Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, njpilot said:

 

Guessing you guys haven't read the thread. Depending how SCOTUS rules, it could open the door for revisiting many rulings supporting anti-gun restrictions and the scrutiny required in readdressing them.

I read it. I disagree. I see this as the narrowist possible ruling, just so they can say they took a 2A case. Which will affect the smallest amount of people possible. Smoke and mirrors. 

I hope I'm wrong.

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

I read it. I disagree. I see this as the narrowist possible ruling, just so they can say they took a 2A case. Which will affect the smallest amount of people possible. Smoke and mirrors. 

I hope I'm wrong.

OH.....You are wrong!  Keep the faith!

Share this post


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

OH.....You are wrong!  Keep the faith!

Dig it. This court is swamped with 2a cases from all around the country. They can’t afford to nickel and dime their way through it all. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

 

Guessing you guys haven't read the thread. Depending how SCOTUS rules, it could open the door for revisiting many rulings supporting anti-gun restrictions and the scrutiny required in readdressing them.

Pipe dream. You are lucky that SCOTUS is even hearing a gun case.

 

Share this post


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

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.

Ya. And bump stocks were infringed upon so that blows that argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this will be ruled on narrowly, then why have they been holding the NJ case since May?  It hasn’t even been rescheduled for conference.  Could it be that it is being held pending results of the NY case?  If they rule strict scrutiny must be used they could send NJ back to circuit and say reconsider using result of this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, diamondd817 said:

I read it. I disagree. I see this as the narrowist possible ruling, just so they can say they took a 2A case. Which will affect the smallest amount of people possible. Smoke and mirrors. 

I hope I'm wrong.

 

56 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Pipe dream. You are lucky that SCOTUS is even hearing a gun case.

 

Wow. Both of you basically said no matter what the outcome, this case does nothing for NJ. I explained how it possibly could and you both chime in again that nope, it's a done deal. The case will be a loser. 

Dont know if you're both clairvoyant or already have inside info from people sitting on the bench or what.

Great attitude though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Wow. Both of you basically said no matter what the outcome, this case does nothing for NJ. I explained how it possibly could and you both chime in again that nope, it's a done deal. The case will be a loser. 

Dont know if you're both clairvoyant or already have inside info from people sitting on the bench or what.

Great attitude though. 

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 :)

Share this post


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

Do you keep on top of the news at all? The legality of that filling is already being questioned. 

The ATF already admitted it lacked the authority to ban bumps stocks. But guess what? They are still banned.

Share this post


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

 

Wow. Both of you basically said no matter what the outcome, this case does nothing for NJ. I explained how it possibly could and you both chime in again that nope, it's a done deal. The case will be a loser. 

Dont know if you're both clairvoyant or already have inside info from people sitting on the bench or what.

Great attitude though. 

At this point I could care less. I'm in Florida in less that 6 months. You people keep hoping for the holy grail. Nothing. I repeat nothing is going to change in this state.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

At this point I could care less. I'm in Florida in less that 6 months. You people keep hoping for the holy grail. Nothing. I repeat nothing is going to change in this state.

 

The phrase is "couldn't care less".  And since you plan on running away, and "couldn't" care less, why do you bother even posting here, do you really think your negativity helps anything?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, reloaderguy said:

Ya. And bump stocks were infringed upon so that blows that argument.

 

Bump stocks are an accessory, and their existence, or lack thereof, does not create infringement upon 2A. They are not customary and only incidental to the fundamental design and operation of the firearm they are installed on.

Im sure we could come up with a variety of accessories in many areas, not just guns, where in some conceptual interest of some notional “public good”, they have been restricted or banned. This sort of test or scrutiny only fails in the most broad sense of freedom, which I doubt is accepted. 

Authority of an entity to ban these items is another story... because it’s not necessarily at law, but rather by edict which may not have been delegated to legislate. 

I suspect even in FL there are regulated items that cannot be purchased for reasons of the “public good”.

 

So relating back to the topic at hand, the  key element in this decision is the invocation of strict scrutiny, which notionally requires more consideration on infringement for any and all regulations. This does open the door for more critical analysis of laws of concern in NJ, FL, wherever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see three options.

