You were sorta criticizing the absolutist positions taken by the NRA (and to a greater extent the GOA) and getting themselves shut out of the room when gun control legislation is being drafted. The GOA never gets a seat at the table because they are frankly too extreme. THE NRA is more extreme than I would like but there is no organization that takes a more moderate position between the NRA and the Brady Campaign. So if I have to side with the NRA or the Brady Campaign, its really not that bitter a pill to swallow to support the NRA whenever I see overreach from the gun control side.
There is always some sort of gun control bill being proposed by someone in congress, they never make it out of committee but whenever the NRA needs to raise money, they bring up these doomed to fail bills as evidence that they NEED our financial support to beat back the ravenous hordes of gun grabbing big city libruls. The advocacy groups on both sides of the debate are their own worst enemies. But they wouldn’t even exist if they were simply lukewarm proponents of moderate positions.
Maryland hasapplied for an en banc rehearing. My understanding is the 4th circuit is stingy with en banc reviews, so it’s a toss up whether this will be granted.
It’s still pretty much bullpucky. If you’re intent on breaking the law, getting a suppressor is easy. A poacher who wants a suppressor can just order one on Amazon.
The only people who have to go through the rigmarole and pay for the tax stamp are the ones who, for whatever reason, wish to voluntarily obey the law.
How do they get away with that? What possible purpose would a set of baffles like that serve for a flashlight? And who the fuck would pay $100 for a fucked up flashlight like that?
On the plus side the amazon link gives people who have no idea what a suppressor looks like an idea of how they work.
Suppressors have always been available and it is ridiculously easy to create one using a pipe and an oil filter, I never thought I’d see it so flagrantly advertised on Amazon. WTF?!?!
Sure, an oil filter suppressor only works with low caliber bullets (higher caliber bullets would probably make the oil filter explode with the pressure). Sure, they don’t suppress as well as a real silencer. Sure they fuck up accuracy and can be dangerous if you are blocking the barrel. But my point is that suppressors are really simple devices that can be easily manufactured and it is silly to make them illegal because it will not keep criminals from getting their hands on them.
The funny thing is that criminals generally have little interest in using them. They are bulky (and therefore harder to conceal) and don’t really reduce sound enough to give you a lot of “stealth” unless you are talking about a round that has the muzzle energy of a crossbow.
Well, I suppose it’s not illegal to sell a bunch of aluminum cups, or a Maglite cap that by sheer coincidence just happens to have 1/2"-28 internal threading. It’s only a federal crime if you were to, say, drill 5.56mm holes in the baffles and assemble the whole thing without having already received approval on a Form 1.
I’m still surprised that Amazon allows the sale of such things, though.
It’s an interesting conundrum now. Assuming the ruling will be overturned en banc:
At that point, the losing side can choose whether or not to appeal. If they appeal and it’s denied cert, then status quo at that point stands. If SCOTUS grants cert in theory it could be 4/4 and status quo again, no precedent. That’s if Roberts and Kennedy vote against the ban. I expect Alito and Thomas to do so. Of course, if it’s 5/3 in favor of the ban, then that does set precedent. I wonder what the plaintiffs will do.
No way that plaintiffs will seek certiorari if the full court reverses. Surely the odds of Kennedy or Roberts making bad precedent for them is much higher than the odds of one of the four liberals doing so–right?
But I wonder whether defendants would seek certiorari if the full court does not reverse. I think not, given the likelihood that in a few years the Supreme Court will tilt their way, and they can send up the appropriate case at that point.
If the full court does not reverse then the defendants will for sure seek cert. Nothing to lose at that point. Denial is status quo and a 4-4 loss is status quo with no precedent.
Not so. They have the potential to lose two things: (1) One of the liberal four might join a majority opinion; (2) If the court writes a 4-4 opinion, that strengthen’s the argument for not taking certiorari on the next circuit to come up, which is likely to be at a time when the liberals control the court.
Both of those are marginal factors, I’m sure we can agree. But it’s not a completely risk-free choice.
Before Scalia’s death, the four most liberal justices weren’t any more predictable than the four least liberal.
The only way you reach that conclusion is by cherry-picking cases. In the last full year for which we have the statistics, Thomas and Sotomayor agreed with each other in roughly half the cases, and they had the lowest rate! Sotomayor and Kagan only agreed in 84% of 5-4 cases. By contrast, Roberts and Alito agreed 94.7% of the time. Breyer made a 5-4 majority with the conservatives as often as any conservative justice did the same with the liberals.
That said, there are some areas in which individual justices are more and less predictable. You never knew which way Scalia would go on a Fourth Amendment case. You never know how Breyer might land on a close question involving administrative law.
I don’t know who is the most potentially volatile on Second Amendment cases. Has Kagan even been on the court for a Second Amendment case? I don’t think so.
I don’t think so at the SCOTUS level. Though of Kagan and Sotomayor, I’d bet that Kagan votes in favor of more lax gun laws before Sotomayor. The overall chance I’d say is very low. When looking at cert petitions we know that Thomas is a staunch 2nd amendment supporter, and the fact that some other justices did not vote in favor of cert may signal something. Especially in the SF case which was in direct contradiction to the holding in Heller.
My person take is that Kennedy and Roberts are not reliable for 2nd amendment cases. Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito and Thomas are all reliable for their respective positions.
Both true. And I agree, I think this is unlikely. Also have to weigh that not every person making the decision to seek cert is thinking strategically. The folks in Chicago certainly didn’t when they pursued it in the McDonald case. I don’t bet on court outcomes, but I think my position in post #134 is on solid footing.
