(Poll) JD Vance: judges cannot "tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for"

[JoeyJoystick]

Thanks for a specific example. Please I am a Canadian retired law professor. I make no claims to be a US constitutional expert or expert in California or Texas laws and would defer to those lawyers.

Noddle I also openly tell yoou my bias which is because I am Canadian I agree with gun regulations and laws. I do not hide my biases on this forum and so I may argue strongly against pro gun people but they know I concede I am not against any gun being owned but believe in safety and training regulations and yes the banning but of only certain weapons not all and my comments are mostly in consideration of inner cities and heavily populated areas NOT rural areas where guns are a necessity to hunt to eat and protect against dangerous animals.

Ok that said:

1-the US consitution has two levels of laws for guns, one is state, the other federal-and they can overlap or contradict-in Canada all gun laws are part of federal criminal law-our provinces do not legislate criminal law and gun laws although each province regulates hunting laws which can impact on permits;

2-because of that dual nature it is possible in your scenario, states have different laws and regulations as to what kind of gun can be owned, what preconditions are required to buy, own, use and store a gun;

3-I would need to see why a law was struck out as unconstitutional in say one state-to know if a law in another state does the exact same thing to first determine if they are the same-then I would need to know the grounds of being unconstitutional-often people mistake gun laws in two states as being the same so when one is found unconstitutional its automatically assumed unconstitutional in the other state-but the laws are not actually the same so the lack of constitutionality may not be the same in both states;

4-as a general rule if a federal court, determines a federal law unconstitutional and the gun law is a federal one, then it is unconstitutional across the entire nation-but if the ruling is on a state specific law-whether its unconstitutional in another state will depend on if the other state's law is identical-if its identical the other state would still need to have some challenge its lack of constitutionality first and then in court the Judge could rely on rulings of unconstutionality in other states with the exact same wording to see if they can be applied.

In summary I am no gun expert in the US but I can tell you from my limited knowledge pro gun regulation states and anti gunregulation states can range widely in what is practiced in terms of what gun can be owned, whether you can carry it concealed or out in the open, etc.

So your question needs even more specificity to understand was it a state or federal law called unconstitutional and if it was a state law whether the two states have the identical wording (which is rarely the case). As well even with identical wording in state laws, its still possible there could be a finding of unconstitutionality in one state but not the other because of what enforcement area or procedure was being challenged. Enforcement procedures (due process) and preconditions for owning a gun can differ in state laws but sound the same or almost the same and here is where you can get a possible lack of comnstitutionality in one state but not the other.

I can tell you the widest divergence in state gun laws is in the TYPE of weapon that may be or is banned and in preconditions of ownership or in how information is stored of gun owners.

Hi Mika,

So you Law-People can write in a language we simple souls can also understand! Thank you soo much for this. I know very little about law, but I always thought by myself that if what you do makes sense, than the law is probably behind you. And what you are saying makes complete sense.

I am anti-gun myself, but was a lot more fanatic than I am now. Ironically it is because I lived in Montreal, Canada for several years. It was there, not in the city, but up the mountains and the woods, where I realized that you either need to be very well prepared to go for a hike or you need a gun of some sort. Probably both. But I still maintain that carrying guns around in normal life is a stupid thing to do. Hope it will change one day, would be better for them. Even they don't know it yet.


Joey

 

[Mika-El]

Of course, as an anti-Trump Progressive you want high taxes to pay for more social programs. I want lower corporate taxes to fuel growth in capitalist organizations which translates into more tax revenues to grow GDP.
I want Trump to win and you want him to lose because you are still butt-hurt over Hillary's embarrassing loss last November.

Hey Jay leave my butt alone. At my age those prostate exams are more than enough. Back to the topic.

Believe it or not not all Proghressives believe higher taxes pay for more social programs automatically. Yes our butts hurt when higher taxes are not used for social programs and a case in point is with Donny Trump and other so called conservatives who increased taxes, but cut social programs at the same time and only allowd tax cuts for a small group who you generalize as "capitalist organizations".

