Gun control debate (merged)

[LouderVol]

Judge calls NY gun laws unconstitutional, but lets them stand … for now

of course.

What does he mean lack of standing? Seems like the law being unconstitutional, in his own words, would be enough to have it yanked or at least postponed.

 

[85SugarVol]

What does he mean lack of standing? Seems like the law being unconstitutional, in his own words, would be enough to have it yanked or at least postponed.

Cases get thrown out all the time for lack of standing

 

[LouderVol]

Cases get thrown out all the time for lack of standing

I agree if they are making some baseless arguement. But it seems like it being unConsitutional provides plenty of standing.

 

[hog88]

I agree if they are making some baseless arguement. But it seems like it being unConsitutional provides plenty of standing.

I think it's a way for a judge to toss or get themselves out a case they don't want to handle.

"Yep, this law is unconstitutional but sorry Jack you don't have standing to bring the lawsuit" Judge gets to let the law he agrees with stand even though it's blatantly wrong.

 

[85SugarVol]

I agree if they are making some baseless arguement. But it seems like it being unConsitutional provides plenty of standing.

He clearly is of the opinion it is not a baseless argument. It will get struck down.

He tossed it on a technicality. It will be re-filed.

 

[85SugarVol]

I think it's a way for a judge to toss or get themselves out a case they don't want to handle.

"Yep, this law is unconstitutional but sorry Jack you don't have standing to bring the lawsuit" Judge gets to let the law he agrees with stand even though it's blatantly wrong.

Oh he definitely punted.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Oh he definitely punted.

No, in order to challenge a law you have to have standing. In other words, you cannot simply challenge a law unless unless you have a dog in the fight. Essentially, there are 3 elements to standing...

1. Injury in fact - You have to have been harmed by the law. Not a hypothetical injury, but a real harm. Doesn't have to be physical. Standing cannot be had for future possible injuries that have not yet occurred.

2. Causation - You must show a link between the injury and the law.

3. Redressability - Can the court provide relief?

 

[LouderVol]

No, in order to challenge a law you have to have standing. In other words, you cannot simply challenge a law unless unless you have a dog in the fight. Essentially, there are 3 elements to standing...

1. Injury in fact - You have to have been harmed by the law. Not a hypothetical injury, but a real harm. Doesn't have to be physical. Standing cannot be had for future possible injuries that have not yet occurred.

2. Causation - You must show a link between the injury and the law.

3. Redressability - Can the court provide relief?

Seems like denying someone's constitutional rights is harm. These laws will lead to that harm. And yes the court could have done an injunction or ruled the law unconstitutional.

Seems like a very week technicality that the law hadnt actually gone into effect. Seems like that opens up a ton of shady bs. Like let's say the Rs introduce some legislation that just straight up says Dems cant vote in the next election. But it doesnt actually go into effect until right before the election. This precedent says the judge couldnt actually stop a blatantly Unconsitutional law. So the election would happen with only Rs voting, so only at that point would there be "harm".

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Seems like denying someone's constitutional rights is harm. These laws will lead to that harm. And yes the court could have done an injunction or ruled the law unconstitutional.

Seems like a very week technicality that the law hadnt actually gone into effect. Seems like that opens up a ton of shady bs. Like let's say the Rs introduce some legislation that just straight up says Dems cant vote in the next election. But it doesnt actually go into effect until right before the election. This precedent says the judge couldnt actually stop a blatantly Unconsitutional law. So the election would happen with only Rs voting, so only at that point would there be "harm".

The courts would be overloaded with cases from rando crazies challenging laws they think are unconstitutional.

 

[hog88]

No, in order to challenge a law you have to have standing. In other words, you cannot simply challenge a law unless unless you have a dog in the fight. Essentially, there are 3 elements to standing...

1. Injury in fact - You have to have been harmed by the law. Not a hypothetical injury, but a real harm. Doesn't have to be physical. Standing cannot be had for future possible injuries that have not yet occurred.

2. Causation - You must show a link between the injury and the law.

3. Redressability - Can the court provide relief?

1. appears to get ignored a lot. Take abortion cases for example, every time a state passed a law further restricting abortions it seams like there were lawsuits filed immediately and I don't recall many or any getting tossed over "standing".

 

[ClearwaterVol]

1. appears to get ignored a lot. Take abortion cases for example, every time a state passed a law further restricting abortions it seams like there were lawsuits filed immediately and I don't recall many or any getting tossed over "standing".

Any pregnant woman desiring an abortion will satisfy that element.

 

[hog88]

Any pregnant woman desiring an abortion will satisfy that element.

But anyone wanting to carry a gun in NY doesn't?

 

[LouderVol]

The courts would be overloaded with cases from rando crazies challenging laws they think are unconstitutional.

yyeah except this case was thrown out/dropped AFTER the judge ruled/stated it Unconstitutional.i am not sure how the legalese plays out in this case. And the US Supreme Court ruled similar laws UnConstitutional. This isnt some crazy idea. It has legal merit that has stood up at the highest level.

This judge just didnt want to rock the boat instead of doing his job.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

yyeah except this case was thrown out/dropped AFTER the judge ruled/stated it Unconstitutional.i am not sure how the legalese plays out in this case. And the US Supreme Court ruled similar laws UnConstitutional. This isnt some crazy idea. It has legal merit that has stood up at the highest level.

This judge just didnt want to rock the boat instead of doing his job.

Nope, he cannot declare a law which has not taken effect unconstitutional. He did his job correctly and did not overstep his authority while still taking the time to instruct future plaintiffs.

 

[hog88]

Nope, he cannot declare a law which has not taken effect unconstitutional.

How can other judges do it with abortion laws?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

How can other judges do it with abortion laws?

