Supreme Court sides with gun control groups on straw purchase law

[35Remington]

This raises an interesting point... If 9 judges can't agree on the application, execution, or validity of a law, why should that law be allowed to stand? We need to be erroring on the side of liberty.

Speaking of erroring, the word you're searching for is erring. What is your proposal that is better than our Founders'?

 

[TheDan]

What is your proposal that is better than our Founders'?

No government at all, but I know that scares the poop out of most people

...but back to the SCOTUS. If they can't unanimously agree on a law, then the law should be struck down. Congress would need to re-write it to be more clear or less unconstitutional, or better yet just give up on writing bullcrap regulations.

 

[Mreed911]

No government at all, but I know that scares the poop out of most people

...but back to the SCOTUS. If they can't unanimously agree on a law, then the law should be struck down. Congress would need to re-write it to be more clear or less unconstitutional, or better yet just give up on writing bullcrap regulations.

Requiring any decision be unanimous gives one person all of the power. One dissenter has 100% of the power. That's worse than a majority.

 

[35Remington]

Requiring any decision be unanimous gives one person all of the power. One dissenter has 100% of the power. That's worse than a majority.

This. Dan, think about that. Majority must rule.

Looking back on Supreme Court history, it is often the dissents that end up shaping our country.

 

[TheDan]

Requiring any decision be unanimous gives one person all of the power. One dissenter has 100% of the power. That's worse than a majority.

Yeah, but it would always work out in the favor of liberty. In this case, Scalia's dissent alone would overturn the law.

 

[Mreed911]

Yeah, but it would always work out in the favor of liberty.

Not necessarily. It would result in a trade-off - "You don't dissent on this, I won't dissent on yours." Things would be even MORE partisan.

 

[matefrio]

SCOTUS on the right of privacy.


“We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime,” the chief justice wrote, but concluded: “Privacy comes at a cost.” Justice Roberts


That's what was said on the ruling about warrantless cellphone searches.


SCOUTS on the right to keep and bear arms.


"The overarching reason is that Abramski's reading would undermine — indeed, for all important purposes, would virtually repeal — the gun law's core provisions," Kagan wrote. "The twin goals of this comprehensive scheme are to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them, and to assist law enforcement authorities in investigating serious crimes. And no part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases — if, in other words, the law addressed not the substance of a transaction, but only empty formalities."

 

[Mreed911]

SCOTUS on the right of privacy.

“We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime,” the chief justice wrote, but concluded: “Privacy comes at a cost.” Justice Roberts

That's what was said on the ruling about warrantless cellphone searches.

SCOTUS on the right to keep and bear arms.

"The overarching reason is that Abramski's reading would undermine — indeed, for all important purposes, would virtually repeal — the gun law's core provisions," Kagan wrote. "The twin goals of this comprehensive scheme are to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them, and to assist law enforcement authorities in investigating serious crimes. And no part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases — if, in other words, the law addressed not the substance of a transaction, but only empty formalities."

Good comparison. Also shows the shades of difference in 5-4 decisions. This has been an interesting SCOTUS session to say the least, especially with some 9-0 and 8-1 decisions (I love the 8-1, the dissents are fun to read).

Bottom line? Even SCOTUS can't get "scary guns" out of their heads. Cell phones don't kill people but guns do, or that's what the media tells us.

Once cell phones start being used as triggers for devices here in the US, I expect we'll see that change. Likewise, once public terror attacks become more frequent, we'll likely see less pushback on things like open carry, etc., because no matter how afraid the sheep are of the sheepdogs, they fear the wolves more.

As a field paramedic, EMS responses to both "active shooter" and WMD-style events have drastically changed over the last 10 years.

 

[ROGER4314]

I'm a fairly friendly guy and try to see the good in people at least to Conservative, pro gun people. Liberals do NOT get the same consideration. Even though the defendant was on our side, the guy was totally stupid......there I said it. What a dumb ass! Then he admits to perjury but then justifies it by identifying the end user as a stand up guy.

The straw purchase laws are simple and easy to understand. There were many ways these guys could have accomplished that transfer and remained within the law. The law is clear......follow it!

The Feds need to work for some convictions. This fool made their case FOR them. My heart says that participants in the shooting sports are smart and have their poop scraped in a heap. Obviously, not ALL of our number possess intelligence!

Flash