Here is where you and I disagree. I am actually a fiscal conservative and a progressive on social programs.. Its possible to balance both.

Next if you could show me tax cuts or for that matter exemptions or rebates to businesses was indeed earmarked to creating employment and economic spin offs that both benefit your society more than spending that mponey instead through taxes on certain government programs that are wasteful I would agree with you.

My argument is, the businesses in the US that need those tax cuts or rebates or exemptions to grow are NOT getting them and in fact the tariffs are not rerouted to them at all but they do enable monopoly capitalist organizations in your country the ability to prevent such businesses from being able to enter the market place and compete with those large conglamorates. In fact I would argue as many do that the tariffs re destroying any remaining free enterprise markets in the US to allow a few monoplies to control all manufacturing and production to fix high prices using the tariffs as the cover to do so.

Tariffs when used properly to assist businesses grow would only be used when:

1-the foreign product and US product were identical, not where the foreign product coming in is not competing with an American product;

2-further to 1, the tariff would only be used for start up companies and companies under a certain amount of income per year and specifically in fields where there are monopolies that prevent prices directly related to supply and demand;

3-Trump's tariffs are classic socialist intervention in free markets and ironically you love them.

 

[jaypatriot]

Again you make sweeping generalized statements and the generalizations are so wide as to render them pointless.

Lower taxes do not always lead to greater investment precisely because the money that did not go to taxes did not necessarily get reinvested in businesses that went on to hire people or generate spin off economic benefits.

As well higher taxes can when used in specific context fund programs that do indeed incite economic growth in the specific sector those tax funds are then rerouted to.

During Covid 19, higher taxes tried to offset huge increases in government spending to the business sector to keep businesses going and prevent economic shrinkage.

Trump has created a consumer tax (tariff) to increase taxes on certain Americans to fund lowering taxes for a minority of Americans. Interestingly those taxes through tariffs Trump claims will make America "rich".

For someone who claims higher taxes restrain economic growth you support Trump's tariffs (consumer tax).

Funny how that works hmmm.


You think the tariffs now on American goods are growing the US economy? Go on tell us all.

You have your narrative to nurture and broadcast.
Nice job preaching to your choir.

 

[jaypatriot]

Hi Jay,

Why you worry about that? It's ok if one does it, but not ok if someone else does it? C'mon, you haven't slid down that far yet, have you?

Joey

The eyes of the public in 2026 will be on the Dems leaders to come up with strategy to take back the House.
We'll see how smart they are.
I hope they continue to trot out AOC and Bernie Sanders for comic effect.

 

[Mika-El]

Hi Mika,

So you Law-People can write in a language we simple souls can also understand! Thank you soo much for this. I know very little about law, but I always thought by myself that if what you do makes sense, than the law is probably behind you. And what you are saying makes complete sense.

I am anti-gun myself, but was a lot more fanatic than I am now. Ironically it is because I lived in Montreal, Canada for several years. It was there, not in the city, but up the mountains and the woods, where I realized that you either need to be very well prepared to go for a hike or you need a gun of some sort. Probably both. But I still maintain that carrying guns around in normal life is a stupid thing to do. Hope it will change one day, would be better for them. Even they don't know it yet.


Joey

Hey Joey, JayPatriot I give shit to but only because I respect his difference in opinion. Next I might have been a law professor and lawyer at one point but I can assure you, Jaypatriot, you, all the others have equally as valid opinions. In fact I apologize to all of you if I sound know it all. I do not mean to. I get caught up in the debate which I love. Jay probably does not know it but I actually agree with some of his conservative discal viuews but I just don't think they are possible.

