3 ms·

Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged; the finesse is in getting the laws to stay on the books to have what effect they can, and to appease

Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged; the finesse is in getting the laws to stay on the books to have what effect they can, and to appease the voters who support those laws, while avoiding enforcement situations that would result in a direct challenge. It's the cat and mouse game that goes on between the branches of government. Also see why some gun laws are written in an extremely obfuscated and convoluted manner, for example the law that became a point of contention in State v. Rittenhouse.

dfxm12 4y ago
Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged Abramski v. United States suggests that SCOTUS recognizes that straw purchases are illegal. Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States
- quxbar 4y ago
  Yeah, the court has proven precedent is entirely a matter of simple majority.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  > Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. I assume you are referring to roe v wade, which is a case of where the precedent was wrong ín the first place (Abortion was pretty much banned everywhere in common law, so there was no precedent of it being an unenumerated right, for example) and was kept as a precedent because it was a precedent (ignoring the lack of underlying constitutionality)
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > which is a case of where the precedent was wrong Isn't this always the court's opinion when it overturns precedent?
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      Well, kinda. Usually it is the case that the underlying legal framework changed. For example, a new amendment or new federal law. In this case, no such thing has happened.
  - goatkey 4y ago
    There was also a ruling last week explicitly overturning certain gun regulation laws. See: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen [0], which overturns a law that has stood since 1911 in New York State. Based on Gallup data [1], 52% of Americans want stricter gun laws, and only 11% want less strict gun laws. The decision makes it much harder to impose additional restrictions, and will require some states to lessen restrictions. 0: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
    - tekknik 4y ago
      You’re worried about a law used by responsible gun owners. Criminals won’t apply for a CCW and will just carry anyway. How does the supreme court ruling out more guns into criminals hands to justify your concern?
staticautomatic 4y ago
Why? Commerce clause?

dfxm12 4y ago

Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged Abramski v. United States suggests that SCOTUS recognizes that straw purchases are illegal. Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

quxbar 4y ago
Yeah, the court has proven precedent is entirely a matter of simple majority.
Akronymus 4y ago
> Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. I assume you are referring to roe v wade, which is a case of where the precedent was wrong ín the first place (Abortion was pretty much banned everywhere in common law, so there was no precedent of it being an unenumerated right, for example) and was kept as a precedent because it was a precedent (ignoring the lack of underlying constitutionality)
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > which is a case of where the precedent was wrong Isn't this always the court's opinion when it overturns precedent?
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    Well, kinda. Usually it is the case that the underlying legal framework changed. For example, a new amendment or new federal law. In this case, no such thing has happened.
- goatkey 4y ago
  There was also a ruling last week explicitly overturning certain gun regulation laws. See: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen [0], which overturns a law that has stood since 1911 in New York State. Based on Gallup data [1], 52% of Americans want stricter gun laws, and only 11% want less strict gun laws. The decision makes it much harder to impose additional restrictions, and will require some states to lessen restrictions. 0: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
  - tekknik 4y ago
    You’re worried about a law used by responsible gun owners. Criminals won’t apply for a CCW and will just carry anyway. How does the supreme court ruling out more guns into criminals hands to justify your concern?

staticautomatic 4y ago

Why? Commerce clause?