As a pro-lifer I am good with this…
-
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4994407/supreme-court-mifepristone
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a challenge to the FDA’s rules for prescribing and dispensing abortion pills.
By a unanimous vote, the court said the anti-abortion doctors who brought the challenge had failed to show they had been harmed, as they do not prescribe the medication, and thus, essentially, had no skin in the game.
The court said that the challengers, a group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, had no right to be in court at all since neither the organization nor its members could show they had suffered any concrete injury.
-
So, SCOTUS didn't really say that mifepristone is OK to use. They basically ruled that the people and organizations who brought the suit have no standing, since there was no harm caused to them.
The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue.
But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
So, SCOTUS didn't really say that mifepristone is OK to use. They basically ruled that the people and organizations who brought the suit have no standing, since there was no harm caused to them.
The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue.
But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug.
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
So, SCOTUS didn't really say that mifepristone is OK to use. They basically ruled that the people and organizations who brought the suit have no standing, since there was no harm caused to them.
The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue.
But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug.
That seems to be the ruling in a lot of Supreme Court cases. They rule very "narrow"
-
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
So, SCOTUS didn't really say that mifepristone is OK to use. They basically ruled that the people and organizations who brought the suit have no standing, since there was no harm caused to them.
The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue.
But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug.
That seems to be the ruling in a lot of Supreme Court cases. They rule very "narrow"
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
That seems to be the ruling in a lot of Supreme Court cases. They rule very "narrow"
Couple of observations on that:
-
Many (most?) of the lawsuits brought by Trump after the 2020 election were dismissed on lack of standing or another non-dispositive ground.
-
As @jolly pointed out in the "Bumpstock" thread, if the government wants to ban bumpstocks, they should pass a law banning bumpstocks. It is within Congress's remit, and I doubt SCOTUS would even look at it.
-
The thinking goes, also, do Dobbs. SCOTUS didn't take away any so-called "right to abortion." If Congress wants to encode the right of a woman to an abortion, the let them do it. It becomes law of the land, and we're done.
-
-
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
That seems to be the ruling in a lot of Supreme Court cases. They rule very "narrow"
Couple of observations on that:
-
Many (most?) of the lawsuits brought by Trump after the 2020 election were dismissed on lack of standing or another non-dispositive ground.
-
As @jolly pointed out in the "Bumpstock" thread, if the government wants to ban bumpstocks, they should pass a law banning bumpstocks. It is within Congress's remit, and I doubt SCOTUS would even look at it.
-
The thinking goes, also, do Dobbs. SCOTUS didn't take away any so-called "right to abortion." If Congress wants to encode the right of a woman to an abortion, the let them do it. It becomes law of the land, and we're done.
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
As @jolly pointed out in the "Bumpstock" thread, if the government wants to ban bumpstocks, they should pass a law banning bumpstocks. It is within Congress's remit, and I doubt SCOTUS would even look at it.
Hmm. I disagree a bit with this. If Congress did pass something like that, I am almost 100% sure that someone will sue that it is unconstitutional and eventually, it will go up to the Supreme Court.
As for #1 above, there was nothing to stop President Trump (and others) from re-filing having the correct person file, etc. Not having done so is a "red flag" on the quality of the evidence.
-
-
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
As @jolly pointed out in the "Bumpstock" thread, if the government wants to ban bumpstocks, they should pass a law banning bumpstocks. It is within Congress's remit, and I doubt SCOTUS would even look at it.
Hmm. I disagree a bit with this. If Congress did pass something like that, I am almost 100% sure that someone will sue that it is unconstitutional and eventually, it will go up to the Supreme Court.
As for #1 above, there was nothing to stop President Trump (and others) from re-filing having the correct person file, etc. Not having done so is a "red flag" on the quality of the evidence.
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
If Congress did pass something like that, I am almost 100% sure that someone will sue that it is unconstitutional and eventually, it will go up to the Supreme Court.
Agreed. That's the purpose of finding out whether a law is constitutional or not. Make it a law, not a regulation. It's illegal (for most people) to own an automatic weapon. It's the law, and I have no problem with it.
This was a regulation by an agency. There's a difference.
-
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
If Congress did pass something like that, I am almost 100% sure that someone will sue that it is unconstitutional and eventually, it will go up to the Supreme Court.
Agreed. That's the purpose of finding out whether a law is constitutional or not. Make it a law, not a regulation. It's illegal (for most people) to own an automatic weapon. It's the law, and I have no problem with it.
This was a regulation by an agency. There's a difference.
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
It's illegal (for most people) to own an automatic weapon.
Not quite.
Wanna buy a submachine gun? You need to find a Class III dealer. Be warned, since BATF quit letting new receivers be imported, prices went through the roof.. I've seen Thompsons with matching numbers go for $30k and up.
- Select your firearm: Start by choosing the Class 3 weapon that you're interested in purchasing. This could be anything from a machine gun, suppressor, or short-barrelled rifle, to other types of NFA regulated devices. Keep in mind that different states have varied regulations regarding these devices, and it's crucial to ensure that your desired firearm complies with your state's laws.
- Complete the Form 4 with your dealer: Form 4, or the Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, is a necessary document when purchasing a Class 3 weapon. This form should be filled out with the help of your firearms dealer, who will assist in providing pertinent information regarding the device you're buying.
- Acquire necessary photos and fingerprints: You must have a set of passport-sized photos and fingerprint cards to include with your application. These are used for identification purposes and are part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) background check process.