For example., I think tax cuts and trickle down theory have been more than proven false precisely because they never went to helping small businesses add to the conomy:

Trickle-Down Economics: Why It Only Works in Theory

Trickle-down economic theory states that benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else in the economy. These benefits for the wealthy include tax cuts for dividends, capital gains, high-income earners, and businesses. Trickle-down economics assumes that company owners, savers, and...

www.economicsonline.co.uk

A huge study of 20 years of global wealth demolishes the myth of 'trickle-down' and shows the rich are taking most of the gains for themselves

The bottom 50% of the world holds 2% of wealth, while the top 10% holds 76%, according to a huge data set that leading economists compiled for years.

www.businessinsider.com

I referred you to non legal essays above. I would bore you to hell with the legal journals explaining of how selective tax cuts actually failed to generate business in the Reagan and Bush eras and how measures taken by Clinton worked better.

That said I am a strong proponent in any country assisting its fledging small businesses. I am deeply suspicious of how large conglamorates control their respective countries' fiscal policies for their own interests/

Those are all just my opinions. I respect you and Jay and anyone else on this board.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

You have your narrative to nurture and broadcast.
Nice job preaching to your choir.

Hi Jay,

Sorry, but that's how it works in a debate. The one that talks most sense wins the debate.


Joey

 

[Mika-El]

You have your narrative to nurture and broadcast.
Nice job preaching to your choir.

Thank you.
You too only you get sued a lot. I do not.

 

[Mika-El]

May I also say Joeyjoystick is the most questionable name on this forum. I am sure Jaypariot and Majorie Taylor Greene misunderstands what it means and want a law against it.

note: that was a joke

 

[rahl]

The full Appeals Court ruled on the case. That means in the region covered by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals banning AR-15’s and high capacity magazines is perfectly legal.

Supreme Court declines to hear challenges to state assault weapons bans | Fox News

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision not to review state bans on AR-15 rifles, citing Second Amendment concerns.

www.foxnews.com

Nope. As the 4 SCOTUS rulings I have you told you. You can’t ban any firearm in common use. AR’s are in common use and can’t be banned. These state cases are working their way to SCOTUS. They declined to hear the cases while they are working their way through the circuits.

 

[rahl]

Of course, as an anti-Trump Progressive you want high taxes to pay for more social programs. I want lower corporate taxes to fuel growth in capitalist organizations which translates into more tax revenues to grow GDP.

This simply doesn’t happen. We have 4 decades of data showing you this.

I want Trump to win and you want him to lose because you are still butt-hurt over Hillary's embarrassing loss last November.

 

[Peter]

I sure hope none of those block-headed Dems leaders read your post and get ideas for if and when they win back the House.

Why not?
If it's ok for Republicans then it's ok for Democrats?

 

[upsideguy]

So it's all black and white to you?
You want all appointed federal judges to be able to stop the president from exercising his authority? Regardless of the logic behind their reasoning?

No judge has stopped the president from exercising his authority. The have stopped him from overstepping his authority, which is what were asked to do in a formal petition of the court (complaint of the plaintiff). This idea that they are "activists" is idiotic given 1) the judge can not just rule, they are petitioned by a harmed party and 2) the rulings are coming from different judges of different backgrounds on different issues.

When will Trump supporters "man-up" and start to question Trump rather than judges?

Yes, this is the route the Trump Administration must take: "If the Administration thinks the Judge has ruled wrongly, they can appeal - all the way to SCOTUS if they like."

That is the right of anyone that does not agree with a court decision.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

May I also say Joeyjoystick is the most questionable name on this forum.

Hi Mika,

I realized that shortly after I created this name.... lol.

Not sure I told the story before.

It was x-mas 2000 I think. My wife had bought me MS Flight Simulator. I had bought myself a fancy joystick for the game. I needed a new email account. And I needed a pseudonym. So I figured I used my best friends Joe and I was soo happy with FS and the joystick that I added that when I realized that joey@hotmail.com was already taken... haha. And I have used this ever since. I am not the only one with this name though. but it is a bit uncommon I think. I know why and where it comes from. So I do not care. I not mean harm. But the question has been asked many times over the years. And I will admit that I will never use it to send a CV to a potential employer.

My nephew even called me once and said; I know how you got that name! And he then send me a picture of a dildo called JoeyJoystick. But no, that was not me. The colour was wrong and my wife wished it was me. So nope, not me.


