility of gun ownership -- is closely tied to a sense of personal self-determination and self-worth, especially by those who have seen their status decline in other areas (economically, etc.).
The Democrats are making a huge mistake by not realizing this. By their gun stance, they are alienating a significant number of their traditional supporters. The media don't talk about this, but it's a main reason why the Democrats have lost their former blue-collar base.
The Democrats are making a huge mistake by not realizing this. By their gun stance, they are alienating a significant number of their traditional supporters. The media don't talk about this, but it's a main reason why the Democrats have lost their former blue-collar base.
LiveLife
Member
Actually not in states where anti-gun laws are being written and passed and openly "resisted" as expressed by OP
I live in CA and gun owners here ARE treated worse than "second class" citizens.
Remember when AG released personal information of all gun owners in the state with approval of state legislature and the governor? When release of such information could pose danger to lives of gun owners? Including law enforcement and judges?
Thankfully, the courts are protecting the rights of gun owners - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/c...s-release-of-gun-owners-personal-information/
And that's the judicial branch of government protecting the rights of minority gun owners when legislative/executive branches violate the rights of the minority. And kinda what's happening on a national basis with the Supreme Court protecting the rights of minority gun owners in any state.
Last edited:
redcon1
member
They have already lost a lot over their intransigent gun position and I suspect they're going to lose a lot more before they ever see any kind of dividends from their investment. Losing their majority in the supreme court is going to be a gift that keeps on giving for many years to come which is why I think they'll try to pack the court. It's really their only move.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
A very good stand alone question.
A "right" isn't a "right" unless it's equally applicable to everybody. Otherwise it's a "privilege".
While there is wiggle room on some issues based on factors such as age, biology, and whatnot, generally "equal under the law" applies. The reality is that real life requires a balancing act among several factors for spicific issues.
When talking about the RKBA, this right applies equally to everybody UNLESS Due Process has revoked this right to specific individuals.
Buzznrose
Member
What bothers me the most is the fact that not only do anti-firearms legislators submit, argue for, and pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional, they use the people’s money to litigate against challenges. To me, this is a serious misuse of public funds.
I am sure they have laws protecting themselves, but if we the people could
bring up class action lawsuits against these abusive lawmakers directly and sue them personally, I think they’d put more thought into making laws that are outright unconstitutional to begin with.
Just my thoughts
I am sure they have laws protecting themselves, but if we the people could
bring up class action lawsuits against these abusive lawmakers directly and sue them personally, I think they’d put more thought into making laws that are outright unconstitutional to begin with.
Just my thoughts
CapnMac
Member
Well, it's a sign we are borrowing Benitez's usage, referring to CA in specific.
And, if I read the Judge correctly, he's making an assertion about those constrained by laws versus those who are not. And, making such distinctions typically creates a "minority" of the whole.
To wit, if "the people" is a 100 percent value, then "law abiding gun owners" must needs be some quantity less than that 100%. W > X as it were. This runs counter to "our" normal perceptions, that the "exceptions" are the minority (and they are).
Criminality is, at most, 11% of a given population. So, the "law abiding" are a minority of the entire population, despite being more than 88% of that population. The law is forced to make such distinctions, which is where "common sense language" fails for understanding of laws as written all too often.
Um you might be able to hold the state responsible IDK that is beyond my pay grade but not the governor them self. Unlike qualified immunity like police have where the immunity is supposed to be qualified, the sovereign immunity governors have is pretty much absolute as long as they are acting in their official capacity. Only thing you could really do is impeach which is a political process not a legal one.
AlexanderA
Member
I don't follow your arithmetic. The way I figure it, a "minority" is anything less than 50% of the whole. So, in your example, if law-abiding people are 88% of the population, that amounts to an overwhelming majority.
In the same way, gun owners -- and those sympathetic to gun ownership -- are more than 50% of the population, and thus clearly not a minority. Surveys that show that 60% or 70% want further restrictions (setting aside their flawed methodology) don't address the core issue, which is, are we to have guns, or not? Surveys are focused on the nuances of ownership, not on whether we should have guns in the first place. The gun controllers don't ask that question, because they know they would lose.
