NRA to Sue Arizona over Destroying Buyback Guns

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Are you speaking solely about the merits here, or do you think there is some plausible means by which standing could be found?

States are not always bound by the strict case-or-controversy Article III requirement; I have no idea if this is state or federal litigation.

But even if we need Article III standing, I think it’s possible the NRA could have it. Not a hill a would die defending, mind you, but the Court has some … um… inconsistent results in the line of “standing” caselaw.

Of course not. You’re using public employees to effect political action (or inaction, in this case). See above.

OK, bad example. Can the police hand out the gift cards to the “Occupy” crowd to convince them to disperse? The link between them and any specific political action is pretty darn attenuated.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Me too, which is why I say I’d rule against the NRA in this matter. I say that if the legislature wants to include buy-back guns, let them amend the law to say so.

So… not to hijack, but what’s your view on Roe v. Wade, as a letter-of-the-law type?

If you start a thread on the subject, I promise I’ll read up on it enough to give an informed opinion on it, o.k.?

[CalMeacham]

Bricker wrote:

No. At least not for me. I think this issue raises lots of fruitful areas of discussion, and has thus invited lots of commentary, but I don’t regard the issue as sensitive.

Well, then it’s admirable that you are above partisan argument and have a sufficiently tough hide that you are not pricked to contributions through being nettled by the controversy.
But the fact that this has gone on for five pages seems to me pretty conclusive evidence that this issue has, indeed, struck a sensitive nerve.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

I would think that a public good is served by getting dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who don’t want them. Those gun owners are free to see their guns on the open market if they want to, and the guns are legal.

There is no similar good for removing BC from people’s hands.

How is assessing the public good of each goal a proper role for the courts?

Suppose the judges think that removing birth control from peoples’ hands IS a public good?

[Richard_Parker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Fair enough, but wouldn’t the “subjects of coercion” in this case be the people selling the guns?

Yes. Or rather, someone with a gun to sell who feels coerced to do so, but wants to prevent that coercion.

The fact that this starts to seem weird is part of the reason there seems to be a split between coercing states and coercing individuals. But when you get down to it, why is the argument for Florida and Medicare any better?

[Bricker]

@CalMeacham

Bricker wrote:

Well, then it’s admirable that you are above partisan argument and have a sufficiently tough hide that you are not pricked to contributions through being nettled by the controversy.
But the fact that this has gone on for five pages seems to me pretty conclusive evidence that this issue has, indeed, struck a sensitive nerve.

I had a ten page thread once discussing three minute mysteries.

[CalMeacham]

@Bricker

I had a ten page thread once discussing three minute mysteries.

Obviously a pretty interesting topic for some people.
When they’re political topics, that tends to equate with “sensitive”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

States are not always bound by the strict case-or-controversy Article III requirement; I have no idea if this is state or federal litigation.

<snip>

OK, bad example. Can the police hand out the gift cards to the “Occupy” crowd to convince them to disperse? The link between them and any specific political action is pretty darn attenuated.

Fair enough.

I don’t think that’s wise (to put as you did), but I don’t see it as a constitutional problem.

@Richard_Parker

But when you get down to it, why is the argument for Florida and Medicare any better?

I’m afraid you’ve lost me here.

[Richard_Parker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I’m afraid you’ve lost me here.

Florida has standing to argue that the federal government’s conditional offering of money to the states to pay for medical care was improperly coercive because it was just so damned attractive. I don’t see how that’s so different–on the sole question of standing–from a gun owner making the same argument about gun buy-backs.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

How is assessing the public good of each goal a proper role for the courts?

Suppose the judges think that removing birth control from peoples’ hands IS a public good?

I’d like to see that argument. A judge could think that people of French ancestry genetically can’t tell the truth. I’m sure judges believe all sorts of stupid shit.

If it is legal, BC buybacks certainly isn’t intelligent policy. But removing guns from people who don’t want them is.

[Debaser]

@Czarcasm

I’m glad somebody is standing up for the rights of Gun-Americans.

Wow.

Let me be clear. I’m not making that analogy to compare guns to people. I made it to point out that Great Antibob’s post seems to have a serious disconnect in it.

1. He goes on to say how great the guns are.
2. ???
3. Without taking a breath, he goes on to say how we should melt them all down.

