Seems like with the word Bar in the title they would be cool
As a former FFL, Range Master and High Power Match Shooter…the Judge is spot on.
It seems the left keeps judge shopping to get the results they want but don't do that here.
Could be that the pro gun side is the one judge shopping as these cases are all brought by them against the state’s gun grabbing laws.
Agreed…I think its been a slow learning curve for normal people out there. The left is for more intertwined and organized within the Gooberment…mainly the judicial system. Just watching that little pencil neck argue the case made me want to pick him up and throw him in a trash can head first…may as well be prosecuting a pencil for misspelling words.
This was a dissent. The majority agreed with California and upheld the over 10 round mag ban.
Spot on. Then it needs to be taken to SCOUS to overturn it but as you and many know SCOTUS has a rino problem.
I don't think that's fair. It's one of the most conservative courts we've ever seen. That doesn't mean they will agree with everything. That's the point of checks and balances. When it comes to guns.
Agreed and yes I was referring to Roberts. I was basing my opinion on the recent developments (cozying up with activist judges club and his recent opinion/ statement towards Trump). The recent development with the CA CCW…never saw that coming. Close friend of mine teaches those classes and informed me about the change to take effect as of the first of this year I think. Sounds like you're an attorney…you are far more versed than I sir…been outa the loop for some time now.I don't think that's fair. It's one of the most conservative courts we've ever seen. That doesn't mean they will agree with everything. That's the point of checks and balances. When it comes to guns.
Of the cases they've taken they have gone against the states. Why CA no longer has a for cause requirement in its CCW application. Heller before that with a far less conservative court.
What history will teach if one goes far enough back, is that the court really is powerless when it comes to the government. Theoretically the president could defy the court. They would have no recourse. Marbury v Madison. Although no one has. This is all to say Robert's is not dumb. These RINOs as you put it, must walk a very fine line. Disagree, and face potential discredit of the court. It's a delicate balance he will have to walk. When he disagrees he will have to button it up and make sure the weight of the issue isn't of over significance to the president risking his defiance. So far DJT has said he won't and you can't. But I think if the issue is of real significance to him and enough people tell him to, he may consider it. Robert's knows this. It's unlikely you will see him Disagree often. What I think you will see more of is, them decline to take up cases when they can as to avoid friction as much as possible.
Back to the point at hand. On this particular issue, IF they take it up. I think it's likely they overturn the 9th circuit. Which the court has traditionally trended to do anyway. My con law professor described the 9th circuit as the Supreme courts hippie sibling on acid. They had to constantly gently put him back in line and fix his mistake because he was obviously high at the time.
Mind you he had a pony tail and was in a rock cover band. So he was pretty hippie himself.
