• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Can judges "tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for"

  • Total voters
    88
The Supreme Court has already told you they can’t be banned. The denied cert. Do even know what cert means? And what it means if it’s denied?
 
rahl said:
The Supreme Court has already told you they can’t be banned. The denied cert. Do even know what cert means? And what it means if it’s denied?
Click to expand...

Yes. It means the Appeals Court decision stands.

The Appeals Court Decision was that the bans were in keeping with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Dude. Do a little reading.

The Supremes did not overturn the bans. By not taking up the cases the bans in the 1st and 4th, specifically Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island, are Constitutional according to the Courts.

I’ve posted news articles that told you this. You said no that’s wrong. I posted the actual denial. You said that’s wrong. What more do you want?

marylandmatters.org

Supreme Court lets stand Maryland's assault weapons ban - for now - Maryland Matters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand Maryland's decade-old ban on assault weapons, over the objections of four conservative justices who were ready to review a lower court's defense of the law that they called "dubious" and "questionable."
marylandmatters.org marylandmatters.org

You can stomp your foot and shout that’s wrong. But that is the law. It will take a new challenge to go through the years of court cases to get up there again. Maybe it will be another decade.
 
So you don’t know what denying cert means. Ok.
 
rahl said:
So you don’t know what denying cert means. Ok.
Click to expand...

We keep posting the information. The Appeals Court decision stands because the Supremes denied the appeal to their level.
 
SavannahMann said:
We keep posting the information. The Appeals Court decision stands because the Supremes denied the appeal to their level.
Click to expand...
I know. You don’t seem to know what denying cert means.
 
rahl said:
I know. You don’t seem to know what denying cert means.
Click to expand...

It means they declined to hear the appeal. Since the case was decided in the Appeals Court and a ruling was issued it is now a settled matter in that Area.

Tell you what. Prove me wrong. Show up in Connecticut with an AR-15 and a bunch of thirty round magazines. Offer it for sale. When the cops arrest you tell them they can’t do that. Tell them the Supremes euled and Heller.

Then later you can challenge your conviction in Federal Court. In ten years or so the Supremes might agree with you. Then again maybe you get lucky and they just confiscate the rifle and magazines.
 
rahl said:
Refuted this already. See Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen. SCOTUS explicitly told you they can’t be banned.
Click to expand...
Please say where in these decisions it said the guns could not be banned because common use weapons or popularly owned weapons are protected by the constitution because of their common use or popularity.

Good luck.
 
rahl said:
I know. You don’t seem to know what denying cert means.
Click to expand...
Try inversing that. You are deliberately reading into decisions of the Supreme Court definitions and reasoning they never have used and you are trying to deny specific processes in each state or federally that now eexist to obtain a weapon and what those processes are predicated on.
 
rahl said:
Because those cases are working their way through the circuits.

No it isn’t lol
Click to expand...
What? At any given time on the issue of guns and gun regulation certain cases work there way through various levels of court and then some never go to court and then some do get final decisions no longer capable of being appealed that all have led to gun bannings being upheld. Why would you deny that? Even when given the existing laws for banning you pretend they do not exist. Why do you think they can exist if they are unconstitutional on the grounds the guns they ban are common use or popularly owned?

Rahl you have walked yourself into a corner of denial. The decisions you quoted do not even enunciate the principles you claim about constitutionality.
 
Mika-El said:
Please say where in these decisions it said the guns could not be banned because common use weapons or popularly owned weapons are protected by the constitution because of their common use or popularity.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
Dc v Heller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.