It was just odd and I wanted to know what his thought process is. If those guns are so nice to shoot why should we melt them down? Simple question.

[Debaser]

@BigT

Your post is the cite. If I applaud you for doing something, it means I think you did the right thing. When you say something someone did was “justified,” it means that you think that person did the right thing. You are thus right now applauding George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin.

And note the correct spelling. It’s not even that uncommon a name.

@Steophan

Here’s a solution that should please the lefties.

Also this -

• is possibly the stupidest thing you’ve ever written. Which, given your posting history, is a pretty amazing achievement.

I know. It’s unbelievable. The stupidity is actually painful to watch. This can’t be real, right?

[BobLibDem]

@Steophan

Here’s a solution that should please the lefties.

Take the guns that are bought back, and sell them at a low price to poor people who can’t afford guns, helping them to exercise their right to bear arms.

That’s what you want, right? The government helping people to get what they should have a right to have?

Also this -

• is possibly the stupidest thing you’ve ever written. Which, given your posting history, is a pretty amazing achievement.

Uh- no it wouldn’t. I’m not advocating more guns in the hands of people who can’t afford them. I’m advocated fewer guns (better yet, ZERO) guns in the hands of people who can afford them.

Big T was right on. Saying that Zimmerman was justified was equivalent to applauding the murder of Martin. I think a lot of gun nuts here creamed their jeans when they first heard about the case.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Richard_Parker

Florida has standing to argue that the federal government’s conditional offering of money to the states to pay for medical care was improperly coercive because it was just so damned attractive. I don’t see how that’s so different–on the sole question of standing–from a gun owner making the same argument about gun buy-backs.

Point taken, but I think even a demented SCOTUS would have trouble arguing that a $20 gift card is not more akin to 5% of federal highway funds than it is to all Medicaid funding.

Besides, the rules for individual standing are fundamentally different from those for a state or its subdivisions.

…this threat serves no purpose other than to force unwilling
States to sign up for the dramatic expansion in health care
coverage effected by the Act.

Given the nature of the threat and the programs at
issue here, we must agree. We have upheld Congress’s
authority to condition the receipt of funds on the States’
complying with restrictions on the use of those funds,
because that is the means by which Congress ensures that
the funds are spent according to its view of the “general
Welfare.” Conditions that do not here govern the use
of the funds, however, cannot be justified on that ba-
sis. When, for example, such conditions take the form of
threats to terminate other significant independent grants,
the conditions are properly viewed as a means of pressur-
ing the States to accept policy changes.

In South Dakota v. Dole, we considered a challenge to a
federal law that threatened to withhold five percent of a
State’s federal highway funds if the State did not raise its
drinking age to 21. The Court found that the condition
was “directly related to one of the main purposes for which
highway funds are expended—safe interstate travel.” 483
U. S., at 208. At the same time, the condition was not a
restriction on how the highway funds—set aside for spec-
ific highway improvement and maintenance efforts—were
to be used.

We accordingly asked whether “the financial induce-
ment offered by Congress” was “so coercive as to pass the
point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’” Id., at
211 (quoting Steward Machine, supra, at 590). By “finan-
cial inducement” the Court meant the threat of losing five
percent of highway funds; no new money was offered to
the States to raise their drinking ages. We found that the
inducement was not impermissibly coercive, because
Congress was offering only “relatively mild encouragement
to the States.” Dole, 483 U. S., at 211. We observed that
“all South Dakota would lose if she adheres to her chosen
course as to a suitable minimum drinking age is 5%” of
her highway funds. Ibid. In fact, the federal funds at
stake constituted less than half of one percent of South
Dakota’s budget at the time. See Nat. Assn. of State
Budget Officers, The State Expenditure Report 59 (1987);
South Dakota v. Dole, 791 F. 2d 628, 630 (CA8 1986). In
consequence, “we conclude[d] that [the] encouragement
to state action [was] a valid use of the spending power.”
Dole, 483 U. S., at 212. Whether to accept the drinking
age change “remain[ed] the prerogative of the States not
merely in theory but in fact.” Id., at 211–212.
In this case, the financial “inducement” Congress has
chosen is much more than “relatively mild encourage-
ment”—it is a gun to the head. Section 1396c of the Medi-
caid Act provides that if a State’s Medicaid plan does
not comply with the Act’s requirements, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services may declare that “further
payments will not be made to the State.” 42 U. S. C.
§1396c. A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s
expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not
merely “a relatively small percentage” of its existing Medi-
caid funding, but all of it. Dole, supra, at 211. Medicaid
spending accounts for over 20 percent of the average
State’s total budget, with federal funds covering 50 to 83
percent of those costs.

