Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TR20 said:

This should be interesting.  If they hear the case and strike down the law it should apply nationwide!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case-on-transporting-handguns.html

Expecting a decision in June.

Our rights were taken away one chip at at a time, so I guess we're going to have to get them back one at a time. I hope they strike it down and make heads explode in Trenton, Scanners style. 

DimpledLongChimneyswift-size_restricted.gif

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

I hope they strike it down and make heads explode in Trenton, Scanners style. 

I just read the synopsis of the case. I don't think it will help us here, as we can transport to many different locations.

It's a ridiculous law in NYC, where it says you can ONLY transport handguns to one of the few city ranges, and no where else. That law says permit holders can't transport to any other range, a second house, to a competition, or any other legal location. It should be overturned by the SC

Share this post


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

I don't think it will help us here, as we can transport to many different locations.

It sounds like you're right. But I'm sure you agree that this outrageous law being overturned (as @ChrisJM981 pointed out) would have a demoralizing effect on gun grabbers and a galvanizing impact on the 2A community. Thus, it would be a good psychological win - and would send the right signal - that the 2A is a "1st class" amendment, not a 2nd class one. 

I'm just delighted that SCOTUS is even taking up a gun case - that's a good sign IMO!

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I'm just delighted that SCOTUS is even taking up a gun case - that's a good sign IMO!

I'm hoping this doesn't fill their quota for the next decade.  While I agree this one is a good case there are others that have a much broader impact on the 2A, and/or have conflicting circuit court decisions.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I'm just delighted that SCOTUS is even taking up a gun case - that's a good sign IMO!

It is. Before Trump won I was predicting civil war by 2024. I certainly hope some rights can be restored to undo the progressive policies destroying the republic. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

It sounds like you're right. But I'm sure you agree that this outrageous law being overturned (as @ChrisJM981 pointed out) would have a demoralizing effect on gun grabbers and a galvanizing impact on the 2A community. Thus, it would be a good psychological win - and would send the right signal - that the 2A is a "1st class" amendment, not a 2nd class one. 

I'm just delighted that SCOTUS is even taking up a gun case - that's a good sign IMO!

I just hope it doesn't have the opposite effect - i.e. galvanizing the gun grabbers to grab harder... being, thus, "butthurt" from that loss. Having seen how butthurt they can get from Pres. Trump's 2016 victory, that can get a little scary.

Remember, SCOTUS is not the most powerful branch of Govt.  That belongs to the legislature... and they're elected by "We the People."  No matter what SCOTUS decides, the people can decide to elect legislators that will implement whatever they choose... (well... hopefully.... in reality, it's probably that they'll implement whatever keeps them in power... :rolleyes: :facepalm:)...

We definitely have to get our numbers up....

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, HBecwithFn7 said:

I just hope it doesn't have the opposite effect - i.e. galvanizing the gun grabbers to grab harder... being, thus, "butthurt" from that loss. Having seen how butthurt they can get from Pres. Trump's 2016 victory, that can get a little scary.

Remember, SCOTUS is not the most powerful branch of Govt.  That belongs to the legislature... and they're elected by "We the People."  No matter what SCOTUS decides, the people can decide to elect legislators that will implement whatever they choose... (well... hopefully.... in reality, it's probably that they'll implement whatever keeps them in power... :rolleyes: :facepalm:)...

We definitely have to get our numbers up....

 

 

They are going to keep throwing spaghetti at the wall regardless of how much sticks or does not stick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, mustang69 said:

I'm hoping this doesn't fill their quota for the next decade.  While I agree this one is a good case there are others that have a much broader impact on the 2A, and/or have conflicting circuit court decisions.

 

I agree there are ones which would have a much broader impact. I hope this small piece by piece chiseling at it doesn’t wear things out. I’m torn if the whole “shall not be infringed” route wouldn’t be the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BobA said:

I agree there are ones which would have a much broader impact. I hope this small piece by piece chiseling at it doesn’t wear things out. I’m torn if the whole “shall not be infringed” route wouldn’t be the best. 

Yes.  I think conceal carry EVERYWHERE, All states, should be priorty #1.  Eliminate these stupid mag bans should be priority #2.  Work down from there through all the BS redundant background checks, waiting periods and and other feel good restrictions these democrats have dreamed up that don't do a shit bit of good at stopping criminals.  Like doctors needing to know if you own guns and these tattle-tale laws where someone can hear through a rumor that you said something mean so then the cops come to take your guns with no due process.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Yes.  I think conceal carry EVERYWHERE, All states, should be priorty #1.  Eliminate these stupid mag bans should be priority #2.  Work down from there through all the BS redundant background checks, waiting periods and and other feel good restrictions these democrats have dreamed up that don't do a shit bit of good at stopping criminals. 

Yes. I think it should be one big bag of infringement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mustang69 said:

I'm hoping this doesn't fill their quota for the next decade.  While I agree this one is a good case there are others that have a much broader impact on the 2A, and/or have conflicting circuit court decisions.

