Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by class3 View Post

    NYC more or less spent the heart of its briefing papers on mootness. Don't count any chickens before hatched - it's going to be a tough issue to get past and the court may yet knock out the case.

    I for one am going to attend/view the arguments in person. Luckily I get in the side door and don't have to wait on line with the ordinary folk . . .
    A little summary of how it goes would be appreciated.

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by HabsFan View Post
      Uh-oh... Judge Clarence Thomas is out sick...
      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jus...egins-new-term
      Thomas is home mainlining Viagra. He’s been waiting for this one for 10 years, when he writes for the majority on this decision RBG will be able to do chin ups on his...umm...barrel.

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by Range Time View Post
        Maybe the SCOTUS will decide that Premise licenses are unconstitutional, you know, because they prevent you from "bear(ing) arms."

        ...I can dream, can't I?
        That is what I think NYC is scared shit of, and they will be required to issue, at least fairly, carry licenses, whether restricted or not.

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Nordon View Post

          That is what I think NYC is scared shit of, and they will be required to issue, at least fairly, carry licenses, whether restricted or not.
          Will NYC be the next DC or Chicago? Lol, the city could come out of this with better CCW than LI 😂🤣🤔

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Nordon View Post

            That is what I think NYC is scared shit of, and they will be required to issue, at least fairly, carry licenses, whether restricted or not.
            Funny thing is I have it on a good source that Everytown USA is also scared sh&tless of this case because they see it as an easy chance for the SCOTUS to decide on strict scrutiny.

            Apparently Everytown tried to persuade FUAC and DiBozio to change the law even before it got to the Second Circuit on appeal and they couldn't make those two see eye to eye enough to get it done until the Supreme Court had agreed to take the case and FUAC and DiBozio were more scared of the case than they hated each other.
            Know your rights/Refuse peacefully to consent to a search /Ask if you are free to go or are being detained/Even if you are not doing anything wrong the 4th Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches/Never say anything to law enforcement even if you think it will help you/If questioned you should clearly and unequivocally request that you would like to have an attorney present and defer any questions until then/Never go to prison because you are afraid to go to jail.

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by FUAC View Post
              That's why I posted the whole article. No need for multiple clicks.
              Trumpapplause.gif
              "Get a Dog. Cause Cats Are For Bitches!"

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by class3 View Post

                Funny thing is I have it on a good source that Everytown USA is also scared sh&tless of this case because they see it as an easy chance for the SCOTUS to decide on strict scrutiny.

                Apparently Everytown tried to persuade FUAC and DiBozio to change the law even before it got to the Second Circuit on appeal and they couldn't make those two see eye to eye enough to get it done until the Supreme Court had agreed to take the case and FUAC and DiBozio were more scared of the case than they hated each other.
                wow if the end result is strict scrutiny based on this case.... it would beast fuck a shit ton of restrictive state laws that solely rely on "public safety" clause on the intermediate scrutiny safe haven.

                Comment


                  #53
                  I'm always the cynic but there are non 2nd Amendment grounds upon which the Supreme Court could invalidate the law (besides the mootness). I'm expecting a very narrow decision that does not set a standard of review or 50 state pro freedom precedent.

                  I also believe that Thomas and Kavanaugh would be more looking to meatier challenges, like to the semi auto ban as THE fact pattern to make the statement that the 2nd Amendment is not just for self defense in the home, but is for preservation of the idea of the citizen soldier bearing martial arms. They could also take on a right to conceal or open carry case (Young v Hawaii, or Peruta v California) in order to extend Heller to include the right to armed self defense OUTSIDE the home. Either scenario would be more suitable for imposing strict scrutiny. The NY case is a niche issue which is a poor foundation for creating a broad fifty state 2A impact.
                  Ballistic: "Grif... You are my legal eagle spirit animal...."

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Grifhunter View Post
                    I'm always the cynic but there are non 2nd Amendment grounds upon which the Supreme Court could invalidate the law (besides the mootness). I'm expecting a very narrow decision that does not set a standard of review or 50 state pro freedom precedent.

                    I also believe that Thomas and Kavanaugh would be more looking to meatier challenges, like to the semi auto ban as THE fact pattern to make the statement that the 2nd Amendment is not just for self defense in the home, but is for preservation of the idea of the citizen soldier bearing martial arms. They could also take on a right to conceal or open carry case (Young v Hawaii, or Peruta v California) in order to extend Heller to include the right to armed self defense OUTSIDE the home. Either scenario would be more suitable for imposing strict scrutiny. The NY case is a niche issue which is a poor foundation for creating a broad fifty state 2A impact.
                    Can Peruta been included in this case or would that require another bite at the apple and a new application to the Court?

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by Huntington Guy View Post

                      Can Peruta been included in this case or would that require another bite at the apple and a new application to the Court?
                      No. Peruta will have to be granted cert and argued on its own merits, but could be joined with other circuits' concealed carry cases.

                      Keep in mind the current case is NOT a concealed carry case. Its about travel with an unloaded, and locked pistol.
                      Ballistic: "Grif... You are my legal eagle spirit animal...."

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Grifhunter View Post
                        I'm always the cynic but there are non 2nd Amendment grounds upon which the Supreme Court could invalidate the law (besides the mootness). I'm expecting a very narrow decision that does not set a standard of review or 50 state pro freedom precedent.

                        I also believe that Thomas and Kavanaugh would be more looking to meatier challenges, like to the semi auto ban as THE fact pattern to make the statement that the 2nd Amendment is not just for self defense in the home, but is for preservation of the idea of the citizen soldier bearing martial arms. They could also take on a right to conceal or open carry case (Young v Hawaii, or Peruta v California) in order to extend Heller to include the right to armed self defense OUTSIDE the home. Either scenario would be more suitable for imposing strict scrutiny. The NY case is a niche issue which is a poor foundation for creating a broad fifty state 2A impact.
                        I agree with you and always thought the Commerce Clause issue was the real reason that SCOTUS granted cert on the case. But the counterpoint is that it's because NYSRPA is such a niche case and because the administrative rules being challenged are so egregious that it's easier to set out a strict scrutiny rule here than in a pure AWB- or CCW- type case. To put it another way, even though the setting of a strict scrutiny standard would be a sea change the immediate changes resulting from NYSRPA would be very limited. It would be up to the Circuits to make the big changes.
                        Know your rights/Refuse peacefully to consent to a search /Ask if you are free to go or are being detained/Even if you are not doing anything wrong the 4th Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches/Never say anything to law enforcement even if you think it will help you/If questioned you should clearly and unequivocally request that you would like to have an attorney present and defer any questions until then/Never go to prison because you are afraid to go to jail.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by Grifhunter View Post

                          No. Peruta will have to be granted cert and argued on its own merits, but could be joined with other circuits' concealed carry cases.

                          Keep in mind the current case is NOT a concealed carry case. Its about travel with an unloaded, and locked pistol.
                          Cert was denied in Peruta - that case is done. Like Grifhunter, I think we will only get a narrow decision here - the facts do not support a wide reaching decision. While we can hope their decision will allow nationwide license reciprocity, I doubt it. There will also be substantial arguments on mootness as NYC passed a new law allowing the transport plaintiffs requested. However, there is a concept of "capable of repetition yet evading review" which would allow the Court to hear the case despite the mootness in an effort to show the states that they can't deprive constitutional rights and then pass a law at the last minute to avoid a bad court decision. It will be interesting to say the least. We can only hope. I still have concerns about Roberts and his true dedication to applying the framers intent as Scalia did.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X