FL Supreme Court Oral Argument for definition if an Assault Weapons Ban is Constitutional

Anything and Everything dealing with Political issues.
Post Reply
Miami_JBT
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:17 pm

FL Supreme Court Oral Argument for definition if an Assault Weapons Ban is Constitutional

Post by Miami_JBT »

Today was the Oral Arguments for case SC19-1266 Advisory Opinion To The Governor Re: Prohibits Possession Of Defined Assault Weapons.

Debate on case SC19-1266 start at the One Hour Four Minute Mark


This is the Supreme Court hearing if BAWN's AWB Petition would be Constitutional.

Edited to fix video link

TACC
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:49 pm

Post by TACC »

Thanks for the heads up

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Miami_JBT
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:17 pm

Post by Miami_JBT »

Here is the actual petition.

Image

Image

What is being argued is the Summary is not informative and it could potentially mislead the voters since they will only see the Summary on the ballot (if this makes it to the 2022 ballot). It is being argued that since the Summary is Vague and Misleading, the actual body of what would be a Constitutional Amendment is far more dramatic and far reaching. This it is Unconstitutional since It basically outlaws Semiautomatic Long Guns and the voters wouldn't know that.

Chief Justice Canandy states that the Ballot Amendment is informatively misleading at the one hour forty minute mark.

Justice Polston openly questions if the Ballot Amendment was passed, and an individual legally registered his firearm with the provisions as required and passes away. Is inheritance of the firearm by someone in violation of the Ballot Amendment. The lawyer representing BAWN said yes. Justice Polston said then the Ballot Amendment is misleading and would be Unconstitutional since the Summary for the Ballot Amendment does not state that.

The summary is what would be on the ballot. Thus, the Ballot Amendment is misleading and unconstitutional.

Justice Polston asked BAWN at the one hour forty seven minute mark if the entire purpose of this Ballit Amendment is to completely eliminate the ownership of long guns within a generation. BAWN basically answered that the goal is to target semiautomatics while dancing through their bullshit answer.

At the one hour fifty eight minute mark, Chief Justice Canandy again questions that the Ballot Amendment's grandfather clause is misleading since the Ballot Amendment limits possession to one generation and there will not be perpetual possession as explained by the lawyers defending the Ballot Amendment. The issue is that the Ballot Amendment makes it appear that this is similar to the 1994 AWB and all it is is a cut off date for additional manufacturing and sales post date. Chief Justice Canandy is taking the position that the Ballot Amendment does not prevent transferable ownership done the line.

Chief Lawson is questioning the same issue.

Basically, they're telling the lawyers defending the AWB that they can't vaguely write this to ban ownership to one generation. The provisions under their interpretation read that if the AWB passed, as long as a gun was legal before the enactment date and registered. Ownership can be transferred.

Additionally, Chief Justice Canandy mentioned confiscation in a negative meaning. Literally saying that a Grandfather Provision means there isn't going to be confiscation down the road. The lawyer got pissed at that.

The lawyer representing the FL Munciplaties defending the AWB went so far in trying to defend the AWB, that under Chief Justice Canandy's interpretation. If a criminal steals a legally possessed and registered firearm. Then immunity would transfer to the criminal. Chief Justice Canandy basically rolled his eyes at that idea.

Chief Justice Canandy literally says "if it says exempts, it means exempts". Image The lawyer's face is Image

So far, I think that the Court will rule the Ballot Amendment is Misleading and Vague. But anything is possible.

The lawyer representing the Attorney General is odd. He claims the Ballot Amendment is not ambiguous and that the Attorney General's Office finds the Ballot Summary is Sufficient. Yet Attorney General Moody herself claimed that the Ballot Amendment is Vague and Misleading. Again.... That's the confusion here. The AG has taken the position that the Ballot Amendment is Misleading and Vague, thus it is Unconstitutional. But the lawyer representing the AG sounded like he defended it. Maybe I misunderstood his testimony and someone else needs to listen to what he said.

Justice Muñiz is taking the position that the Citizens Petition for Ballot Amendments are not to be limited and they can be Ambiguous, Vauge, and Misleading.

The NRA's Attorney is stating that the BAWN is purposely misleading since they took legal definitions from a number of states and each state defines an assault weapon differently and even the different dictionaries have different definitions on what an assault weapon is.

The big issue with the court is Trump appointed two "Conservative" Justices to Federal office. As such, it is down to five justices. Originally, at the start of 2018, it was five "Conservatives" to two "liberals". But Trump's appointments disturbed that balance.

Justice Labraga and Justice Muñiz are anti gun. Chief Justice Canandy and Justice Polston are very pro gun and wrote the dissent on when the court ruled that FL's ban on open carry is Constitutional. Justice Lawson is the question. He joined the court after that ruling. So we don't know where he stands on gun rights.

So right now, everything is balancing on Justice Lawson.

neverenoughguns
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:10 pm
Location: Holiday

Post by neverenoughguns »

Thanks for tracking this for FSN.

User avatar
Firemedic2000
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:01 pm
Location: Tampa Bay

Post by Firemedic2000 »

I feel another march on a state capital might come. Just let me know when and I'll be there :twisted:
RANGER AIRBORNE, FIREMEDIC, NRA BENEFACTOR, OATH KEEPER
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of destroying it

dammitgriff
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:06 am

Post by dammitgriff »

neverenoughguns wrote:Thanks for tracking this for FSN.
Ditto.

Post Reply