Giffords has stepped in on a PA case with arguments to have the case heard en banc

Theses are some of the weakest arguments I’ve seen so far, from the infringers.

They are arguing that the panel majority applied a requirement that the regulations presented by the state “need only be ‘relevantly similar'” instead of “analogous.” They claim that it is too strict of an interpretation.

They claim that the panel required a precise historical analogue, which is too rigorous, nearly making it a “historical twin”.

The problem is that they don’t even meet that lower standard of “relevantly similar”.

One part of the argument is that the Supreme Court has stated that time-place limitations are constitutional. Thus, a ban on 18-20 year-olds carrying firearms is acceptable because it is only a limit for the duration of “the emergency”.

They fail to note that “the emergency” has been ongoing for over 3 years now.

So they go to their second argument.

1791 isn’t the right time frame. You need to use 1868!

Giffords claims that the Supreme Court did not set the date. This is not true. The meaning of the constitution, was set when it was adopted. The meaning of each amendment was set at the time it was ratified.

In this case, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. That is the correct era.

The argument that it should be 1868, when the Fourteenth amendment was ratified is bogus. The 14th incorporated the meaning of the constitution, as it was understood when adopted and amendments 1-13 were ratified.

This is so weak, it shows that they are losing, becoming more and more desperate.

Spread the love

By awa

4 thoughts on “The arguments get weaker and weaker”
  1. Mommy, just because you caught me with my hand in the cookie jar, doesn’t mean I’m going to steal cookies, but it does mean mommy doesn’t love me anymore. 😭😭😭 Mommy is a ‘Bad Mommy’ πŸ‘ΏπŸ‘ΏπŸ‘Ώ

  2. The arguments don’t have to be good anymore.
    A bunch of states’ legislatures, call it roughly half, are either passing, or trying to pass, gun control laws like crazy. Most if not all of those laws are flat-out unconstitutional. But each needs to be challenged in court, and given the state of the Circuit courts, many will need to be pushed all the way up to SCOTUS before eventually being struck down.
    In this scenario, given complicit inferior courts in keeping unconstitutional laws on the books as long as possible, the antis need only go through the motions so as to not force the courts to award a win to the good guys via procedural errors. Making a solid, well-grounded and -researched argument for a gun control law, if it is even possible to do so, is harder, more expensive and slower than just putting whatever down on paper. So, if a response is required, respond. If a document must be filed, file something. But don’t spend a lot of time and effort on it, because it will eventually be overturned; just put in enough effort to let the inferior courts keep providing delay and cover.

  3. The arguments can be absolute crap.
    The problem is the judges/justices, the States/Cities where the cases are brought to court, and the politicians.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.