Poper
Member
↑
When the people see that every time the state's legislature passes a gun control bill and the governor of that state signs it into law and that law is challenged and the state ends up paying all the court costs and the attorneys' fees because the political powers that be refuse to accept the rulings of SCOTUS and the inferior courts, maybe, just MAYBE the people of that state will understand the dollar amount of taxes they pay that are being foolishly squandered by tyrannical efforts to deny them their constitutional 2A rights. THAT may be the catalyst that pushes the people to vote the fools out.
Note that the court decision noted in my previous post was the District Court for the State of New Jersey. It is my understanding that particular court is not renowned for its conservative decisions. Yet, in very clear language even a Caveman can understand, AND WITHOUT OPPOSITION FROM THE PLAINTIFFS! the District Court stated, while referencing NYSRPA v. Bruen, that the state of New Jersey's 'justifiable need' is in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.
To me, that means there will be no appeal to a higher court. It also appears to me, that this judge (and maybe this Court) will not enjoy seeing additional unconstitutional nonsense appearing on that Court's docket.
With all that long winded stuff said, I believe this decision is a VERY strong decision that further strengthens NYSRPA v Bruen and the Second Amendment!
JMHO, YMMV.
I notice that you substituted "governor" for my "state" in your post. It's not the same thing.
When the people see that every time the state's legislature passes a gun control bill and the governor of that state signs it into law and that law is challenged and the state ends up paying all the court costs and the attorneys' fees because the political powers that be refuse to accept the rulings of SCOTUS and the inferior courts, maybe, just MAYBE the people of that state will understand the dollar amount of taxes they pay that are being foolishly squandered by tyrannical efforts to deny them their constitutional 2A rights. THAT may be the catalyst that pushes the people to vote the fools out.
Note that the court decision noted in my previous post was the District Court for the State of New Jersey. It is my understanding that particular court is not renowned for its conservative decisions. Yet, in very clear language even a Caveman can understand, AND WITHOUT OPPOSITION FROM THE PLAINTIFFS! the District Court stated, while referencing NYSRPA v. Bruen, that the state of New Jersey's 'justifiable need' is in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.
To me, that means there will be no appeal to a higher court. It also appears to me, that this judge (and maybe this Court) will not enjoy seeing additional unconstitutional nonsense appearing on that Court's docket.
With all that long winded stuff said, I believe this decision is a VERY strong decision that further strengthens NYSRPA v Bruen and the Second Amendment!
JMHO, YMMV.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,400
Well this thread took off in a hurry. So many good responses, I won't try to answer them all individually.
I think this is very much akin to the Brown v Board of Ed case. Like many of you have stated, the resistance from anti gun politicians will mirror that of segregationist politicians' resistance to Brown. Sadly, we don't have an Eisenhower in office who, although he disagreed with the order, enforced it unequivocally.
I wonder if, given another opportunity, the Supreme Court will rule even more definitively and more clearly, if/when another 2A case makes it that high. Imagine, an AWB law makes it to the Supreme Court and they use that to further clarify and strengthen Bruen as well. (e.g. they strike down NFA at the same time and base it on Bruen's text-only requirement.)
Regarding court packing, if next month's elections go our way, they're going to find that challenging. However, I wouldn't rule out either an unexpected death on the court during the current administration's time in office, or, worse, an assassination.
In any event, I don't foresee the attacks on the 2A subsiding anytime soon, and I don't see any way to put teeth in the Bruen decision for at least the next two years.
I think this is very much akin to the Brown v Board of Ed case. Like many of you have stated, the resistance from anti gun politicians will mirror that of segregationist politicians' resistance to Brown. Sadly, we don't have an Eisenhower in office who, although he disagreed with the order, enforced it unequivocally.
I wonder if, given another opportunity, the Supreme Court will rule even more definitively and more clearly, if/when another 2A case makes it that high. Imagine, an AWB law makes it to the Supreme Court and they use that to further clarify and strengthen Bruen as well. (e.g. they strike down NFA at the same time and base it on Bruen's text-only requirement.)
Regarding court packing, if next month's elections go our way, they're going to find that challenging. However, I wouldn't rule out either an unexpected death on the court during the current administration's time in office, or, worse, an assassination.
In any event, I don't foresee the attacks on the 2A subsiding anytime soon, and I don't see any way to put teeth in the Bruen decision for at least the next two years.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
