Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:

Didn't see this posted, thought it would be a current topic.

Maybe we will see if the chosen judges are for real. Hoping for the best

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/breaking-supreme-court-takes-first-2a-case-in-a-decade/

They will start oral arguments November 3rd. It can't come fast enough, being defenseless sucks!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My recent trip to Gettysburg has reminded me, just how often SCOTUS has gotten it totally fucking wrong.

That and the fact that SCOTUS is basically now a dog with no teeth in terms of enforcing their rulings.

Share this post


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

My recent trip to Gettysburg has reminded me, just how often SCOTUS has gotten it totally fucking wrong.

That and the fact that SCOTUS is basically now a dog with no teeth in terms of enforcing their rulings.

They never had any teeth to enforce their decisions; they relied on the honor of those affected by their decisions to obey them.

while Andrey Jackson may never have said"  John Marshall made his decision; now let him enforce it" he did write something to the effect that the court didn't have any means to enforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a glass half full kind of guy I'm thinking that the NY "law" falls. That means the rest of the nanny states are left scrambling to try and figure out another scheme, be it licensing costs, training requirements, or some such nonsense.  Either way, they already see the writing on the wall which is why Feinstein is cooking up another " assault weapons ban."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know the four liberal justices will vote against the petitioners. Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Roberts.

The question is..how will Kavanaugh and Barrett vote.  Of those two, I think Kavanaugh is the most questionable.

My other concern is that states like NY, NJ will just ignore the ruling and change nothing. They learned that the Bill of Rights can be ignored.  How would they do this? Declare “gun violence” a public health emergency and issue executive orders.  So while I’m ordering a PPS... I am not counting on being able to legally carry it here in NJ.  I also hope I’m wrong.

I just noticed this thread.  Although this emergency declaration makes no provisions like I described, I see nothing to stop governors from expanding the control.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be too pesimistic but I wouldn't put too much faith in Chasing Amy, Compromised Roberts and a majority of the rest of them.  Remember, they are attorneys and have been known to let the American people down, Constitution be damned.  Those politicians are waiting until after the election methinks.  The Nazgul come to mind as the ring resurfaces...  But, hey, who knows.  We have some real Americans on the Court! 

Perhaps the Regressives (Progressives and RINOs) will pack the  court for October on behalf of Halloween Fools Day!  Then it will be like a seen from Monty Python, masks be damned... "Bring Out your Glocks, Bring out your Glocks"... "But I'm not disarmed yet"  Thump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2021 at 8:46 PM, Boondoggle said:

Being a glass half full kind of guy I'm thinking that the NY "law" falls. That means the rest of the nanny states are left scrambling to try and figure out another scheme, be it licensing costs, training requirements, or some such nonsense.  Either way, they already see the writing on the wall which is why Feinstein is cooking up another " assault weapons ban."

I am keeping the faith on this one! As far as Feinstein cooking up another assault weapons ban....First, the optics are bad since Biden just handed over 600,000+ REAL assault weapons to the terrorists and second, Feinstein is too old to be cooking anything, she might burn herself!:)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

The question is..how will Kavanaugh and Barrett vote.  Of those two, I think Kavanaugh is the most questionable.

 

Doesn’t Kavanaugh have a decently pro-gun rights history?   I thought he wrote a dissent in Heller2 to that affect.  

Share this post


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

Doesn’t Kavanaugh have a decently pro-gun rights history?   I thought he wrote a dissent in Heller2 to that affect.  

Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller2

"As I read the relevant Supreme Court precedents, the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional and may not be enforced. We should reverse the judgment of the District Court for analysis of that issue. I respectfully dissent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, there is little question that the court majority will hold with NY Rifle & Pistol Association and against NY State. The question to me is of how narrowly or broadly the decision will be tailored. The scope could range from something that overturns only some relatively small detail of the NY law as enforced (so that it affects only NYS, and in a way that is easily remedied by NYS without permitting any effective expansion of carry rights), to a wide open affirmation of the plain reading of the Second Amendment that would throw over all manner of infringing firearms regulations, including those not specific to concealed carry, everwhere in the US. I'm a bit skeptical that the latter hope will be fulfilled, as much as I would like to see it (i'm pretty certain that Roberts, at least, would dissent from such an opinion), but I'm reasonably optimistic that the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a handgun under most circumstances, without first shouldering a huge burden of paperwork or qualification, will be affirmed. I'd settle for that. Certainly, some states will attempt to buy time after such a decision by waiting to be sued themselves, and/or trying legistative end-arounds, but a favorable SCOTUS decision of wider than the narrowest possible scope will ultimately doom those efforts. 

I think that a lot of people fail to understand what the job of the courts entails. It is not (except in certain limited kinds of civil damage suits) to decide "right and wrong"; but to determine if certain specific behavior violates the law, as intended and written. In the case of appeals courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) the job is twofold: to determine whether a decision was rendered correctly according to the law cited in a case, and, if that is true, to determine whether that particular law, or regulation, or application of legalistic authority, conflicts with another law that takes precedence; the US Constitution occupying the highest rung on that ladder. 

As far as the commenter whot expressed "hope" that we wouldn't be "sorry for what we got", I'm not sure what that means. Even in what I view as the very unlikely event that a SCOTUS majority would hold that the NY State's broad denials are constitutional, I don't see that, in practical terms, things would be any worse for most of us. Maybe if a red state changed to blue in 2022 and the new legistators decided to take advantage of such a ruling for cover in trashing existing carry rights in that state, a case could be made that the ruling paved the way and produced negative results, but in NJ, NY, MD, DC (etcetera) there would be little or no practical change. If that poster is so mistrutful of others (and of his or her own self-defense capabilities) as to be afraid of a decision allowing broad-based carry rights, I don't know why he or she would be on this board in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Doesn’t Kavanaugh have a decently pro-gun rights history?   I thought he wrote a dissent in Heller2 to that affect.  

My concern about Kavanaugh is his rationality regarding AR-15’s and the assault weapons ban. Since AR-15s are in common use, they should not be banned.  That rationale is flawed.  What if AR-15s were not as commonly used?  .410 shotguns are probably not in common use.  Neither are FN Five-Sevens.  So those can be banned?

I get that common use can be part of an argument that claims to confirm a particular firearm should not be banned.  But that is not the criteria we should be using. It should more like determining if the weapon is appropriate to its purpose and capable of being safely managed by its user.  Thats it.

I do think 5 justices will shoot down the NY law and help our situation. But given how things have been going lately, its hard to be absolutely certain of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kevin125 said:

What if AR-15s were not as commonly used?  .410 shotguns are probably not in common use.  Neither are FN Five-Sevens.  So those can be banned?

Wasn’t this also addressed in a recent case? Maybe I’m thinking about the AWB case in CA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2021 at 12:29 AM, Kevin125 said:

We know the four liberal justices will vote against the petitioners. Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Roberts.

The question is..how will Kavanaugh and Barrett vote.  Of those two, I think Kavanaugh is the most questionable.

My other concern is that states like NY, NJ will just ignore the ruling and change nothing. They learned that the Bill of Rights can be ignored.  How would they do this? Declare “gun violence” a public health emergency and issue executive orders.  So while I’m ordering a PPS... I am not counting on being able to legally carry it here in NJ.  I also hope I’m wrong.

I just noticed this thread.  Although this emergency declaration makes no provisions like I described, I see nothing to stop governors from expanding the control.

 

 

"My other concern is that states like NY, NJ will just ignore the ruling and change nothing. They learned that the Bill of Rights can be ignored." 

The above statement is exactly why we need a SINGLE 2a organization fighting for us on the potential  outcome of this case.  Obviously we dont count on the NRA or its state affiliates for anything as they have no positive history on this matter.

