Jump to content

supranatural

Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About supranatural

  • Rank
    NJGF Member

Recent Profile Visitors

296 profile views
  1. If that was the case they could have just mooted it and called it a day. And why would they need guards and AR15s? Anti Gunners, outside of the Bloomberg elites, would never own something meant to "hunt people."
  2. All those unconstitutional laws were held up due to intermediate scrutiny of the lower courts. I believe they choose this case specifically to whack the lower courts with the reality bat and send them a message.
  3. This ^^^^ I'm dumbfounded by the posters who think this will be simply a ruling on about to transport a firearm in NYC and have it apply only in the narrowest way. SCOTUS gets hundreds of not thousands of cases in front of them to choose, why would they choose a case like this if to only help out NYC firearms owners??? It makes no sense. In pretty sure this is to establish level of scrutiny precedent for all the lower kangaroo courts in the land.
  4. What reloaderguy didn't seem to get is that ALL the states matter. The antis are coming for your Rights and your guns one step and one State at a time. I have residence in Florida and lots of friends there who are determined to fight the libs there who are horrified that we can concealed carry there. My son had some NY visitor screaming that he had a gun (gasp) when his shirt lifted up for a second and showed his Kimber... And she was horrified to learn that you can have a gun in Florida... Finally got straightened out that he was legal but she went away muttering that they had to do SOMETHING about those scary guns and people in Florida. In FL the Parkland kids are pushing to chip away at your Rights and support confiscation... Do you think they're (their behind the scenes Bllombergs that is) only interested in NY/NJ? If you do your naivety is scary.
  5. Yeah good luck with that... It's looking like refugees from NY and NJ and other blue States emigrants are pushing to make Florida into the NY of the South. I hope your positivity isn't infectious or Florida will be the first state to ban fully semi automatic firearms lol.
  6. If the colonists has the same positive attitude we wouldn't have to worry about this at all... We'd be the United English States and have the same great liberal gun laws! I wouldn't be surprised if they don't vote either because it wouldn't make a difference .
  7. Do you keep on top of the news at all? The legality of that filling is already being questioned.
  8. If all it concerned was transport out of state the antis, dems and several house members, as well as the media, would not be up in arms about this and running around like Chicken Littles spouting about the end of times. If SCOTUS rules that the law is not constitutional and that from now on laws like this require Strict Scrutiny it sets precedent to overturn many laws that indeed violates the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A.
  9. The case isn't about the ability to practice at a range but rather transport outside of the city, unless I recall incorrectly. Supposedly there are several ranges in the city where they can transport guns to practice but transportation to anywhere outside of the city, such as a another state's range, any competition event, an owner's second home or any destination outside of city limits. I think even if someone who lives in the city were to sell their residence move out of state would be prohibited from putting their firearms in a vehicle and drive out of NYC to their new residence.
  10. That scotusblog opinion sounds like the wishful thinking of a liberal lawyer. It sounds like so many liberal comments I've read who (figuratively) shout from the rooftops that the law has been amended so there's no point in the case being heard. If it's not such a big deal why are they raising such a ruckus about it? If it is such a minor case it wouldn't have garnered so much agitation from NY trying to moot the case.
  11. Wow that's pretty bold, one branch of the government threatening to "fix" another branch if they don't do what they want. Is there a better example of tyranny when one a branch of the government is threatening one of the other branches, each meant as a check and balance against the other, and furthermore on the issue of a constitutionally guaranteed right?
  12. Sorry, they're not constitutionally protected under the Right to Keep and Bear Timepieces.
  13. I've quoted from another website (thefirearmblog.com) : Strict scrutiny, if applied to all 2nd Amendment cases, would entail all gun laws being subject to three tests. Once the court determines that strict scrutiny should be applied, the challenged law or policy is presumed to be unconstitutional. The government has to prove it passes the strict scrutiny tests. First, the law or policy must serve a compelling government interest. Secondly, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Thirdly, it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. High capacity magazine bands, assault rifle bands, May Issue would all fail this test...
×
×
  • Create New...