According the Heller ruling gun bans of items in 'common' use are considered unconstitutional.....

 

So NYS's current action is unconstitutional, which would me another case to be heard in Federal Court....in which they would kick the can down to SCOTUS.....

 

....if SCOTUS grants a hearing, the foundation of Heller will be reargued......and we all know the Left and the antigun lobby is foaming at the mouth for a chance to reargue and reverse Heller.....

 

And believing in SCOTUS is a fool's errand, remember Obamacare and Justice Roberts?

 

So what say you on this matter?

To arms, to arms!

It's our one shot at putting all this crap to rest. Honestly, I have no idea how it would go. It would either make or ruin us.

Roberts may have been trying to screw Obama by agreeing it was a tax after they swore up and down it wasn't. Our best chances with the SCOTUS are probably sooner rather than later when Obama can make more appointments.

It's disheartening to think that all the progress that was made might be walked back, but if we need to go before SCOTUS again I agree it should be sooner rather than later!

Roberts may have been trying to screw Obama by agreeing it was a tax after they swore up and down it wasn't.

 

And we all know just how well that screw job went.......what a fukking joke......

According the Heller ruling gun bans of items in 'common' use are considered unconstitutional.....

 

So NYS's current action is unconstitutional, which would me another case to be heard in Federal Court....in which they would kick the can down to SCOTUS.....

 

....if SCOTUS grants a hearing, the foundation of Heller will be reargued......and we all know the Left and the antigun lobby is foaming at the mouth for a chance to reargue and reverse Heller.....

 

And believing in SCOTUS is a fool's errand, remember Obamacare and Justice Roberts?

 

So what say you on this matter?

And what other choice do we have? The politicians in states like NY or NJ are never going to come to their senses on gun control. We either challenge this BS up to SCOTUS, win or lose, or we just accept oppressive gun restrictions. We have to take it to SCOTUS.

Not to be Pedantic about it...Heller doesnt apply at all.. it's MCDONALD that applies here..heller was only applicable to Federal jurisdiction..McDonald Incorporated the 2nd under the 14th to apply to the states. We COULD fight the entirety of 2C:39 under Mcdonald because the way it is written technically prohibits ALL Firearms, before going on to list exemptions. problem is nobody has deep enough pockets to take the State on...the on ly ones who would do it Pro Bono are SAF, and they're already involved in a couple of cases here.

So NYS's current action is unconstitutional, which would me another case to be heard in Federal Court....in which they would kick the can down to SCOTUS.....

 

....if SCOTUS grants a hearing, the foundation of Heller will be reargued......and we all know the Left and the antigun lobby is foaming at the mouth for a chance to reargue and reverse Heller.....

 

And believing in SCOTUS is a fool's errand, remember Obamacare and Justice Roberts?

 

SCOTUS make-up hasn't changed much since Heller. Sotomayor replaced Souter and Kagan replaced Stevens, but neither Souter nor Stevens joined majority on Heller, and Sotomayor and Kagan aren't likely either.

 

All of the majority from Heller are still there, including Roberts. Roberts isn't going to reverse himself.

 

Overall it's a bad idea.

- If you start a case, you just hope it gets to SCOTUS before one of these guys retire, which is a risk considering Obama has next 4 years covered.

- It's not at all clear SCOTUS would rule ARs and AKs "in-common-use." Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito aren't exactly judicial activists, like Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Kagan is too new to tell. Them 5 guys might be comfortable calling handgun home defense in common use. For an AR or AK, they are just as likely to rule "in-common-use" is legislative discretion, then you are REALLY screwed. Liberty or not, SCOTUS doesn't like to stand against the other 2 branches.

 

Don't start a fight until you've already won.

Not to be Pedantic about it...Heller doesnt apply at all.. it's MCDONALD that applies here..heller was only applicable to Federal jurisdiction..McDonald Incorporated the 2nd under the 14th to apply to the states. We COULD fight the entirety of 2C:39 under Mcdonald because the way it is written technically prohibits ALL Firearms, before going on to list exemptions. problem is nobody has deep enough pockets to take the State on...the on ly ones who would do it Pro Bono are SAF, and they're already involved in a couple of cases here.

 

Actually be pedantic. Heller set up terms for the fedgov. Mccdonald made the 2nd incorporated, which means heller now applies to the states as well. THe problem with taking on 2c:39 isn't so much deep pockets. If it were a good case there are deep enough pockets out there as proven time and time again. THe problem is it is too broad and would impact not just 2C:39 but a BUNCH of simlarly constructed laws around the nation that have nothing to do with firearms. This makes it unattractive to SCOTUS, and the liklihood of a favorable ruling at the circuit court level NJ is in is unlikely, and with the NJ supreme court it is zero. So... you don't do that.

 

For RKBA cases, you want something a bit more specific.

Not to be Pedantic about it...Heller doesnt apply at all.. it's MCDONALD that applies here..heller was only applicable to Federal jurisdiction..McDonald Incorporated the 2nd under the 14th to apply to the states. We COULD fight the entirety of 2C:39 under Mcdonald because the way it is written technically prohibits ALL Firearms, before going on to list exemptions. problem is nobody has deep enough pockets to take the State on...the on ly ones who would do it Pro Bono are SAF, and they're already involved in a couple of cases here.

+1 I have been saying this for years.