If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   NRA feeling like an unlucky punk with a .44 magnum to its head at the Supreme Court this year   (motherjones.com) divider line 34
    More: Interesting, National Rifle Association, Supreme Court, Second Amendment Foundation, Eugene Volokh, Adam Winkler, Gun Owners of America, Brady Campaign, Texas law  
•       •       •

2674 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2014 at 5:06 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-18 04:25:55 PM  
Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.
 
2014-06-18 05:09:12 PM  
Yeah, this is probably the only thing that didn't matter; and they ruled on it.
 
2014-06-18 05:11:29 PM  
The NRA's very horrible no good very bad Supreme Court year.
 
2014-06-18 05:11:44 PM  
No, we're not banning guns.  Stop trying to blame tools, blame the people that profit from tragedy and our unwillingness to help the unstable.  Oh, and tighten background checks.
 
2014-06-18 05:16:56 PM  
It's not that the SCOTUS isn't for sale. Because it is.

4.bp.blogspot.com

It's just that the NRA doesn't have trillions of dollars in old, old money behind it. The NRA is going to have to take out some loans in order to buy the SCOTUS.

    In October, the Supreme Court declined to hear a NRA-backed case concerning concealed carry rights in Maryland.
    In January, against the wishes of the Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation, the court left in place a lower court ruling against a Montana law exempting firearms made and kept in the state from federal regulation.
    In February, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case the NRA brought against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in which the group was aiming to legalize the sale of handguns to Americans between the ages of 18 and 20.
    Also in February, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case where the NRA challenged a Texas law forbidding Texans between the ages of 18 and 20 from obtaining a concealed-carry permit for handguns.
    In March, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the federal law barring domestic violence offenders from owning guns applies to a broad range of abusers. (In this case, the NRA did not file a brief against the government, although the Gun Owners Foundation did.)
    In May, the Supreme Court declined to hear Drake v. Jerejian, a major Second Amendment case that challenged a New Jersey law barring most citizens from toting handguns around in public unless they can prove "justifiable need." (The NRA had argued that citizens' right to bear arms applies everywhere.)


That does make nice reading though.
 
2014-06-18 05:20:31 PM  
NRA Strategy:

1. Claim that the 2nd Amendment is a super important right and that guns will be taken away from you.
2. Scared citizens buy more guns.
3. Prevent legislation from restricting any amount of gun sales.
4. Attempt to strip legislation that restricts any amount of gun sales.
5. Profit increase!! Go back to Step 1.
 
2014-06-18 05:25:37 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: It's not that the SCOTUS isn't for sale. Because it is.



It's just that the NRA doesn't have trillions of dollars in old, old money behind it. The NRA is going to have to take out some loans in order to buy the SCOTUS.

    In October, the Supreme Court declined to hear a NRA-backed case concerning concealed carry rights in Maryland.
    In January, against the wishes of the Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation, the court left in place a lower court ruling against a Montana law exempting firearms made and kept in the state from federal regulation.
    In February, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case the NRA brought against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in which the group was aiming to legalize the sale of handguns to Americans between the ages of 18 and 20.
    Also in February, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case where the NRA challenged a Texas law forbidding Texans between the ages of 18 and 20 from obtaining a concealed-carry permit for handguns.
    In March, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the federal law barring domestic violence offenders from owning guns applies to a broad range of abusers. (In this case, the NRA did not file a brief against the government, although the Gun Owners Foundation did.)
    In May, the Supreme Court declined to hear Drake v. Jerejian, a major Second Amendment case that challenged a New Jersey law barring most citizens from toting handguns around in public unless they can prove "justifiable need." (The NRA had argued that citizens' right to bear arms applies everywhere.)

That does make nice reading though.


I am not entirely sure how allowing the sale of concealed carry licenses to Americans between the ages of 18-20 can be seen as financially beneficial to the NRA.
 
2014-06-18 05:43:34 PM  
This is all sideline stuff.  None of it has to do with ownership of various types of guns within the home (pistol ownership in the home is now legal throughout the country).  The next big pro-gun decision for the NRA by the Supremes will almost certainly be a repeal on ownership of a type of firearm (whether repealing restrictions on the size of magazines or a repeal on bans of "assault weapons").
 
2014-06-18 05:44:58 PM  

dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?
Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9
If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.



I was going to point out that you should be outraged that the NRA was backing arguments that lying on Form 4473 shouldn't be a felony, but, instead, I decided to beg you to not start people wondering about your penis size.
/Fark is not, after all, your personal erotica site.
 
2014-06-18 05:45:09 PM  

dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.