 

True, there are plenty of non-constitutional laws, like mag bans, evil features and national reciprocity, that would have a lot larger reach. Let's hope this isn't an appeasement case.

39 minutes ago, HBecwithFn7 said:

I just hope it doesn't have the opposite effect - i.e. galvanizing the gun grabbers to grab harder... being, thus, "butthurt" from that loss. Having seen how butthurt they can get from Pres. Trump's 2016 victory, that can get a little scary.

That's also a possibility. Remember when a certain someone said "Elections have Consequences"?

Logic and Common Sense isn't the Hallmark of the Democrat party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment/index.html 

BREAKING! SCOTUS GRANTS CERT IN NY STATE R&P CASE!
GROSS OVERREACH IS 1ST 2A CASE TO BE HEARD SINCE 2010!
by Theresa Inacker for Black Wire Media Tuesday Jan. 22, 2019
www.cnjfo.com/join-us
New York City prohibits residents from removing their lawfully purchased handguns from the city limits, even to transport them to second homes, or to out-of-city shooting ranges or competitions. Sound familiar? Just as in Heller and McDonald cases, SCOTUS could establish bright lines about the unconstitutionality of such restrictions—and New Jersey residents could benefit from a favorable ruling! The Court will hear the case in October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mustang69 said:

I'm hoping this doesn't fill their quota for the next decade.  While I agree this one is a good case there are others that have a much broader impact on the 2A, and/or have conflicting circuit court decisions.

 

Unfortunately, there isn't any coordinated national PRO-2A effort and hence each state is left to fend more or less for themselves. So no prioritization of law suits across states is even vaguely possible. It is too bad, with 5,000,000 NRA members which we have, and some good national leadership (which we don't have), we can work to affect much better then doing it as separate "tribes", with not just laws-suits but all kinds of "civil" disobedience. Overall, with some small# of exceptions, the feeling in the national-2A community is if you are "stupid" enough to live in NYC, NJ, CA, etc. that is your problem. So NYC, like us in NJ, we are on our own...Overall, I do think it is a positive sign S.C. is taking this case, I hope we hear soon they are taking the NJ-Carry suite also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

So the CNN banner has a teenager confronting mean looking baby killers and the entire article is 3 whopping paragraphs.  They are jerks.

Edited by BobA
Grammer
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BobA said:

I agree there are ones which would have a much broader impact. I hope this small piece by piece chiseling at it doesn’t wear things out. I’m torn if the whole “shall not be infringed” route wouldn’t be the best. 

Just confirming that Infringed means Infringed, would settle most of the cases out there.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real value in a SCOTUS decision in this case may be in terms of how the Court breaks down, whether it's 5-4 or maybe 6-3; who writes for the Court and, most important, the Court's comments upon its prior decisions in Heller and McDonald in terms of what those decisions mean; the comments may foreshadow where the majority is regarding other restrictions from the mag ban to carry outside the home.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Princetonian58 said:

The real value in a SCOTUS decision in this case may be in terms of how the Court breaks down, whether it's 5-4 or maybe 6-3; who writes for the Court and, most important, the Court's comments upon its prior decisions in Heller and McDonald in terms of what those decisions mean; the comments may foreshadow where the majority is regarding other restrictions from the mag ban to carry outside the home.

^^^THIS^^^

Additionally, the NYSR&PC case also has meaning for NJ's infamous "To & From" Law which requires an exemption for NJ gun owners in order to transport LEGALLY!

What we all tend to forget in NJ (perhaps because we're all so USED to BEING INFRINGED) is that statutorily ALL GUNS ARE ILLEGAL, and merely exist in the hands of us serfs due to the benevolence of our Masters through EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS.  So if SCOTUS ruling declares ownership & transportation to ranges in your own state to be lawful, NJ's entire House of Cards could come crashing down.  It all depends on how the majority opinion is written & how narrow the interpretation actually IS.  IF it's far-reaching and NOT narrow, we could see BIG changes to ownership, practice and transportation laws here in NJ!

As a 2A Leader, I understand fully that every time SCOTUS grants CERT on a 2A case, it can mean a better or worse reality for the entire nation's gun owners.  I therefore am very hopeful that we in NJ may see some relief from our current status-quo.

Rosey

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that if SCOTUS rules against NY it isn't the ability to transport guns per se that would benefit us, it is the fact that the decision will very likely be with the declaration that laws restricting the Second Amendment would be subject to strict scrutiny for judicial review rather than just intermediate scrutiny.  

If that is the case, then it would be huge.  Every case of appeal to NJ's gun laws could potentially overturn those draconian laws we are held under.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smokin .50 said:

^^^THIS^^^

Additionally, the NYSR&PC case also has meaning for NJ's infamous "To & From" Law which requires an exemption for NJ gun owners in order to transport LEGALLY!

