HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » This message was self-del...

Tue Sep 29, 2020, 11:19 AM

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (sl8) on Thu Nov 26, 2020, 04:32 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

8 replies, 2495 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)
sl8 Sep 2020 OP
3Hotdogs Sep 2020 #1
Grins Sep 2020 #2
Angleae Sep 2020 #3
melm00se Sep 2020 #4
sl8 Oct 2020 #5
jimmy the one Nov 2020 #6
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2020 #7
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2020 #8

Response to sl8 (Original post)

Tue Sep 29, 2020, 12:16 PM

1. Not to worry, Barret will help reverse that decision.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Original post)

Tue Sep 29, 2020, 01:18 PM

2. And it looks like it was unanimous

This was before a 3-judge panel. Since I didn't see any dissent, it looks to be unanimous.

And the fun part? On page 13 the Court referenced: "Senator Larry Craig, the author and lead sponsor of the PLCAA..."

Yeah. That Larry "Toe-tapper" Craig!

(The 1st sentence in the 2nd paragraph is incorrect where it says "...prothonotary Joseph D. Seletyn on Monday ruled". Seletyn is the clerk of the court, not a judge.)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Original post)

Tue Sep 29, 2020, 02:13 PM

3. Since when can a state judge rule a federal law unconstitutional?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 29, 2020, 03:43 PM

4. They can rule that it

cannot be applied in PA but it is unlikely that this will be upheld upon appeal to the federal courts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Original post)

Thu Oct 1, 2020, 11:52 AM

5. Jurist article:


https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/09/pennsylvania-appeals-court-rules-gun-industry-protection-law-unconstitutional/

Pennsylvania appeals court rules gun industry protection law unconstitutional

Cassie Maas | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 09:44:13 AM

[...]

On appeal, the Superior Court found that the PLCAA was unconstitutional and violated the Tenth Amendment. The act was exercised under the Commerce Clause power, but the court stated the “proper constitutional inquiry” was whether under the Commerce Clause power Congress could “regulate state-based, tort lawsuits, filed in state courts, against the gun industry.”

The court found that Congress committed constitutional overreach in the PLCAA because the act regulated the inactivity of people who never took part in a commercial transaction in the gun industry. The plaintiffs in the case significantly did not purchase the gun that killed their son. The PLCAA encompassed almost any activity because it encompassed any activity in which any firearm was shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Because the act was a Congressional tort-reform bill, it reformed the state law of torts and converted it to federal law. The court noted that the PLCAA resembled the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Like the Gun-Free School Zone Act, the PLCAA was unsustainable because it granted the gun industry immunity “regardless of how far removed from interstate commerce the harm arises.”

The court held that the PLCAA was unconstitutional in its entirety, writing that “The only portions of the PLCAA that do not offend the Constitution are its findings and purposes (in Section 7901) and a few definitions (in Section 7903).”

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Original post)

Fri Nov 20, 2020, 11:53 AM

6. Current 2ndA construction is unconstitutional

2008 Heller and 2011 McD misinterpretations of the 2ndA are unconstitutional, since both are subversions of the amendments original intent. Thanks to that pseudo psycho originalist scalia (now croaked).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 01:19 PM

7. The number of people with GEDs in Constitutional law still amazes me

 

How is your view in any way different from conservatives' hatred for birthright citizenship?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/526950-trump-administration-revives-talk-of-action-on-birthright-citizenship


Trump administration revives talk of action on birthright citizenship

...“The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was clearly intended to guarantee that emancipated slaves would properly be recognized as U.S. citizens,” said RJ Hauman, government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “It is a fundamental misapplication of this clause that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are granted automatic citizenship, much less the offspring of people who come here to simply give birth on American soil."

“If the president finally issues a long-awaited executive order limiting birthright citizenship, it will be up to the Supreme Court to resolve this issue once and for all,” Hauman added.


I remind the disinterested reader of the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 22, 2020, 06:11 PM

8. Newsflash: Poster On Internet Declares Supreme Court Decisions "Unconstitutional"

 

And all these years I had been led to believe that the SC was the final arbiter of law in the US.

Now I find out that the *true* power actually lies with a pseudonymous rando with a Groucho Marx avatar...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink