Interesting ruling in light of Bruen.
https://www.providencejournal.com/s...-outcome-second-amendment-rights/69727765007/
https://www.providencejournal.com/s...-outcome-second-amendment-rights/69727765007/
This decision should be overturned on appeal.
Bruen case removed the two step approach and the means/interest bearing, which is the exact approach this filthy judge did.I hope you are right; could you expand as to why you are confident of that?
Precisely.Bruen case removed the two step approach and the means/interest bearing, which is the exact approach this filthy judge did.
The reality is, those that are after our firearms do not care what Bruen says. Unless there are repercussions for violating something like Bruen, this will continue indefinitely.
...The fault basically is Scotus not understanding or chosing not to understand or act in a strongly positive manner for the 2nd Amend. They prefer to be ambiguous, perhaps to show off their legal acumen or some political reason (a clear decision to remove gun restrictions removes the issue as a campaign issue for conservatives to fund raise)...
My point is that Bruen was NOT clear except in the mind of the committed. Scotus could have done better and tightened up rather than a new rule. Note, this view is not mine alone. I've seen it in quite a few scholarly commentaries.
There's another forum I frequent and some of the members there have said that the brief filed by the attorney for the plaintiffs was poorly written. I skimmed the first couple pages, but I'm not well versed in legal briefs and my opinion is that the attorney could have been the best lawyer in the world, the Judge had made up his mind the moment the case was assigned to him and he has no interest in following the new legal guidelines that the Bruen case made. Now it's on to the 1st Circuit to see if they will also ignore Bruen, which given its makeup I assume they will as well.Sadly, this ruling shows that judges lawmakers and judges don’t get two imported things. Firstly, large capacity magazines do not motivate anyone to be a killer. A killer is not motivated by weapons. In China, England, and other gun restrictive countries the weapon of choice is a knife. Second, even if the shooter is untrained changing a magazine is only going to take a few seconds. How far away can you get in few seconds? Not far enough.
In high school my physics teacher explained that lol things physical are extremely complicated. So, before one drew a conclusion based upon evidence it was critical to examine the validity of the evidence. He went on to say that why experts say is not evidence. Evidence is fact not opinion. So my guess is that the judge had no background in root issue, and the attorney’s on both side just spouted out what they learn in the pro and con gun media.
About six months ago i read a news article about a judge who enjoined a high capacity magazine ban. His reasoning was based upon research into home defense incidents in which multiple invaders entered a home. From that research he concluded and ruled that a high capacity magazine was an asset when it came to self defense. Smart judge. We need smarter judges.
What do you suggest then? People to disobey the "law" that violates the Constitution? The 2A side can't do that because it ends violently, plain and simple.Which helps illustrate why almost fifty years ago my Constitutional Law professor kept telling the class that, "Courts are a lousy place to make law." And that's not going to change because it's inherent in the nature of the judicial process.
It's not the role of courts to make public policy. It's the role of courts to decide "cases and controversies", i. e., the respective rights and duties of the parties involved in a particular incident, chain of events, or situation which is the subject of the litigation.
The processes and procedures best suited to courts thus performing their judicial function and exercising their judicial power aren't well suited to making public policy. Courts "make law" as a side effect of courts exercising their judicial function because, in our Common Law based system, rulings on questions of law necessarily made in order to decide the "case or controversy" would be binding or persuasive precedent used by other courts to decide similar questions.
But at times one group or another is frustrated with the ways in which legislatures are addressing subjects that concern the group, and so will resort to litigation to try to ameliorate legislative intransigence. We've seen this with First Amendment issues and in the Civil Rights movement. And we've been doing this in the RKBA arena. But because of the nature of the judicial process that is, at best, a very imperfect strategy.