It was a tough case.  A man bought a gun for his uncle and didn't state on the form that it was going to be given to the uncle.  The uncle was otherwise eligible to buy the gun on his own.  The buyer was convicted of lying on the form (about him not being the ultimate end user).  The dissent's argument was that the falsehood wasn't material to the form because the uncle was otherwise qualified to own the gun and therefore shouldn't have been perjury (a la lying about a blowjob when said blowjob wasn't germane to the case in question even though lying about the blowjob was done under oath).
 
2014-06-18 06:11:41 PM  
I know of the "It's Mother Jones, why bother" factor in play here, but I guess what the hell, I've got a couple minutes to address the madness point/point:

In October, the Supreme Court declined to hear a NRA-backed case concerning concealed carry rights in Maryland.

Oh, noes, not one potential test case out of like twenty on the same subject being put forth for USSC every other month!  Clearly this is a confirmation of inclinations against the NRA and concealed carry, just like the 300,000 test cases to uncap corporate donations they declined that year explain neatly why Citizens United was decided unambiguously in favor of retaining existing donation limits.  Oh, wait.

In January, against the wishes of the Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation, the court left in place a lower court ruling against a Montana law exempting firearms made and kept in the state from federal regulation.

A ruling that the commerce clause allows federal regulation of goods involved in the nationally-competitive market even if they're ostensibly not being produced specifically to cross state lines?  What an unprecedented shocker that's totally specific to guns and not a repeat of a dozen other rulings on the same damned thing.

In February, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case the NRA brought against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in which the group was aiming to legalize the sale of handguns to Americans between the ages of 18 and 20.

Yes, MJ, the decision of the court not to arbitrarily expand gun rights clearly means they're now against existing gun rights.  Here, have a pat on the head and an increase in your Adderall dosage, kiddo.

In March, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the federal law barring domestic violence offenders from owning guns applies to a broad range of abusers. (In this case, the NRA did not file a brief against the government, although the Gun Owners Foundation did.)

Oh, no, the USSC is in favor of something the NRA is also explicitly in favor of!  Truly, tragedy and pernicious obstacles strike the beleaguered institution from every point of the rose!  Alas!  Woe!

In May, the Supreme Court declined to hear Drake v. Jerejian, a major Second Amendment case that challenged a New Jersey law barring most citizens from toting handguns around in public unless they can prove "justifiable need." (The NRA had argued that citizens' right to bear arms applies everywhere.)

Apart from the "oh noes, one test case out of the thousand bajillion filed this term" bit, this one is at least kind of vaguely supportive of TFA's implication.  Let's call it a half-point.
 
2014-06-18 06:16:21 PM  

Cataholic: dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.

It was a tough case.  A man bought a gun for his uncle and didn't state on the form that it was going to be given to the uncle.  The uncle was otherwise eligible to buy the gun on his own.  The buyer was convicted of lying on the form (about him not being the ultimate end user).  The dissent's argument was that the falsehood wasn't material to the form because the uncle was otherwise qualified to own the gun and therefore shouldn't have been perjury (a la lying about a blowjob when said blowjob wasn't germane to the case in question even though lying about the blowjob was done under oath).


It's a little more serious than that, as how was anyone to know the uncle was eligible?  And if he was, why lie about it?
 
2014-06-18 06:17:47 PM  
The only real 'disappointment' from the NRA perspective is probably the  Drake v. Jerejian case not making it on the docket. SCOTUS is probably going to have to take a concealed permit case at some point given that the 9th (Peruta v SD) and the 3rd are at odds with each other. I've read that some think it's more narrow than the Drake case, but it seems fairly straightforward (must show good cause in both) to me. The California AG is requesting an en banc review anyway, so maybe SCOTUS was just running out the clock.

It only takes 4 justices to take a case though right?
 
2014-06-18 06:21:24 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Cataholic: dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.

It was a tough case.  A man bought a gun for his uncle and didn't state on the form that it was going to be given to the uncle.  The uncle was otherwise eligible to buy the gun on his own.  The buyer was convicted of lying on the form (about him not being the ultimate end user).  The dissent's argument was that the falsehood wasn't material to the form because the uncle was otherwise qualified to own the gun and therefore shouldn't have been perjury (a la lying about a blowjob when said blowjob wasn't germane to the case in question even though lying about the blowjob was done under oath).

It's a little more serious than that, as how was anyone to know the uncle was eligible?  And if he was, why lie about it?


IIRC the straw purchaser was buying it for the law enforcement discount. Theoretically he might have been able to run a similar check and clear him, in addition to knowing him personally. That said, I don't really care. He committed a felony and he *knew* that he was doing it. He should be punished. Lying on a 4473 should be prosecuted more often.
 
2014-06-18 06:28:23 PM  
14 comments on an NRA thread? Did I miss a plague or something?