The 2A orgs in the state should have already started a strategy to fight the state if this case is positive in our favor because the state under the current communist  dictatorship will not comply with that order and will throw every obstacle in the way.  We have to have our permit applications ready on that day to submit  and The class action lawsuits will have to ready to submit with the first denial. 

 this is what I think should be happening NOW:

1.  2A groups in NJ start a  NJ CCW permit class just like the Florida/ Utah classes, fingerprints, pictures, notary's and what ever else is needed and have packets ready to drop off on day 1.

 

2.  Start the law suits against the state/ SP colonel/governor,  local towns/mayors/police chiefs and judges,  get them prepared now ready for filing on day 1.

  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if SCOTUS rules against NY state in this case and the Justifiable Need catch-22 goes away, do you think the PRNJ will ever relent on their additional requirements for carrying, such as the Use of Force classroom training (that the police academies give to their students) and the twice yearly range qualification that active and retired LEOs are mandated to pass to retain their carry-ability?

I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

Even if SCOTUS rules against NY state in this case and the Justifiable Need catch-22 goes away, do you think the PRNJ will ever relent on their additional requirements for carrying, such as the Use of Force classroom training (that the police academies give to their students) and the twice yearly range qualification that active and retired LEOs are mandated to pass to retain their carry-ability?

I think not.

Again, that would depend very much on the breadth and scope of the ruling. As I understand the case, it isn't merely about NY State's "justifiable need" statutary requirement, but about the fact that the requirement is deliberately interpreted (or misinterpreted) so as to deny the right to carry to pretty much everyone. A ruling could be tailored to only the way NYS interprets and applies the regulation. It could entirely overturn the regulation itself. It could go even further, and broadly affirm the right of every citizen to what has been called "Consitutional Carry" by some: the presumed right of every citizen to carry concealed (or even openly) without first going through the formality of obtaining *any* permission from the state (restrictions on felons and mentally ill probably pemitted). That last option is what *should* happen - it is the only one that comports with a plain reading of the Second Amendment, but I'm not overly optimistic that the Court will be so ambititious as to rip out that large a chunk out of current state practices in a single bite. All of those variiables bear on what the response of NJ, or any other state that wishes to continue to restrict firearms rights, might be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY is unusual in that each county has their own way of issuing permits. In Westchester and other counties closer to NYC most people will only be issued a premise's or possibly a sportsmen's permit. These are restriction that the issuing authority, A  Judge or Sheriff put on the permit. 

These sportsman's restrictions have no basis in the NYS law. No where in the law is there a code that allows this. It is done solely at the whim of the Judge or Sheriff that issues the permits.

If you get a permit from a pro 2A county you get a permit without restrictions meaning you can carry in any county except for the five boroughs.

I think the SC will rule narrowly to change the fact that residents from a pro 2A county can carry in Westchester or Nassau counties while the residents of those counties are denied the same right violating the equal protection clause.

NJ treats almost all of it's citizens as subjects so I don't think the ruling will help NJ residents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a stupid question, but what the hell.

If NYS has counties (Forget NYC) that are pro 2A that issue permits, why can't Jesrey counties that are pro 2a, I know there aren't many (I think Cape May, and some further NW Jersey) issue permits?

Why is NYS different than NJ as far as rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:

This might be a stupid question, but what the hell.

If NYS has counties (Forget NYC) that are pro 2A that issue permits, why can't Jesrey counties that are pro 2a, I know there aren't many (I think Cape May, and some further NW Jersey) issue permits?

Why is NYS different than NJ as far as rules.

NJ wrote NJ's rules. NY wrote NY's rules. Nobody said they have to be the same.

NJ's Sheriffs are powerless compared to most other states. Their deputies are mostly limited to county jail duties, county court security, prisoner transport and serving court papers.

In other states the Sheriffs are elected officials with much more power to make decisions. e.g. Sheriff Haggar in Perry Co., PA

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

NJ wrote NJ's rules. NY wrote NY's rules. Nobody said they have to be the same.

