Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

Here's the elephant in the room that NY is afraid of. May or Shall Carry. Even thought the case was cloaked in the NY State Rifle and pistol clubs,  the real meat was the carry provisions. When the Respondent's arm was twisted, they allowed carry to a range, another property and an hunting area.

But they are only allowing you, to take your arms to a SPECIFIC place! They are terrified of shall carry.

This is where the NJ case comes in. It is not some shadow case. It specifically is about shall carry.

I truly think the justices know that already and feel that the east  should join the other 40 + states in shall carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, drjjpdc said:

Here's the elephant in the room that NY is afraid of. May or Shall Carry. Even thought the case was cloaked in the NY State Rifle and pistol clubs,  the real meat was the carry provisions. When the Respondent's arm was twisted, they allowed carry to a range, another property and an hunting area.

But they are only allowing you, to take your arms to a SPECIFIC place! They are terrified of shall carry.

This is where the NJ case comes in. It is not some shadow case. It specifically is about shall carry.

I truly think the justices know that already and feel that the east  should join the other 40 + states in shall carry.

Oh I think that is the first layer of fear. They are very concerned that they will get a ruling that demands strict scrutiny for 2A cases. Even worse, strict scrutiny and verbiage that makes it clear that it covers more than just semi automatic handguns as heller stated clearly, since they like ignoring the common use bit and going for the specific example. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a miracle occurs and SCOTUS did impose Strict Scrutiny for all 2A cases,  am I correct that with regards to laws already in place, nothing would change overnight.  I.e. existing laws would have to be challenged in court and then takes years to wind their way through the judicial system?  OR would such a ruling equate to them immediately being struck down and invalid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

If a miracle occurs and SCOTUS did impose Strict Scrutiny for all 2A cases,  am I correct that with regards to laws already in place, nothing would change overnight.  I.e. existing laws would have to be challenged in court and then takes years to wind their way through the judicial system?  OR would such a ruling equate to them immediately being struck down and invalid?

And, would old records be or allowed to be expunged?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

If a miracle occurs and SCOTUS did impose Strict Scrutiny for all 2A cases,  am I correct that with regards to laws already in place, nothing would change overnight.  I.e. existing laws would have to be challenged in court and then takes years to wind their way through the judicial system?  OR would such a ruling equate to them immediately being struck down and invalid?

I think existing laws would still need to be challenged and then reviewed under the new precedent by the lower courts. 

One immediate benefit would be existing cases pending before the lower courts and scotus. Those could get resolved more quickly resolved in our favor. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I checked out the filing page for the case today and Amicus Briefs arguing “It’s MOOOOOOOOOOT” from different organizations, coalitions of senators and coalitions of states (including NJ, of course) are piling in.

The Antis must be absolutely terrified of this case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Wow, I checked out the filing page for the case today and Amicus Briefs arguing “It’s MOOOOOOOOOOT” from different organizations, coalitions of senators and coalitions of states (including NJ, of course) are piling in.

The Antis must be absolutely terrified of this case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

 

Wow.  16 briefs submitted on 8/12. 

Wanna bet they’re all cut and paste excerpts from the same talking points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TIL I learned that National African American Gun Association, Inc exists. Along with many other groups I had not heard of before. And some groups (example, the NEA) is sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow reading the grammar one. 

Such disingenuous fucks. They make the claim that since the phrase keep and bear arms appears mostly in docuements referring to militaries that it can't possibly be referring to individual rights. Totally and willfully ignoring the "the rights of the people" part. Yeah no shit it is military language. It is saying the people have the right to keep and bear arms as any military would because THEY ARE THE MILITIA. 

It makes even more sense when you include the fact the government is not supposed to have a standing army. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets better. Democrats threatening the court with “restructuring” over this case:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring

 

2 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

wow reading the grammar one. 

Such disingenuous fucks. They make the claim that since the phrase keep and bear arms appears mostly in docuements referring to militaries that it can't possibly be referring to individual rights. Totally and willfully ignoring the "the rights of the people" part. 

Also ignores existing precedent of Heller that clearly defines the 2A as an individual right. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Also ignores existing precedent of Heller that clearly defines the 2A as an individual right. 