What we all tend to forget in NJ (perhaps because we're all so USED to BEING INFRINGED) is that statutorily ALL GUNS ARE ILLEGAL, and merely exist in the hands of us serfs due to the benevolence of our Masters through EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS.  So if SCOTUS ruling declares ownership & transportation to ranges in your own state to be lawful, NJ's entire House of Cards could come crashing down.  It all depends on how the majority opinion is written & how narrow the interpretation actually IS.  IF it's far-reaching and NOT narrow, we could see BIG changes to ownership, practice and transportation laws here in NJ!

As a 2A Leader, I understand fully that every time SCOTUS grants CERT on a 2A case, it can mean a better or worse reality for the entire nation's gun owners.  I therefore am very hopeful that we in NJ may see some relief from our current status-quo.

Rosey

I have the same hopes. If the law is struck down and broadly interpreted NJ gun owners may finally be able to stop at a restaurant and leave the unloaded and locked handgun in the trunk of their car while they have dinner.

It would be a small win but I would take it.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

My understanding is that if SCOTUS rules against NY it isn't the ability to transport guns per se that would benefit us, it is the fact that the decision will very likely be with the declaration that laws restricting the Second Amendment would be subject to strict scrutiny for judicial review rather than just intermediate scrutiny.  

If that is the case, then it would be huge.  Every case of appeal to NJ's gun laws could potentially overturn those draconian laws we are held under.

Your interpretation is also correct.  Keep in mind that we're so used to being infringed upon that the 2C statutes making all firearms ILLEGAL from the get-go would come under such strict scrutiny that you speak of :) .  Nappen himself has pointed out that you can be arrested in your own home for possession of legally owned & permitted (P2P'd) firearms---A FELONY---and have to hire an attorney to PROVE said possession comes within an EXEMPTION as the BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ONTO THE GUN OWNER.  This ASSUMPTION that all possession is ILLEGAL in NJ is the House of Cards I wrote about earlier.   

We're saying the same thing in a slightly different way.  So if SCOTUS finds for the NYSR&PC (the NY State NRA affiliate), strict scrutiny would demand that the premise of a standard of accepted illegality to start with in & of itself is unconstitutional :) 

The scope of the technical aspects in possession and transportation of legally owned firearms is what the Court is taking up.  They will determine if rights are being violated due to overreaching law, and if so, they will write an opinion that disallows further infringements.

Bottom line, THIS IS YUGE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one writer over at Slate (a reliably left-wing online site) seems awfully concerned about this case. I'd say that's very promising, lol.

Here's his take on this case - which can be pretty much summed up as "the sky is falling": https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I’m looking for the “traveling while in possession of a firearm “ language. Keep in mind very few states have these restrictions similar to New Germany.

Me too.  Transportation = Possession.  Could NYS Sullivan Law also fall, thereby allowing NJ gun owners to cross thru NYC with their hand guns while traveling INTO NY State for a match or to hunt upstate?  And what of NY's Safe Act and what possible scrutiny might that succumb to?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any financial support available here on this forum to help CNJFO become part of an amicus brief on this NY case?

Yes, we've already been approached!  So everybody get back to me please & thanks!

Rosey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I wouldn't trust that Blank Blank Roberts.   No wonder the Schmuckster confirmed him so quickly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Me too.  Transportation = Possession.  Could NYS Sullivan Law also fall, thereby allowing NJ gun owners to cross thru NYC with their hand guns while traveling INTO NY State for a match or to hunt upstate?  And what of NY's Safe Act and what possible scrutiny might that succumb to?

Werd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Well, one writer over at Slate (a reliably left-wing online site) seems awfully concerned about this case. I'd say that's very promising, lol.

Here's his take on this case - which can be pretty much summed up as "the sky is falling": https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

Liberal tears! Muscle!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Is there any financial support available here on this forum to help CNJFO become part of an amicus brief on this NY case?

Yes, we've already been approached!  So everybody get back to me please & thanks!

Rosey

My admittedly uninformed opinion is that if amicus briefs weren't helpful - people wouldn't do them. I can only assume that's correct unless someone informs me differently. That said, I hope they get a brief from CNJFO and also from ANJRPC, the NRA, GOA, SAF and a few other groups as well.  I know the Well-Armed Woman has some NY Chapters - I'm not sure if they've gotten involved on the legal end of things - but the founder is now an NRA board member. She should pony up an amicus brief also IMO.

So, perhaps you should have your lawyer give you an estimate of what the brief would cost... and do a fundraising campaign (as you did with the matching funds for Cheeseman)…? I'm sure people will kick in. Having multiple legal angles all supporting any SCOTUS 2A case - much less the first one they've taken in years - AND coming from a particularly "anti-2A" state like NY - seems like a good investment of capital IMO.

  • Agree 2

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...



×
×
  • Create New...