And the best thing, the very best thing of all, is there's time now... there's all the time I need and all the time I want. Time, time, time. There's time enough at last.
 
2014-06-18 06:28:53 PM  
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Seriously,  the only reliable way to get a case before the SCOTUS is to generate a "circuit split" (where two appellate circuits decide cases with similar fact patterns in different ways).  That's what happened with both Heller and McDonald to get those before the Court.  There hasn't been a circuit split on any of these other issues...yet.

Of the ones listed, only the Maryland and New Jersey cases are important, because those both go to the constitutionality of discretionary ("may issue") firearms permit schemes, where government gets to pick and choose which applicants get firearms permits (usually, only celebrities and the well-connected) as oppose to granting permits to everyone who meets the legal requirements for one ("shall issue" standards used by most states today), something which, IMLO, raises due process/equal protection questions.  The other cases cited don't have this problem.
 
2014-06-18 06:59:51 PM  
"What's shocking and appalling," says Jonathan Lowy, the director of the legal action project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "is not that courts have recognized that the constitution allows for sensible gun laws. It's that Congress hasn't acted."

Congress didn't do anything? Shocking.

This is my shocked face: -_-
 
2014-06-18 07:14:22 PM  
Gun rights advocates should try framing the discharging of a gun as a form of free speech.  That will get the Supremes onside.

/Only Socialist-Fascists want to restrict free speech.
 
2014-06-18 07:19:21 PM  

dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?


To the chagrin of the NRA, apparently.
 
2014-06-18 07:37:41 PM  

Cataholic: dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.

It was a tough case.  A man bought a gun for his uncle and didn't state on the form that it was going to be given to the uncle.  The uncle was otherwise eligible to buy the gun on his own.  The buyer was convicted of lying on the form (about him not being the ultimate end user).  The dissent's argument was that the falsehood wasn't material to the form because the uncle was otherwise qualified to own the gun and therefore shouldn't have been perjury (a la lying about a blowjob when said blowjob wasn't germane to the case in question even though lying about the blowjob was done under oath).


Nowhere On the form that I have ever seen has it contained any specific field to note that the purchase was specifically done as a gift.

The form states pretty clearly that you are asserting that you are the buyer and intended recipient, and it has always been a felony to lie on the form.

This guy knowingly bought the gun with the intent of transferring the firearm to someone else, and used a cheque from that person to pay for it. That's about as cut and dried as it gets.

The dissent notwithstanding, you are certifying on the form at time of purchase you are the person buying the gun.

Every FFL I have worked with or for has held this same opinion: if you say it's a gift, we will refuse the sale and will instead sell a gift certificate for that amount and put the firearm aside for them. Then they can bring in the intended purchaser who will complete the form and undergo the NICS check.

I don't care if it's your brother, I ain't selling you a gun unless there's a guarantee your background is clean (NICS check, etc.)

Also, interestingly, in MI, even for private sales, handguns must have a valid NICS check or a qualifying exemption (CPL or FFL, etc) to complete the sale. If the buyer does not have such an exemption, you both go down to the Sheriff who will perform the NICS check for you. Handgun sales must also include the submission of registration docs.

*shrug* this is why I don't really give a shiat about registration or background checks.
 
2014-06-18 07:41:08 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

To the chagrin of the NRA, apparently.


As much as I think this is not an intentional violation of the law, strawman purchases have to be stopped.

/I am pro gun ownership
//I am not pro stupidity
 
2014-06-18 07:58:30 PM  
None of these cases are huge victories for the anti-gun nuts.
 
2014-06-18 08:07:13 PM  

Kit Fister: Cataholic: dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.

It was a tough case.  A man bought a gun for his uncle and didn't state on the form that it was going to be given to the uncle.  The uncle was otherwise eligible to buy the gun on his own.  The buyer was convicted of lying on the form (about him not being the ultimate end user).  The dissent's argument was that the falsehood wasn't material to the form because the uncle was otherwise qualified to own the gun and therefore shouldn't have been perjury (a la lying about a blowjob when said blowjob wasn't germane to the case in question even though lying about the blowjob was done under oath).

Nowhere On the form that I have ever seen has it contained any specific field to note that the purchase was specifically done as a gift.

The form states pretty clearly that you are asserting that you are the buyer and intended recipient, and it has always been a felony to lie on the form.

This guy knowingly bought the gun with the intent of transferring the firearm to someone else, and used a cheque from that person to pay for it. That's about as cut and dried as it gets.

The dissent notwithstanding, you are certifying on the form at time of purchase you are the person buying the gun.

Every FFL I have worked with or for has held this same opinion: if you say it's a gift, we will refuse the sale and will instead sell a gift certificate for that amount and put the firearm aside for them. Then they can bring in the intended purchaser who will complete the form and undergo the NICS check.