It appears to me that Presser v. Illinois also applies to the individual's right. (As per wikipedia)

  • Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:

We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who's still concerned about the composition of our current SCOTUS? It's better than it was a couple years ago, sure... but with wishy-washy Roberts at the helm, and Kavanaugh still being a bit of an intangible IMO, this case's potential outcome is still a crap shoot, I think. Are these judges strong enough to withstand the pressure? I'd feel so much better if there was a bigger pro-2A SCOTUS majority before a 2A case was even heard... but I realize there's never any guarantees of these things. 

Fingers crossed though!!!!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/112010/20190812151259076_18-280bsacSenatorSheldonWhitehouse.pdf

... The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal. ...



Bold argument - let’s see how that flies.

Share this post


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

That’s the brief the article I posted links to. The Democrats are basically threatening to stack the court if SCOTUS let’s the case continue. 

Mans the rest of the brief is a text book “appeal to emotion” fallacy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on my (quick) research, Congress is legally "allowed" to change the number of Justices. A Constitutional Amendment has been proposed in the past to lock the number at nine, but it has not gone far.

From: https://govtrackinsider.com/constitutional-amendment-would-prevent-supreme-court-from-expanding-beyond-nine-justices-b9240b5b0b6f

At first, there were six justices. In 1807, that increased to seven. In 1837, that increased to nine. In 1863, that increased to 10. It was brought back down to seven in 1866. The status quo of nine justices has remained since 1869.

While the Court’s existence is required by the Constitution, the exact number of justices remains unspecified. The last serious attempt by an incumbent president to change the number was in the 1930s under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The plan didn’t pass Congress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Am I the only one who's still concerned about the composition of our current SCOTUS? It's better than it was a couple years ago, sure... but with wishy-washy Roberts at the helm, and Kavanaugh still being a bit of an intangible IMO, this case's potential outcome is still a crap shoot, I think. Are these judges strong enough to withstand the pressure? I'd feel so much better if there was a bigger pro-2A SCOTUS majority before a 2A case was even heard... but I realize there's never any guarantees of these things. 

Fingers crossed though!!!!

I definitely think we need at least one more conservative justice on the court (hopefully replacing the "Notorious RBG" or Breyer)... because of the concerns about Roberts.  Then I think we can start to take on some of these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Am I the only one who's still concerned about the composition of our current SCOTUS? It's better than it was a couple years ago, sure... but with wishy-washy Roberts at the helm, and Kavanaugh still being a bit of an intangible IMO, this case's potential outcome is still a crap shoot, I think. Are these judges strong enough to withstand the pressure? I'd feel so much better if there was a bigger pro-2A SCOTUS majority before a 2A case was even heard... but I realize there's never any guarantees of these things. 

Fingers crossed though!!!!

For this case, No.  Even the NY "law makers" have acknowledged that their law is no good.  Worst that happens is law is over turned, with no other judicial findings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

For this case, No.  Even the NY "law makers" have acknowledged that their law is no good.  Worst that happens is law is over turned, with no other judicial findings.

Geez, I must be uber-paranoid! I keep thinking there's still some way they'll try to sneak some wording/new legal concept into the mix - a "poison pill" that hurts the 2A down the road! But, OK, PeteF…. I'm going to ride the coat-tails of your bold, swash-buckling positivity!! LOL.

You had better be right... or I'm going to be very mad at you!!!  :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Geez, I must be uber-paranoid! I keep thinking there's still some way they'll try to sneak some wording/new legal concept into the mix - a "poison pill" that hurts the 2A down the road! But, OK, PeteF…. I'm going to ride the coat-tails of your bold, swash-buckling positivity!! LOL.

You had better be right... or I'm going to be very mad at you!!!  :p

Notice how i typed "for this case".  NY realized how screwed up the law was that they tried the "we were just kidding" strategy and modified it.  

Their defense is "case is moot because law doesn't say that any more"  which by not dismissing, SCOTUS said nah that doesn't fly.  So they now have to defend a law they acknowledged was flawed.  I can't even see arguments being heard.  If ever there was a case for summary decision, this is it.

Other than this case, like you, I question any decision where a group of people get to make shit up and say its law.  Just because.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just a hunch, but I think even the liberal justices must be PISSED that legislators are threatening the court if they don't rule the way they want.  This strong arm tactic could well backfire. 

This is an outrageously brazen attempt by the Dems in the senate to strong arm the SCOTUS.  If they want a fight they wish they didn’t start, they’ll keep heading down this road.

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...