[random6x7]

Hi, super liberal lefty feminist who needs her birth control for medical reasons other than not getting pregnant here.

I don’t think I’d actually do much more than roll my eyes at a BC buyback program. The only concern I would have would be poor people taking the gamble in order to get grocery money. Otherwise, I cannot see any birth control user turning in pills or condoms that they plan on using. Actually, thinking about it, it may even be good policy, since switching prescriptions isn’t uncommon and it’s not really a good idea to just throw hormonal bc away, since there’s concern about it getting in the municipal water. Some incentive to actually taking your old medicine to a place it could be properly disposed of might make more people do it.

So that analogy fails to get me to change my mind about the silliness of the NRA, because I really don’t think it’d be a slippery slope to anti-birth control legislation. The people who want that to happen have better tactics. It does present a public good - properly disposing of a potentially harmful, unwanted thing. And the buyback portion is a good incentive to getting people to bring their stuff in. I’d make the incentive much smaller, of course, since pills and condoms are comparatively cheap, and I’d like something to help those who, because of dire circumstances, would be tempted to give up needed medication so they could afford to pay the light bill or whatever, but, hey, maybe it’s a good idea.

So why is this supposed to make me support the NRA’s legislation? It’s a decent analogy, except that guns tend to be much pricier than even a year of BC, but as a way of trampling on the rights of those who want to own guns/birth control, it seems a piss-poor option.

[Steophan]

@BobLibDem

Uh- no it wouldn’t. I’m not advocating more guns in the hands of people who can’t afford them. I’m advocated fewer guns (better yet, ZERO) guns in the hands of people who can afford them.

Big T was right on. Saying that Zimmerman was justified was equivalent to applauding the murder of Martin. I think a lot of gun nuts here creamed their jeans when they first heard about the case.

You’re obviously wrong, as if Zimmerman was in the right, there was no murder.

You really hate self defence, don’t you? Otherwise, why would you focus on taking guns from innocent people?

[brazil84]

@random6x7

Hi, super liberal lefty feminist who needs her birth control for medical reasons other than not getting pregnant here.

I don’t think I’d actually do much more than roll my eyes at a BC buyback program.

Well what if Planned Parenthood threatened to file a lawsuit to stop the police from being involved in it? Would you feel that Planned Parenthood’s conduct was outrageous and pit-worthy?

[BobLibDem]

@Steophan

You’re obviously wrong, as if Zimmerman was in the right, there was no murder.

You really hate self defence, don’t you? Otherwise, why would you focus on taking guns from innocent people?

The trial hasn’t even started yet, so Zimmerman’s can’t be said to be in the right or that no murder has happened. Doesn’t take away from the fact that many on the right were happy to see it happen.

Once someone has a gun, they’re no longer innocent. They’re a threat to the lives and safety of the public.

[Richard_Parker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Point taken, but I think even a demented SCOTUS would have trouble arguing that a $20 gift card is not more akin to 5% of federal highway funds than it is to all Medicaid funding.

Besides, the rules for individual standing are fundamentally different from those for a state or its subdivisions.

Agreed on both points. But I think the standard by which the Court measures coercion just cannot be the percentage of the recipient’s budget that the spending occupies, or the germaneness of the condition to the spending. Neither principle has been consistently applied across the cases. So things aren’t as stable as that opinion intimates. Ditto standing.

The relevant doctrines here are, to put it charitably, in flux. So I don’t think you can call arguments based on them frivolous.

[kaylasdad99]

@Czarcasm

has anyone here even hinted that that was the reason?

@Bricker

Yes, as many people have hinted that this is the real reason as have said that the NRA is the Church of the Holy Gun and it’s blasphemous to destroy that which they worship.

Well, I’m sure the NRA hasn’t publicly compared the guns to sacred objects. However, the vibe I’m getting from Kable at least is that he considers a comparison to PETA inferior to a comparison with, say, the American Library Association (in their role as a premier anti-book-burning organization).