1) the anti option. This is a narrow ruling against the law while retaining intermediate scrutiny. We wind up right back where we were.

2) The middle of the road. This would be ruling against the law, avoid strict scrutiny but adopt a new legal test. 

3) The big win. Ruling against the law and establishing strict scrutiny as the standard for 2a cases.

 

I can't see them going to oral arguments and mooting the case there.

Share this post


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

At this point I could care less. I'm in Florida in less that 6 months. You people keep hoping for the holy grail. Nothing. I repeat nothing is going to change in this state.

 

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. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, reloaderguy said:

At this point I could care less. I'm in Florida in less that 6 months. You people keep hoping for the holy grail. Nothing. I repeat nothing is going to change in this state.

 

'You people' -

 

Hmmm Florida is getting a winner right here folks   .....  :this:

 

While i am looking forward to leaving NJ, I refuse to besmirch those that are staying or are faithful to possible change foe the better.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

At this point I could care less. I'm in Florida in less that 6 months. You people keep hoping for the holy grail. Nothing. I repeat nothing is going to change in this state.

 

Great. I've been in FL full time for 4 1/2 years. Doesn't mean I don't support the 2nd Amendment for shithole communist states like NJ. Guess you don't care. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

'You people' -

 

Hmmm Florida is getting a winner right here folks   .....  :this:

 

While i am looking forward to leaving NJ, I refuse to besmirch those that are staying or are faithful to possible change foe the better.

Right? Thats class for ya. "Haha i escaped, so fuck all yall."

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Right? Thats class for ya. "Haha i escaped, so fuck all yall."

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. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Great. I've been in FL full time for 4 1/2 years. Doesn't mean I don't support the 2nd Amendment for shithole communist states like NJ. Guess you don't care. 

Correct. I have lived here for 30 years and the only thing that is going to change is your taxes will go up again next year.

 

1 hour ago, EngineerJet said:

Like nra declared NJ moot? Lol

Exactly. I stooped giving them money years ago and I curse them out every time they call looking for money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

'You people' -

 

Hmmm Florida is getting a winner right here folks   .....  :this:

 

While i am looking forward to leaving NJ, I refuse to besmirch those that are staying or are faithful to possible change foe the better.

Ya. It's been possible for the 30 years I have lived here and it will be possible after you are dead and buried.

Share this post


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

Ya. It's been possible for the 30 years I have lived here and it will be possible after you are dead and buried.

The battles we are fighting now in NJ are probably DUE TO your apathy and not being engaged IN NJ FOR THE LAST 30YRS !

 

:)

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

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.

This is very true.  It's happening in Maine, PA, Texas, Vermont everywhere the locus spread.  All I hear is "nope never happen here".  BULL!  it is happening in bits and pieces everywhere.  Don't you think the universal back ground checks will effect you if they become national law?  It's the end of private sales as we know (knew) them.  It adds an extra 50-80 bucks to each sale.   As these whiners move into their McMansions where a 200 acre farm once stood , they bring these very issues and they bring votes. They get their people in the state houses and get their way.  They get their way because of apathy.  Because "nope never happen here".  Among other things on the anti's hit list is a national magazine capacity law.  " nope never happen here" will happen if it becomes national law.  Trump will veto it?  Maybe. As long as he is president.  Even if re-elected the next guy four years after that may not.  These SCOTUS decisions must become the law of the land are needed for all of us regardless of our state.   

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat back on topic...

The (now repealed) transport law that this case is based on went into effect in 2001. It has certainly been a long road to this point.

"The NYPD finalized its current firearm transportation rules in 2001 after balancing public safety with the interests of licensed handgun owners who enjoy target shooting and hunting, city officials said."

Source:

https://www.nydailynews -dot- com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-nypd-loosens-rule-on-transporting-firearms-for-licensed-gun-owners-20190412-fxzsge25srhmzdd2olsntnwxca-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 years to get redressed.

That's what's infuriating with "let them pass the law, the courts will strike it down" attitude. Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. Regardless, how long will it take an how many people got convicted under that law waiting for the courts to strike it down?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

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...