Joey

 

[SavannahMann]

Nope. As the 4 SCOTUS rulings I have you told you. You can’t ban any firearm in common use. AR’s are in common use and can’t be banned. These state cases are working their way to SCOTUS. They declined to hear the cases while they are working their way through the circuits.

Sadly that isn’t what the Legal website says. Nor the actual SCOTUS decision. But I’m sure the Twitter post by a guy who once drove past a law school was different.

 

[jaypatriot]

No judge has stopped the president from exercising his authority. The have stopped him from overstepping his authority, which is what were asked to do in a formal petition of the court (complaint of the plaintiff). This idea that they are "activists" is idiotic given 1) the judge can not just rule, they are petitioned by a harmed party and 2) the rulings are coming from different judges of different backgrounds on different issues.

When will Trump supporters "man-up" and start to question Trump rather than judges?



That is the right of anyone that does not agree with a court decision.

You wrote: "No judge has stopped the president from exercising his authority. The have stopped him from overstepping his authority,:

And just who is the judge of deciding whether Trump is guilty of "overstepping his authority"? How is it "overstepping"? Is it because a federal judge has the power to stop the President regardless if it makes sense or not?.


That's what the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court are there to decide.

 

[jaypatriot]

Why not?
If it's ok for Republicans then it's ok for Democrats?

The GOP has to keep control of the House; not win it back.
We'll see if the weakened Dems have the courage and smarts to win back the House next year.

 

[Mika-El]

Hi Mika,

I realized that shortly after I created this name.... lol.

Not sure I told the story before.

It was x-mas 2000 I think. My wife had bought me MS Flight Simulator. I had bought myself a fancy joystick for the game. I needed a new email account. And I needed a pseudonym. So I figured I used my best friends Joe and I was soo happy with FS and the joystick that I added that when I realized that joey@hotmail.com was already taken... haha. And I have used this ever since. I am not the only one with this name though. but it is a bit uncommon I think. I know why and where it comes from. So I do not care. I not mean harm. But the question has been asked many times over the years. And I will admit that I will never use it to send a CV to a potential employer.

My nephew even called me once and said; I know how you got that name! And he then send me a picture of a dildo called JoeyJoystick. But no, that was not me. The colour was wrong and my wife wished it was me. So nope, not me.


Joey

LOL

 

[Mika-El]

Nope. As the 4 SCOTUS rulings I have you told you. You can’t ban any firearm in common use. AR’s are in common use and can’t be banned. These state cases are working their way to SCOTUS. They declined to hear the cases while they are working their way through the circuits.

I am not sure what definition to when you use : common use" let alone claiming its a constitutional test for whether state or federal laws can ban certain types of weapons.

I am not aware of any law, state or federal that claims if a gun us commonly owned. used, or is popular that prevents it from being banned including the decisions you seem to refer to.

In fact there are weapons that are now banned as we speak in certain states but not others that could have been and could be used for common use.

When you use the term "common use" I wish to make clear to you your courts have not defined whether a gun is banned because of common (popular) use but because of the inherent nature of its kill potential.

So your continued statements are incorrect and I defer back to Savanah or anyone else you try claim wrong. I

If what you said is true, then the guns banned under the list I now present would not be banned:

BANNED: A State-By-State Look at Restricted Guns, Ammo and Parts

Gun laws vary from state to state so it can be hard to know your rights. That is why we compiled a list of banned guns, ammo and accessories in each state.

blog.cheaperthandirt.com

Also while federal law does not ban AK's some states do and some heavily restrict their use:

What states are AK-47s legal in? | [June Updated]

What States Are AK-47s Legal In? AK-47s, or more accurately, semi-automatic variants of the AK-47 rifle, are generally legal to own under federal law in most states. However, state laws vary significantly, with some states heavily restricting or outright banning them. State-Specific AK-47...

thegunzone.com

What firearms are currently banned in the US? | [June Updated]

In the United States, there is no federal ban on specific firearms. However, certain types of firearms, such as fully automatic weapons and certain modifications like bump stocks, have been heavily regulated and restricted by the National Firearms Act and other legislation. What is the National...

thegunzone.com

What weapons should be put on ban lists remains open to debate.