It is overstepping their authority if they do. I haven't seen any that did. Not arguing with you, but I haven't seen it.

 

[LouderVol]

Nope, he cannot declare a law which has not taken effect unconstitutional. He did his job correctly and did not overstep his authority while still taking the time to instruct future plaintiffs.

I find that difficult to believe. I could understand if it had not been passed. But in this case the government has taken action that will harm citizens. Like I said this seems like dangerous precedent to allow an admitted/acknowlddged/ruled UnConsitutional law to come into being.

Not expecting them to rule on every law before hand. But the law was passed, and a case brought before the courts by those who will be impacted.

Injunctions exist for a reason. And this seems like the perfect application for one.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I find that difficult to believe. I could understand if it had not been passed. But in this case the government has taken action that will harm citizens. Like I said this seems like dangerous precedent to allow an admitted/acknowlddged/ruled UnConsitutional law to come into being.

Not expecting them to rule on every law before hand. But the law was passed, and a case brought before the courts by those who will be impacted.

Injunctions exist for a reason. And this seems like the perfect application for one.

First, it is not a law until it goes into effect.
Second, the "law" is not admitted/acknowledged/ruled unconstitutional. One judge weighed and gave an opinion in dicta.
Thirdly, "will be impacted" is not the same as injury in fact. It is a potential injury.
Courts have the ability to issue opinions and rulings related to actual in the books laws. This wasn't.

 

[LouderVol]

First, it is not a law until it goes into effect.
Second, the "law" is not admitted/acknowledged/ruled unconstitutional. One judge weighed and gave an opinion in dicta.
Thirdly, "will be impacted" is not the same as injury in fact. It is a potential injury.
Courts have the ability to issue opinions and rulings related to actual in the books laws. This wasn't.

I thought a law was a law when it was signed. Punishment/enforcement may not begin until later. But it's a law on the books, has been since early July when this case was filed.

Here’s how New York’s revised concealed carry law will set new limitations on guns

Everything I am reading says "law".

Again the "opinion" of it being unConsitutional seems very very telling.

And how does that enforcement apply? It's not until the first person applies under the new restrictions? Until they make their first rejection? Until they make their first arrest? That's a very very vague term, while the law exists. Again I think this is terrible precedent and we are going to see reactionary counter laws come in from right leaning states that take advantage of this loophole. Similar to the Texas abortion vs California gun tit for tat.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I thought a law was a law when it was signed. Punishment/enforcement may not begin until later. But it's a law on the books, has been since early July when this case was filed.

Here’s how New York’s revised concealed carry law will set new limitations on guns

Everything I am reading says "law".

Again the "opinion" of it being unConsitutional seems very very telling.

And how does that enforcement apply? It's not until the first person applies under the new restrictions? Until they make their first rejection? Until they make their first arrest? That's a very very vague term, while the law exists. Again I think this is terrible precedent and we are going to see reactionary counter laws come in from right leaning states that take advantage of this loophole. Similar to the Texas abortion vs California gun tit for tat.

Cannot be injured by a law that has not been enforced. A law gets passed and then has an effective date. Prior to the effective date it really isn't a law because it cannot be enforced.

 

[LouderVol]

Cannot be injured by a law that has not been enforced. A law gets passed and then has an effective date. Prior to the effective date it really isn't a law because it cannot be enforced.

Again that seems like terrible precedent.

State X passes law that says no minorities may vote in the 2032 elections. Courts cant overturn/stop it, because they arent hurt until AFTER the election is over?

 

[Vol Main]

Hey everybody, I have a good idea. Why don't we let all of the maladapted nutjobs in the country walk into gun stores and buy AR-15s and AK-47s? As things are now, psycopaths can be released from mental hospitals in the morning and walk out of gun stores in the afternoon, with a brand new, high capacity rifle or handgun. Isn't that how it ought to be? Isn't that what you want?

Nikolas Cruz’s mother described him as a ‘sore loser’ and believed something was ‘very wrong with him’

 

[C-south]

Hey everybody, I have a good idea. Why don't we let all of the maladapted nutjobs in the country walk into gun stores and buy AR-15s and AK-47s? As things are now, psycopaths can be released from mental hospitals in the morning and walk out of gun stores in the afternoon, with a brand new, high capacity rifle or handgun. Isn't that how it ought to be? Isn't that what you want?

Nikolas Cruz’s mother described him as a ‘sore loser’ and believed something was ‘very wrong with him’

So you’re proud you walked out and didn’t buy a gun?

 

[0nelilreb]

Hey everybody, I have a good idea. Why don't we let all of the maladapted nutjobs in the country walk into gun stores and buy AR-15s and AK-47s? As things are now, psycopaths can be released from mental hospitals in the morning and walk out of gun stores in the afternoon, with a brand new, high capacity rifle or handgun. Isn't that how it ought to be? Isn't that what you want?

Nikolas Cruz’s mother described him as a ‘sore loser’ and believed something was ‘very wrong with him’

Man if only we had some idea of what’s going on so we could figure out the problems with these law breakers …



Iota against the law to shoot people , it’s not against the law to raise your kids right . We have a people problem .

 

[hog88]

Hey everybody, I have a good idea. Why don't we let all of the maladapted nutjobs in the country walk into gun stores and buy AR-15s and AK-47s? As things are now, psycopaths can be released from mental hospitals in the morning and walk out of gun stores in the afternoon, with a brand new, high capacity rifle or handgun. Isn't that how it ought to be? Isn't that what you want?

Nikolas Cruz’s mother described him as a ‘sore loser’ and believed something was ‘very wrong with him’

the law says they can’t so why don’t we pass more laws