I don't care if it's your brother, I ain't selling you a gun unless there's ...


If it were an actual gift, he would have had a point. This exact scenario, however, is spelled out on the frickin' form:

i.imgur.com

Also, WTF was he thinking including the receipt?
 
2014-06-18 08:26:48 PM  

redmid17: Kit Fister: Cataholic: dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.

It was a tough case.  A man bought a gun for his uncle and didn't state on the form that it was going to be given to the uncle.  The uncle was otherwise eligible to buy the gun on his own.  The buyer was convicted of lying on the form (about him not being the ultimate end user).  The dissent's argument was that the falsehood wasn't material to the form because the uncle was otherwise qualified to own the gun and therefore shouldn't have been perjury (a la lying about a blowjob when said blowjob wasn't germane to the case in question even though lying about the blowjob was done under oath).

Nowhere On the form that I have ever seen has it contained any specific field to note that the purchase was specifically done as a gift.

The form states pretty clearly that you are asserting that you are the buyer and intended recipient, and it has always been a felony to lie on the form.

This guy knowingly bought the gun with the intent of transferring the firearm to someone else, and used a cheque from that person to pay for it. That's about as cut and dried as it gets.

The dissent notwithstanding, you are certifying on the form at time of purchase you are the person buying the gun.

Every FFL I have worked with or for has held this same opinion: if you say it's a gift, we will refuse the sale and will instead sell a gift certificate for that amount and put the firearm aside for them. Then they can bring in the intended purchaser who will complete the form and undergo the NICS check.

I don't care if it's your brother, I ain't selling you a gun unless there's ...

If it were an actual gift, he would have had a point. This exact scenario, however, is spelled out on the frickin' form:



Also, WTF was he thinking including the receipt?


To be fair he was the only suspect In a robbery and is an ex cop. That speaks volumes right there.
 
2014-06-18 09:13:16 PM  

redmid17: The only real 'disappointment' from the NRA perspective is probably the  Drake v. Jerejian case not making it on the docket. SCOTUS is probably going to have to take a concealed permit case at some point given that the 9th (Peruta v SD) and the 3rd are at odds with each other. I've read that some think it's more narrow than the Drake case, but it seems fairly straightforward (must show good cause in both) to me. The California AG is requesting an en banc review anyway, so maybe SCOTUS was just running out the clock.

It only takes 4 justices to take a case though right?


You are correct.  The Rule of Four
 
2014-06-18 09:27:05 PM  

dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.  Everything else is "they didn't take the case", but the Supreme Court rarely takes cases:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

If they take 80 of the 10,000 cases they receive, which is the high number from the court's own FAQ, that's less than 1% of the cases.


MoJo also makes the mistake of grouping Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the NRA as being the same entity.

GOA makes the NRA look sane by comparison.
 
2014-06-18 10:46:53 PM  
"Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.

The one thing that can be said with certainty about the Court's denial of Maryland's petition in this case is that it does not remotely imply approval or disapproval of what was said by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. "

Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912, 917-919 (1950).
 
2014-06-19 12:31:19 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: None of these cases are huge victories for the anti-gun nuts.


No, but every less-than-total-victory the NRA meets with means we're one step closer to confiscation, trains, camps and ovens.
 
2014-06-19 12:50:40 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Britney Spear's Speculum: None of these cases are huge victories for the anti-gun nuts.

No, but every less-than-total-victory the NRA meets with means we're one step closer to confiscation, trains, camps and ovens.


I'm 15 feet away from an oven right now.
 
2014-06-19 05:29:22 AM  
Wow what an outrage that the NRA, a niche civil rights group, would argue that a civil right is applicable everywhere and doesn't need a "justifiable need" that is determined by an anonymous bureaucrat.

I guess there should be a justifiable need to post a YouTube video that might offend Muslims and cause an embassy attack.
 
2014-06-19 07:47:57 AM  
img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-19 10:23:21 AM  

dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.


And yet, it was 5-4. Because Scalia.
 
2014-06-19 10:41:08 AM  

ib_thinkin: dittybopper: Why?  Because illegal strawman sales were ruled to be illegal?

Really, that's the only thing the Supreme Court has ruled on.

And yet, it was 5-4. Because Scalia.


I must have missed the part where not only Thomas, but also Alito and the Chief Justice were merely Scalia fingerpuppets.
 
2014-06-20 04:51:35 AM  

redmid17: I must have missed the part where not only Thomas, but also Alito and the Chief Justice were merely Scalia fingerpuppets.


Fine. Because Scalia and Roberts.

Thomas usually parrots Scalia and Alito just figures out what's the correct decision and then says the opposite.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report