I personally believe any rapid fire weapon or weapon capable of being adjusted to rapid fire should not be sold to the public to protect the police and innocent people from mass shooters.

I defend anyone;s right to own a weapon if they agree to self regulate through a hunting or other non profit association or club licensed by a government and teaches people how to store and clean their weapons and stay up to date on maintaining them and making sure to use them with safety.

My issue is not with necessity hunters who grew up in rural areas having to hunt to eat. They are for the most part self regulated. My issue is with certain hunters who claim they need AK or rapid fire weapons to hunt. That for me is laziness and not genuine. There are plenty of other hunting weapons that can be used-they just don't want to develop the discipline to use them.

Also having had to live in a conflict zone and carry weapons I hate them. I hate hand guns. I respect people who own them and use them at gun clubs and store them there. I do not have confidence in any citizen with a hand gun at home. For the most part they are stored improperly leading to accidental death by being appropriated by a child or suicidal person or theft.

I think we need to always err on the side of safety in regards to children and not assume the average person handles a hand gun with accuracy or care and instead is more likely to kill themselves than an intruder.

Ne I absolutely argue on this forum that stricter gun registration laws are needed, gun manufacturers can and should put in tracking devices and more safety measures and there be far better psychiatric/psychological screening of potential gun owners.

I defer to what your American police departments and the ATF say on this subject I know people in the ATF. I respect what they say about what more can be done.

In Canada all our gun laws are federal and the current contraversy is the current ban list put on rifles that rural hunters need to be able to hunt with.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Simple yes/no basic civics question.

A basic premise of the Constitution is that there are some things the government cannot do even with the support of a majority of voters. The VP swore an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of all people, which are superior to any legislation or executive action. Judges have final authority to interpret the Constitution. It is disturbing he does not understand this.

J.D. Vance is kind of living proof that the American educational system and system of government are garbage.

He made it through college, through a military career and he's dumber than a bonsai plant.

Based on the cream that rises to thee top in American politics I would recommend not eating................ever

 

[Fearandloathing]

Hi Mika,

I realized that shortly after I created this name.... lol.

Not sure I told the story before.

It was x-mas 2000 I think. My wife had bought me MS Flight Simulator. I had bought myself a fancy joystick for the game. I needed a new email account. And I needed a pseudonym. So I figured I used my best friends Joe and I was soo happy with FS and the joystick that I added that when I realized that joey@hotmail.com was already taken... haha. And I have used this ever since. I am not the only one with this name though. but it is a bit uncommon I think. I know why and where it comes from. So I do not care. I not mean harm. But the question has been asked many times over the years. And I will admit that I will never use it to send a CV to a potential employer.

My nephew even called me once and said; I know how you got that name! And he then send me a picture of a dildo called JoeyJoystick. But no, that was not me. The colour was wrong and my wife wished it was me. So nope, not me.


Joey

Please don't tell it again.

 

[rahl]

Sadly that isn’t what the Legal website says.

It’s what SCOTUS said lol.

Nor the actual SCOTUS decision.

You need to actually read heller, McDonald, Caetano and especially Bruen.

But I’m sure the Twitter post by a guy who once drove past a law school was different.

It’s amusing you think this is cute, or an argument. The facts remain. SCOTUS explicitly told you that any firearm in common use can not be banned.

 

[rahl]

I am not sure what definition to when you use : common use" let alone claiming its a constitutional test for whether state or federal laws can ban certain types of weapons.

I am not aware of any law, state or federal that claims if a gun us commonly owned. used, or is popular that prevents it from being banned including the decisions you seem to refer to.

In fact there are weapons that are now banned as we speak in certain states but not others that could have been and could be used for common use.

