News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Attorney General. Parent comment

Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by corey_moncure on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @09:12PM (#31915290)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by dfxm12 on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @10:46PM (#31915895)
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

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by Akronymus on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @03:35AM (#31917449)
> 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)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by goatkey on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @11:35AM (#31921640)
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 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by tekknik on Thursday June 30, 2022 @11:06AM (#31933353)
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?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by sangnoir on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @04:20AM (#31917656)
> which is a case of where the precedent was wrong

Isn't this always the court's opinion when it overturns precedent?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by Akronymus on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @04:30AM (#31917716)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by quxbar on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @11:24PM (#31916120)
Yeah, the court has proven precedent is entirely a matter of simple majority.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gun owners’ private information leaked by California Atto... by staticautomatic on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @12:21AM (#31916468)
Why? Commerce clause?
[ Parent | on HN ]