- Submission of documents: After gathering all necessary documentation, including your completed Form 4, photographs, and fingerprints, send it to the ATF for processing.
- Waiting period: The approval process for purchasing a Class 3 weapon typically takes several months. During this time, the ATF performs extensive background checks.
- Collection of the device: Once the ATF approves your application, you can then pick up your Class 3 firearm from the dealer. The timing of this can vary based on several factors, including the type of firearm and your location.
-
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
It's illegal (for most people) to own an automatic weapon.
Not quite.
Wanna buy a submachine gun? You need to find a Class III dealer. Be warned, since BATF quit letting new receivers be imported, prices went through the roof.. I've seen Thompsons with matching numbers go for $30k and up.
- Select your firearm: Start by choosing the Class 3 weapon that you're interested in purchasing. This could be anything from a machine gun, suppressor, or short-barrelled rifle, to other types of NFA regulated devices. Keep in mind that different states have varied regulations regarding these devices, and it's crucial to ensure that your desired firearm complies with your state's laws.
- Complete the Form 4 with your dealer: Form 4, or the Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, is a necessary document when purchasing a Class 3 weapon. This form should be filled out with the help of your firearms dealer, who will assist in providing pertinent information regarding the device you're buying.
- Acquire necessary photos and fingerprints: You must have a set of passport-sized photos and fingerprint cards to include with your application. These are used for identification purposes and are part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) background check process.
- Submission of documents: After gathering all necessary documentation, including your completed Form 4, photographs, and fingerprints, send it to the ATF for processing.
- Waiting period: The approval process for purchasing a Class 3 weapon typically takes several months. During this time, the ATF performs extensive background checks.
- Collection of the device: Once the ATF approves your application, you can then pick up your Class 3 firearm from the dealer. The timing of this can vary based on several factors, including the type of firearm and your location.
-
Those are the rules that BATF has that conforms to who can own a Class III weapon as defined by the 1934 Firearms Act.
-
Those are the rules that BATF has that conforms to who can own a Class III weapon as defined by the 1934 Firearms Act.
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Those are the rules that BATF has that conforms to who can own a Class III weapon as defined by the 1934 Firearms Act.
Bump stocks are not covered. It's a simple process if they want to enact further law, however.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Those are the rules that BATF has that conforms to who can own a Class III weapon as defined by the 1934 Firearms Act.
Bump stocks are not covered. It's a simple process if they want to enact further law, however.
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Bump stocks are not covered
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
-
@Jolly said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Bump stocks are not covered
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
(Disclaimer - the number of firearms I own is less than one)
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Probably not.
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
Again, probably not. But that's not the point.
The point, as I see it, is what is the LAW. The law allows citizens to own firearms. That's been determined by SCOTUS. But, that's as far as it goes.
"Firearms" can include anything from muskets, to rifles, to BARs to 50-cals...to RPGs.
It's the job of Congress to define which are, and which are not available to the citizenry. Once again, Congress has failed to step up and legislate, allowing this BS to rise to the level of SCOTUS.
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
(Disclaimer - the number of firearms I own is less than one)
Did bump stocks exist in 1934?
Probably not.
Revolvers did not exist in the time the constitution was written, so should they not be included in the "bear arms" section of the #2 Amendment?
Again, probably not. But that's not the point.
The point, as I see it, is what is the LAW. The law allows citizens to own firearms. That's been determined by SCOTUS. But, that's as far as it goes.
"Firearms" can include anything from muskets, to rifles, to BARs to 50-cals...to RPGs.
It's the job of Congress to define which are, and which are not available to the citizenry. Once again, Congress has failed to step up and legislate, allowing this BS to rise to the level of SCOTUS.
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
Agree 100%. But constitutionality is an interpretation of who is on the court at the moment is what i am trying to say. I am pretty sure that me buying an RPG is not allowed, though I am sure Jolly can confirm. (LOL) Why is it constitutionally allowed to ban that but not another type of weapon?
Anyway, interesting debate that will still probably be going on 100 years from now.
-
-
A former trump administration official said the other day that after Las Vegas the votes were there for a amendment to the law, but the administration decided to act in order to save a few republicans some tough votes.
This analyst says the votes may still be there but not in an election year.
-
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
Agree 100%. But constitutionality is an interpretation of who is on the court at the moment is what i am trying to say. I am pretty sure that me buying an RPG is not allowed, though I am sure Jolly can confirm. (LOL) Why is it constitutionally allowed to ban that but not another type of weapon?
Anyway, interesting debate that will still probably be going on 100 years from now.
@taiwan_girl said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
@George-K said in As a pro-lifer I am good with this…:
Make a law, test its constitutionality, and go on. Rely on legislation, not regulation.
Agree 100%. But constitutionality is an interpretation of who is on the court at the moment is what i am trying to say. I am pretty sure that me buying an RPG is not allowed, though I am sure Jolly can confirm. (LOL) Why is it constitutionally allowed to ban that but not another type of weapon?
Anyway, interesting debate that will still probably be going on 100 years from now.
When the Constitution was written, volley guns, Nock guns, pepperboxes and duckfoot pistols were all available. All of those are multi-barrel or multi-shot weapons.
Besides, if you had wanted to buy a 3-pounder cannon (pretty popular with Washington), it was well within your rights.
Oh, to answer your RPG question, you can legally own a RPG in the U.S. George can't. Six states do not allow private ownership of RPG's, Illinois being one of them.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
