Jump to content
Bklynracer

U.S. Supreme Court weighs taking up major gun rights case

Recommended Posts

Have hope, but don't hold your breath.   They had a perfect storm of gun cases to choose from last year and took none of them. That was seven years after they refused to hear the Drake case. Something that deeply disappointed me and my faith in the court.  I do realize  the composition of the court has changed since last year. However, I regard Scotus as having been pummeled into submission (eg Kavanaugh) and impotent when it come to taking decisive action on 2A. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the earliest they will decide whether to hear the case will be Monday. It is also common for them to hold it over until the following week after week after week, .........before making a decision.

For something that is so clear “Shall not be infringed”, the nuances of the legal process to get something decisively  ruled in our favor is a sham, a rigged game, it is all theater. 
(Eg eg things like the use of lesser levels of legal scrutiny, reversing decisions to hear cases (NJ Supreme Court) by stating it was “improvidently granted”, etc.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldguysrule649 said:

Have hope, but don't hold your breath.   They had a perfect storm of gun cases to choose from last year and took none of them.

I'll be really surprised if the decide to touch this one.

My bet, they punt, just like all those other cases.

Guns are too hot of an issue today. They won't touch the third rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Guns are too hot of an issue today.

They are always going to be a hot issue, just getting hotter. Not wearing a hat here but whenever cases start to get to Supreme Court things seem to pick up. Another shooting last night, that's 3 in 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS is not supposed to look at the current events nor take social or political pressures into account. Their decisions should be based on the Constitutionality of the facts before them...Period!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

SCOTUS is not supposed to look at the current events nor take social or political pressures into account. Their decisions should be based on the Constitutionality of the facts before them...Period!

In a pure world, sure..

But, is that what we've seen the last few years concerning guns, elections and other politically involved cases?

Here's a link to many of the cases they refused to hear, see if you notice a pattern:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=u.s.+supreme+court+refuses+to+hear&t=h_&ia=web

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kc17 said:

I haven't been able to find anything on if they have announced if they will hear any of the 2A cases. Anyone else see anything?

I checked, not seeing any updates today but this:

....."The Court has several current opportunities to further address the scope of its Heller decision that generally pose one legal question: How far may states go in restricting the individual right to carry guns outside a home?

These various legal challenges have worked their way up to the Supreme Court and now require at least four members of the court to vote to grant the application to hear the cases. These challenges include the New York law as well as multiple other cases nationally presenting distinct legal issues.

The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of gun rights since its landmark rulings in 2008 and 2010

https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/columnists/2021/03/29/royal-alexander-gun-rights-cases-returnto-supreme-court/7044474002/

Will we see this, instead?

giphy.webp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a theory that all the earlier rhetoric from the left about packing the court was to intimidate the conservative justices.  The message is "if you follow the constitution and we don't like it, we'll just add enough justices that your vote won't ever count again".

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court didn’t make any public announcements about taking or rejecting a challenge to New York State’s licensing regime for concealed carry as it released its orders from last Friday’s conference on Monday morning. Instead, it looks like the Court will hold the case over for reconsideration at this week’s conference.

Source for above along with some theories on why: https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/03/29/waiting-game-scotus-carry-case-n42692

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 6:31 PM, maintenanceguy said:

There's a theory that all the earlier rhetoric from the left about packing the court was to intimidate the conservative justices.  The message is "if you follow the constitution and we don't like it, we'll just add enough justices that your vote won't ever count again".

Its much more than a theory.   And it Is intimidating the court.  Search... 2020 Presidential Election supreme court.  There was a particular reluctance to take any case or even hear the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gleninjersey said:

Thomas is chomping at the bit to take a 2A case.  He wrote a SMOKING dissent last year.  

I hope he gets one.

He had the opportunity at a bunch in the last few years. They punted on every one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, siderman said:

... plenty of time to do a moot & boot.

I'd place my money on the side of NY State is going to fight this one in SCOTUS.  To "moot" they'd have to become a "shall issue" state.

That's a bridge too far for them.  NYC's previous "moot and boot" was to allow NYC residents to take their handguns outside of the city - that was a much smaller "give" than to essentially make the entire state "shall issue".

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not counting out Roberts to side with the majority solely to write the majority opinion and make it as narrow in scope as possible. We need Strict Scrutiny so they can no longer trample our rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So will this apply outside of NY and 2nd circuit.

If it does what proactive actions have our 2A organizations taken to be ready if this goes our way.     We should be ready within micro seconds of the courts decision to file lawsuits immediately against murphy, grewel and all others that infringe on the right.

The 2A groups should immediately band together and start a common fund to fight this,  This is it,    this will be the biggest decision the SC has made in its existence.     If it does not go the way of the constitution we know where we will stand forever in this state unless the next civil war starts before the decision.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, revenger said:

If it does what proactive actions have our 2A organizations taken to be ready if this goes our way.     We should be ready within micro seconds of the courts decision to file lawsuits immediately against murphy, grewel and all others that infringe on the right.

Isn’t there a NJ case against Justifiable Need making its way through the courts?  If so that one is well positioned to be ruled in line with the outcome of the scotus decision 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Isn’t there a NJ case against Justifiable Need making its way through the courts?  If so that one is well positioned to be ruled in line with the outcome of the scotus decision 

  Yes, I believe there is.   My concern is the left wing communists and the way they do not follow any laws which they don't want to follow such as illegalizing pot and going against the federal law.    Commies such as murphy and deblasio would still continue to hold onto the unconstitutional laws  and fight this that is why we need to be as proactive as possible.     If we do win than murphy will only open up cc permits processing on the 34th of each month,  we should all know how they fight by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hopeful that this will go our way, but I also worry what other nefarious means the likes of Grewal and his ilk can come up with. An obvious one is a expansion of the "sensitive areas" that were carved out in Heller. If they expand that to 5000ft from a school, how much of NYC would be a prohibited area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr.Stu said:

I am hopeful that this will go our way, but I also worry what other nefarious means the likes of Grewal and his ilk can come up with. An obvious one is a expansion of the "sensitive areas" that were carved out in Heller. If they expand that to 5000ft from a school, how much of NYC would be a prohibited area?

This is exactly what I mean about being ready to fight them,  they will stop at nothing to oppress the citizens rights that interfere with their master plans.    we must be ready to organize and fight now ,  not after a positive decision.   

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. One round mags. $2000 heavily restricted """permits""" with 3 month renewals. Full medical exams. 50 unique valid references not to be re-used upon next renewal application. Caliber restrictions to 9mm ONLY. 2 mile distance restrictions from any "govt" bldgs schools and libraries and parks. And all businesses. All smokers are automatically denied permits unless proof of smoking cessation for at least 7 years can be provided and consent to monitor going 'forward'. I am NOT JOKING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, quikz said:

Yup. One round mags. $2000 heavily restricted """permits""" with 3 month renewals. Full medical exams. 50 unique valid references not to be re-used upon next renewal application. Caliber restrictions to 9mm ONLY. 2 mile distance restrictions from any "govt" bldgs schools and libraries and parks. And all businesses. All smokers are automatically denied permits unless proof of smoking cessation for at least 7 years can be provided and consent to monitor going 'forward'. I am NOT JOKING.

Onerous requirements like annual training, qualifications and insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...