NJ's Sheriffs are powerless compared to most other states. Their deputies are mostly limited to county jail duties, county court security, prisoner transport and serving court papers.

In other states the Sheriffs are elected officials with much more power to make decisions. e.g. Sheriff Haggar in Perry Co., PA

Not to mention the fact that even if you're in a town/county where the police chief or sheriff actually agrees with you, your permit will likely get denied once it reaches superior court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bklynracer said:

Why is NYS different than NJ as far as rules.

Because it's a different state, with different laws.

14 hours ago, Bklynracer said:

If NYS has counties (Forget NYC) that are pro 2A that issue permits, why can't Jesrey counties that are pro 2a

Because as per NJ law, counties don't issue the permits, the local municipal police chief does (and then it goes before a state judge).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YankeeSC said:

Because as per NJ law, counties don't issue the permits, the local municipal police chief does (and then it goes before a state judge).

The police do not issue carry permits. They get the first stab at denying you, but then it always goes to the Superior Court for your county and they will deny you. If by some miracle you are issued a permit, the court does that too, I believe.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it should not have any bearing on the case itself. Not sure if it will be live streamed but, oral arguments will be voice recorded so we can hear what was said and a transcript is usually made available as well. The bottom line is, we will know what was said and by whom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ShootersShooter said:

I admit not reading through this complete thread, but has anyone seen a reliable source commenting on what a favorable court decision in the NY case mean for New Gulag Jersey? 

Quote

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president, Alan M. Gottlieb, said if the petitioners are victorious, there could be several likely outcomes – good, better, best, and outstanding.

“I believe this law will be overturned. I believe we are going to win. The question is how big we win,” Gottlieb explained.

“Lower than good,” Gottlieb said, “would be if the court finds the law unconstitutional, but that it applies only to the individual plaintiffs, and they send directions for New York to follow. That would be the lowest form of victory.”

A better victory, he said, would be if the court finds the New York law unconstitutional facially – unconstitutional on its face. Eight other states have similar “show cause” laws: California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey. All of their laws would be impacted by such a decision.

“But we’d really like the court to go further than that, and go to a ‘shall issue’ law – one that says if the applicant is not a prohibited individual, the government shall issue a license – because the ‘good cause’ requirement is unconstitutional and doesn’t work,” Gottlieb said. “Even better would be if they require a standard of review of heightened scrutiny, like strict scrutiny, because carrying a firearm outside the home is a core Second Amendment right.”

This scrutiny, Gottlieb said, would put the burden on the government to show why they should be allowed to infringe upon a right. It would require the government to show a court why lower levels of scrutiny couldn’t solve a potential public interest without infringing upon a constitutional right.

“Of course, they could expand our Second Amendment rights, which would affect other rights, not just carry laws,” Gottlieb said. “But that’s unlikely, since Chief Justice Roberts likes narrow decisions.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thinking out loud - if "good cause"-type laws are found unconstitutional, of course NJ will look to still restrict the right as much as possible within the confines of the decision; they likely wouldn't survive a lawsuit challenging them, but they would still take time to get repealed.

Possibilities:
- Onerous fees ("$5,000 permit fee, renewable every 6 months")
- Onerous training requirement ($1,000 concealed carry course requirement, only approved class is held in Cape May on the 2nd Wednesday of every other month, capacity limited to 5)
- Exclusions on allowed carry places (Not within 10,000 feet of any school or childcare facility, state or federal government office or facility, place of worship, medical facility, business that sells alcohol, public park, sports or recreation facility, property owned by a public utility, etc. etc. etc.)
- Restriction on type/number of firearm allowed to be carried (only specifically registered 11 shot revolvers chambered in 8mm Nambu)

-NJ redefines "carry" as "must be concealed carry" and sets harsh penalties for the carrier/bounties for snitches if the carrier is discovered in public.

I'm considering getting a carry application queued up to submit immediately after a decision, if the decision is "good cause laws are unconstitutional".  It might actually sail through before NJ can react fast enough to come up with another way to restrict it.

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...