Spartiati

I do wonder though with the NY case if they may decide to consolidate them and deal with restrictions as a whole, namely what level of scrutiny should be used to determine what “reasonable” restrictions are allowed. Time will tell.

All the state has to do is cut & paste Drake. I predict we will get to the week of 3/22 and they will ask for an extension Conferences end in June so should give plenty of time to review for cert and then arguments in Fall. Not surprised they asked for an extension even though they will rely heavily on their response from Drake.

Absolutely, no BS. If I set cruise control at 70mph I typically get 30+. If set at 65 it can do 33+. There are a bunch videos on YouTube If people testing and getting these results.

Nice truck I like the ZR2 package not overly aggressive. I have a 2018 GMC Canyon crew with Denali that I have been debating putting a lift on and tires/wheels nothing crazy just a little higher. Mine is also the diesel which is absolutely stunning in terms of what your get in a 2.8l 4cyl diesel. I'm curious about your experience with the lift what kind of gas mileage you are getting and highway drive ability with tires. My stock set-up obviously drives well on the highway and get 24mpg straight city driving and 33mpg if I drive nothing but highway on a tank of gas. I also tow a 5500lb boat and get 15mpg on the highway under tow. Great truck thus far, came from a 2500 Sierra that got avg. 13mpg in mixed driving and 8mpg towing. I'm looking to do something similar to the ZR2 package but don't want to kill drivability on highway or mpg's.

No I don’t. I think Republicans and Democrats pick judges based on what works for their politics. I believe for the most part Supreme Court Justices decide on philosophical grounds. My opinion. Didn’t say you were right or wrong my option is they disagree on philosophical grounds. That doesn’t mean people don’t have bias. Thats is always a factor

Not in the sense that Sniper was referring to. There is a divide that sits within SCOTUS not on "politics" as the media likes to say i.e. republican jurists and democratic jurists but rather a philosophical difference. That difference is whether you strictly interpret the constitution as the founders understood it when it was written i.e. "textualism" or whether you can interpret it however you want based on what ever you think the American people want but clearly didn't vote on. If you want to call that politics within the court I'll give you that. Sniper was implying that jurists might not weigh in on an issue because they won't like Congress' reaction and I disagree with that. I believe they with held granting cert because of stare decisis in contrary to their philosophical beliefs and unfortunately there were not enough firm "textualists" to get it through.

One other thing to think about and maybe you call manufacturer for help is you want to make sure you keep the tongue weight at the ball at about 10% of the boat weight or your trailer will wiggle on the highway. So getting manufacturers recommendations I think is important to balance the boat over the axle.

That's because it has been a 5-4 spilt and Kennedy a huge concern. Many have argued that the reason Heller didn't go further was because that was the only way to get Kennedy on board. This is why they didn't take any cases. They just granted cert in the case you quote because the there is a lot more certainty that they will have 5.

Personally I don't think Supreme Court Justices give two craps what politicians think of their rulings. I believe the only reason a carry case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet is because of Kennedy. They just took the NY case on travel restrictions, this could be the time to settle the nonsense happening in lower courts in terms of the level of scrutiny that courts can apply and whether the assertion that some of the lower courts have made around the 2nd amendment only being applicable in the home, thus carry restrictions that outright ban carry in any form do not infringe on the core right. Which is an abomination of reading Heller. Fingers crossed.

I agree with above. Only suggestion I would make is 30" from trailer may work for jackknifing purposes but most fresh water ramps in NJ are crap and if the boat isn't far enough from the rear of the truck you will be dunking your truck in the water when you launch. Most salt water trailers are designed to extend the distance from tow vehicle for this reason so you aren't constantly dipping your car in salt water. I have a ranger boat and trailer where the bow post is about 30" or so and at Spruce run and Round Valley I literally am stepping out of the truck into water.... As for what other are talking about, it is expensive to maintain a boat so suggest your son have some skin in the game. I love fishing enough that I deal with the cost but I have a job

I do as well. He is a slam dunk I believe if this type of case reaches the bench. He wrote a dissent when the supreme court didn't grant certiorari in Silvester v Becerra. Dissent is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf Albeit this wasn't a carry case it does show where his mind is on the 2nd amendment.

Yeah not sure what they meant by ignored the appeal. Perhaps they just meant they didn’t respond though if that is what they meant it’s a little misleading given as they did submit a waiver of right to respond. Sucks another month+ of waiting, hopefully the court can decide quickly and not relist it several times like they did with Drake....

The court had not asked for a response until today. Respondents are not in contempt as they filed a waiver indicating they would not respond unless requested to do so. State is looking to extend this out as long as they can though I don’t really think they bought any time here because even if the court would have granted cert this Thursday in conference the case wouldn’t have been heard until the fall anyway. Can see the docket history here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

With Kennedy out one can only hope. I just wonder if they will be willing to take 2 second amendment cases in succession. I wish this had made its way to the court before NY’s case. Fingers crossed. This is a much better case than the NY case as it gets to the heart of the scope of the amendment i.e. does it apply outside the home and the level of scrutiny courts can use in deciding cases.

I agree, the issue with Heller is “the right is at its zenith in the home”. Courts have been using this to mean the right is limited to the home. New York’s argument is almost entirely predicated on this, thus the transport law doesn’t significantly impact the core right of having a gun in the home for protection. The petitioners in this case are not arguing against this faulty premise directly though they do touch on the type of scrutiny used to get to the fact that NY has presented no data to support there assertion that the law will protect the public and is therefore constitutional restriction. We really need a case that expands upon the core right and concludes definitively that the right extends beyond the home as Scalia alludes to with his review of the the word “bear” which he concluded means to carry which in my view, and I believe his view includes outside the home, otherwise the framers would have used a word like posses. Of course he did say that is to be determined at another time which the courts have also used to argue in home only. If this case is decided based on the narrow argument presented I fear it will do little for us and given SCOTUS has not taken any other cases in the last ten years I feel it could be a waste of a review. We shall see.