Gun control debate (merged)

#6,627
#6,627
Grand Vol said:
See? That's the point. Who defines what is and is not unreasonable? Are 14 days unreasonable to the people of Hawaii? Now you have a 10th Amendment issue which the State could stand on since they, and the voters by proxy, have determined 14 days is sufficient.

Furthermore, all a two bit lawyer needs to do is prove they aren't denying the right, just delaying it to ensure all the background checks are complete and the person isn't a threat to themselves or others.
Click to expand...

What is reasonable?

That is my point, Thomas believes SCOTUS needs to weigh in and give greater guidance.

Background check is almost instant these days. States are not allowed to unreasonably infringe on rights granted individuals via the constitution. So, while some of the people of Hawaii may consider a 14 day waiting period reasonable that will not carry the day regarding this type of challenge.
 
#6,628
#6,628
ClearwaterVol said:
What is reasonable?

That is my point, Thomas believes SCOTUS needs to weigh in and give greater guidance.

Background check is almost instant these days. States are not allowed to unreasonably infringe on rights granted individuals via the constitution. So, while some of the people of Hawaii may consider a 14 day waiting period reasonable that will not carry the day regarding this type of challenge.
Click to expand...

Since when does the SCOTUS determine policy? Is this not a legislative issue to be determined by the individual States themselves?
 
#6,630
#6,630
Grand Vol said:
Since when does the SCOTUS determine policy? Is this not a legislative issue to be determined by the individual States themselves?
Click to expand...

Policy? This is a case where the state has decided to infringe upon the constitutional right of its citizens. The question is whether it is a reasonable infringement. McDonald clearly stated that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. This is important because any infringement upon that right will have to meet strict scrutiny. In order to survive, the law or policy must satisfy three tests: (1) The law must be motivated by a compelling governmental interest. SCOTUS has never defined what a compelling government interest is. National Security and life safety issues of the masses are examples of things that have qualified as compelling govt interests in the past. (2) The law must be narrowly tailored to address the government interest. (3) The law must be the least restrictive means for achieving the compelling government interest. If there are less restrictive means available, the law won't survive.
 
#6,634
#6,634
ClearwaterVol said:
Policy? This is a case where the state has decided to infringe upon the constitutional right of its citizens. The question is whether it is a reasonable infringement. McDonald clearly stated that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. This is important because any infringement upon that right will have to meet strict scrutiny. In order to survive, the law or policy must satisfy three tests: (1) The law must be motivated by a compelling governmental interest. SCOTUS has never defined what a compelling government interest is. National Security and life safety issues of the masses are examples of things that have qualified as compelling govt interests in the past. (2) The law must be narrowly tailored to address the government interest. (3) The law must be the least restrictive means for achieving the compelling government interest. If there are less restrictive means available, the law won't survive.
Click to expand...

Again, what arbitrary time delay would be "reasonable?"

I say arbitrary because as you stated, the NICS check is almost instantaneous.
 
#6,635
#6,635
Grand Vol said:
Again, what arbitrary time delay would be "reasonable?"

I say arbitrary because as you stated, the NICS check is almost instantaneous.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that anything would. Maybe a minimal delay, but not much. But that view would be altered by the political bent of the jurist
 
#6,637
#6,637
ClearwaterVol said:
I'm not sure that anything would. Maybe a minimal delay, but not much. But that view would be altered by the political bent of the jurist
Click to expand...

But again, how does the SCOTUS determine such a time limit is infringing without setting policy even in a backhanded way. I.E.

Case comes up with the two week delay. SCOTUS claims it isn't reasonable. Hawaii changes the law to seven days. Repeat process. Eventually they settle at three days and SCOTUS allows that. A three day wait is deemed "reasonable" with Heller as precedent. In effect, SCOTUS has now made "policy" by determining the acceptable time limit for waiting. Thus, a very loose legislation from the bench since precedent has been set and States must comply and not go beyond that limit.

Now, I don't think we will ever have a zero time limit, but you see where this is going.
 
#6,641
#6,641
Grand Vol said:
But again, how does the SCOTUS determine such a time limit is infringing without setting policy even in a backhanded way. I.E.

Case comes up with the two week delay. SCOTUS claims it isn't reasonable. Hawaii changes the law to seven days. Repeat process. Eventually they settle at three days and SCOTUS allows that. A three day wait is deemed "reasonable" with Heller as precedent. In effect, SCOTUS has now made "policy" by determining the acceptable time limit for waiting. Thus, a very loose legislation from the bench since precedent has been set and States must comply and not go beyond that limit.

Now, I don't think we will ever have a zero time limit, but you see where this is going.
Click to expand...

Yes, SCOTUS has several options should they hear the Hawaii case. Just using that one for the sake of argument. They might simply hold 14 days is ok. Or too long (without further guidance) yes, sometimes they give lazy opinions. They might also say between x and y is acceptable. They might say nothing over x.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top