Gun enthusiasts / Trump haters: Would you vote for Bloomberg?

[Borderland]

The judicial branch cant do anything until cases are brought before them. They dont get to just wake up one day and say " Hey, this law is unconstitutional I'm just going to override it". A complaint in the form of a lawsuit or appeal has to come forward.

The supreme court decides which cases they hear. If a decision in a lower court is appealed and the SC decides not to hear it then they have basically determined that justice was served in the lower court. So in effect they can do something by not doing anything. Plenty of 2A/RKBA cases have been appealed the SC and turned away.

Since the two justices appointed by Trump have been on the bench, the SC hasn't accepted any cases regarding state bans on semi-auto rifles. Basically, so far, the lower courts have had the final say.

[CWM11B]

I know how the process works. What I also know is that cert is not a "do over" for the original case. Nor is an appeal in the appellate courts. The opposing sides have to make convincing arguments that the lower courts either got it right, or there was trial error. The decisions are based on the strength of the arguments. Not saying the judges bias may or not become a factor, but the skill and preparation of the lawyers arguing the facts come in to play as well. If you think DJTs pickscare going to sink the 2A, what would HRCs have done? Or all the other federal circuit judges she would have appointed?

[Borderland]

I know how the process works. What I also know is that cert is not a "do over" for the original case. Nor is an appeal in the appellate courts. The opposing sides have to make convincing arguments that the lower courts either got it right, or there was trial error. The decisions are based on the strength of the arguments. Not saying the judges bias may or not become a factor, but the skill and preparation of the lawyers arguing the facts come in to play as well. If you think DJTs pickscare going to sink the 2A, what would HRCs have done? Or all the other federal circuit judges she would have appointed?

I don't think Trump's picks are going to sink the 2A. I also don't think they will help preserve it. As you say, the argument has to be made. If what you say is true maybe we'll see your theory in action with Trump's newly appointed judges and Virginia's AWB, if it comes to pass. My guess the case will never make it to the SC because VA is in the 4th district Court of Appeals. MD already tried a few years ago.

DT is probably going to get to appoint another SC judge and I still don't think it will matter when it comes to 2A, but I could be wrong.

My feeling is that the SC has recently started following the "popular" or "the people's" decisions of state legislatures and not even trying to interpret the constitution. The supreme court decision on SSM isn't lost on me.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm afraid that I agree with Borderland. Not being a lawyer but a psychologist, I think the personal social views of the justices filter what they take up, if they have fire in the belly for the issue.

The Trump justices and judges are more oriented towards the issues of abortion, so-called religious liberty - which really is sexual orientation issues than gun rights. They are not champing at the bit to get a good case to support gun rights. If one gets to them, that's nice and their decision stance may be just as wishy-washy as Heller turned out to be.

They are probably OK with state laws standing and really aren't looking to overturn them in a clear manner. Maybe Thomas and Kavanaugh understand the AWB type issue, the others - Meh. Thomas and Scalia couldn't get folks to take up such cases.

Gramps and Grandma having a Model 10 and a pump in the bedroom are OK. That's about it.

[joshs]

Since the two justices appointed by Trump have been on the bench, the SC hasn't accepted any cases regarding state bans on semi-auto rifles. Basically, so far, the lower courts have had the final say.

They've only had one, and they haven't accepted the case or denied cert yet, so I don't think that's a fair point. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/19-404.html

Also, denying cert is not a ratification of the lower court decision. If it were, it would bind other Circuits to the decision below, which it does not.

[joshs]

I'm afraid that I agree with Borderland. Not being a lawyer but a psychologist, I think the personal social views of the justices filter what they take up, if they have fire in the belly for the issue.

The Trump justices and judges are more oriented towards the issues of abortion, so-called religious liberty - which really is sexual orientation issues than gun rights. They are not champing at the bit to get a good case to support gun rights. If one gets to them, that's nice and their decision stance may be just as wishy-washy as Heller turned out to be.

They are probably OK with state laws standing and really aren't looking to overturn them in a clear manner. Maybe Thomas and Kavanaugh understand the AWB type issue, the others - Meh. Thomas and Scalia couldn't get folks to take up such cases.

Gramps and Grandma having a Model 10 and a pump in the bedroom are OK. That's about it.

Where do you see SCOTUS rapidly changing abortion or religious liberty case law(not sure why it's "so-called" the free exercise clause seems pretty clear to me)?

Also, why do you think Illinois and D.C. decided not to appeal adverse circuit decisions on carry outside the home to SCOTUS?

[JAD]

The attack on religious liberty is not ‘so-called.’ It is more urgent, frenetic, and dangerous than the current assault on 2A rights. I personally would vote based on that issue with precedence over 2A; where 2A is the right that secures the others, the first is the right worth securing above all others.

[Borderland]

They are probably OK with state laws standing and really aren't looking to overturn them in a clear manner. Maybe Thomas and Kavanaugh understand the AWB type issue, the others - Meh. Thomas and Scalia couldn't get folks to take up such cases.

And Chief Justice Roberts is still there so you don't ever know which way the wind is actually blowing. Safe to assume that it really isn't a high priority for the SC.

Also, why do you think Illinois and D.C. decided not to appeal adverse circuit decisions on carry outside the home to SCOTUS?

Probably because there was a 50/50 chance that the SC would hear the appeal and rule in favor of the right to bear arms. They already ruled on the right to keep arms. A favorable ruling would end may issue which would affect more than a few states. The biggest loser would be CA.

Like I previously stated, the SC is loosely following what states are doing with regards to a lot of things including carry. There are a number of states (15) that have done away with permitted carry altogether and more will follow because it's "popular". They don't call it Constitutional Carry for no good reason. They branded it well.

[Guinnessman]

Bloomberg wants Hillary as a running mate:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-sources.html

[blues]