When you use the term "common use" I wish to make clear to you your courts have not defined whether a gun is banned because of common (popular) use but because of the inherent nature of its kill potential.

So your continued statements are incorrect and I defer back to Savanah or anyone else you try claim wrong. I

If what you said is true, then the guns banned under the list I now present would not be banned:

BANNED: A State-By-State Look at Restricted Guns, Ammo and Parts

Gun laws vary from state to state so it can be hard to know your rights. That is why we compiled a list of banned guns, ammo and accessories in each state.

blog.cheaperthandirt.com

Also while federal law does not ban AK's some states do and some heavily restrict their use:

What states are AK-47s legal in? | [June Updated]

What States Are AK-47s Legal In? AK-47s, or more accurately, semi-automatic variants of the AK-47 rifle, are generally legal to own under federal law in most states. However, state laws vary significantly, with some states heavily restricting or outright banning them. State-Specific AK-47...

thegunzone.com

What firearms are currently banned in the US? | [June Updated]

In the United States, there is no federal ban on specific firearms. However, certain types of firearms, such as fully automatic weapons and certain modifications like bump stocks, have been heavily regulated and restricted by the National Firearms Act and other legislation. What is the National...

thegunzone.com

What weapons should be put on ban lists remains open to debate.

I personally believe any rapid fire weapon or weapon capable of being adjusted to rapid fire should not be sold to the public to protect the police and innocent people from mass shooters.

I defend anyone;s right to own a weapon if they agree to self regulate through a hunting or other non profit association or club licensed by a government and teaches people how to store and clean their weapons and stay up to date on maintaining them and making sure to use them with safety.

My issue is not with necessity hunters who grew up in rural areas having to hunt to eat. They are for the most part self regulated. My issue is with certain hunters who claim they need AK or rapid fire weapons to hunt. That for me is laziness and not genuine. There are plenty of other hunting weapons that can be used-they just don't want to develop the discipline to use them.

Also having had to live in a conflict zone and carry weapons I hate them. I hate hand guns. I respect people who own them and use them at gun clubs and store them there. I do not have confidence in any citizen with a hand gun at home. For the most part they are stored improperly leading to accidental death by being appropriated by a child or suicidal person or theft.

I think we need to always err on the side of safety in regards to children and not assume the average person handles a hand gun with accuracy or care and instead is more likely to kill themselves than an intruder.

Ne I absolutely argue on this forum that stricter gun registration laws are needed, gun manufacturers can and should put in tracking devices and more safety measures and there be far better psychiatric/psychological screening of potential gun owners.

I defer to what your American police departments and the ATF say on this subject I know people in the ATF. I respect what they say about what more can be done.

In Canada all our gun laws are federal and the current contraversy is the current ban list put on rifles that rural hunters need to be able to hunt with.

Refuted this already. See Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen. SCOTUS explicitly told you they can’t be banned.

 

[SavannahMann]

It’s what SCOTUS said lol.

You need to actually read heller, McDonald, Caetano and especially Bruen.

It’s amusing you think this is cute, or an argument. The facts remain. SCOTUS explicitly told you that any firearm in common use can not be banned.

And yet the Supremes allowed a ban to continue in the 1st and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeals.

So it be legal there.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-203_5ie6.pdf

They denied Cert. they are not hearing the case. It is not returned for further consideration by lower courts. It’s a done deal.

 

[rahl]

And yet the Supremes allowed a ban to continue in the 1st and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Because those cases are working their way through the circuits.

So it be legal there.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-203_5ie6.pdf

They denied Cert. they are not hearing the case. It is not returned for further consideration by lower courts. It’s a done deal.

No it isn’t lol

 

[SavannahMann]

Because those cases are working their way through the circuits.

No it isn’t lol

The laws are still on the books. The courts did not overturn the ban. So you would not be buying an AR-15 in those states. You won’t be buying high capacity magazines. The ban is legal because the Supremes declined the opportunity to answer the question. Some day, way off in the future, that ban may be overturned. But it is in effect now.