6 hours ago, Spartiati said:

That's what everyone thought about Chicago/IL and guess what they have reasonable shall carry now.  If the court ends up giving us strict scrutiny it will be a huge win that will give circuit court little play in ruling on these idiotic laws.

Lawmakers who are against certain situations... resourced by deep pocket think tanks, will come along to enact whatever they can to the point they can. 
 

Then culture comes into play.  Look, NJ could have enacted even more draconian regulations thus far.  There have been many in the assembly that don’t move forward. NJ is a pretty darn blue state, and I know plenty of folks here and in other states that vote red but couldn’t care less about 2A per se. so it’s important that “gun culture” in general is maintained as an American thing.  Even in leftist states like NJ.  
 

From there, you know they’ll vilify the NRA.  I think the NRA would be well served to really push more grassroots stuff and prepare more for their legal battles.  We need to support the various groups, but there’s a reason why the NRA is the target...  every dollar spent fighting on alternate legal fronts, backed by big anti money that they’re willing to burn for that reason, is a dollar less for fighting for legitimate causes.  That’s the goal of the leftists.

Then, we need to see how to better fight fire with fire.  How to make things sting legally for these groups that are trying to manipulate our liberties at all costs. How do groups like the NRA, NJ2AS, etc. make it significantly more expensive for these leftist grabbing groups to stay on the attack?

4 hours ago, Zeke said:

Be a man! Ffs

Makes me wonder! I should slap you! But next round on me

It's FFS according to my Irish friends. Just Sayin'

I haven't been following this stuff lately, can someone quote me and give me a rundown of what's been going on? 

5 hours ago, louu said:

I haven't been following this stuff lately, can someone quote me and give me a rundown of what's been going on? 

The case was granted certiorari despite NYC claiming it's moot since they rewrote the law at the 11th hour. 

It's scheduled for oral argument on 12/2.

I, along with many think it may reaffirm Heller, since it's obvious the circuit courts are outright playing games with intermediate scrutiny ruled in Heller.

NYC's argument is if you can afford a car/ home,  you can afford a second gun in your other house,  therefore you don't need to transport the gun. 

It's the 4th 2A case EVER being granted cert,  so it's a milestone in itself. 

If we get strict scrutiny,  many current gun laws may be struck down after being challenged. 

We're just anticipating Murphy/Grewal's next move,  thinking they'll just keep writing new laws to keep us busy fighting them in court. 

 

The ironic thing is that the argument about affording another gun goes against the anti-gun sentiment, because you will be adding more guns to the population!

14 hours ago, Bowling Ball said:

I can see this happening in NJ. Although It would probably take decades of fighting to get the attention of the executive branch. 

On another note,  FUDDS and guys wearing white New Balances are big contributors to the reasoning behind background checks and the like.

Hey !

19 minutes ago, drjjpdc said:

The ironic thing is that the argument about affording another gun goes against the anti-gun sentiment, because you will be adding more guns to the population!

There's that common mistake yet again.

 

You're trying to use logic to understand NY/NJ firearms politics. It's never going to make sense.

The court has never applied strict scrutiny to any other Amendment in all circumstances. The pending  case involves transport not right to carry on the person in public.

Here is another indication for us to hope. Trump's Solicitor General asked for asked for leave from the Court to participate in oral argument was granted. The guy that was denied was an anti-2nd amendment lawyer with a specialty in linguistics. He wanted to take apart the language in Heller largely placed there by Scalia. The conservative justices on the Court wanted none of that!   


18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.  The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to
 participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided  argument is granted. The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to
 participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided  argument is denied.

1 hour ago, drjjpdc said:

Here is another indication for us to hope. Trump's Solicitor General asked for asked for leave from the Court to participate in oral argument was granted. The guy that was denied was an anti-2nd amendment lawyer with a specialty in linguistics. He wanted to take apart the language in Heller largely placed there by Scalia. The conservative justices on the Court wanted none of that!   


18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.  The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to
 participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided  argument is granted. The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to
 participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided  argument is denied.

My interpretation of the of Scotus decisions to date have been very favorable to our side! I can't help but feel we are on the road to restored rights in the "may issue" states like NY & NJ.

On 10/18/2019 at 11:09 AM, SJG said:

The court has never applied strict scrutiny to any other Amendment in all circumstances. The pending  case involves transport not right to carry on the person in public.

Except the first. And the 14th for certain issues. But that’s almost like never. 

25 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Except the first. And the 14th for certain issues. But that’s almost like never. 

The 14th is part of the Cheeseman case I believe. 

On 10/18/2019 at 11:09 AM, SJG said:

The court has never applied strict scrutiny to any other Amendment in all circumstances. The pending  case involves transport not right to carry on the person in public.

This is most certainly true.  The 1st is certainly a fine example of that i.e. the message in speech is core and thus can’t be restricted however restrictions time, place, manner etc can survive intermediate.  My hope would be they would expound on what is considered “core” to the second amendment and if core strict scrutiny applies.  Surely no slam dunk here but given they are holding other cases I think it is reasonable to think they are doing so because they believe the opinion here will impact them thus this will have a broader impact than just transport.

22 hours ago, drjjpdc said:

Here is another indication for us to hope. Trump's Solicitor General asked for asked for leave from the Court to participate in oral argument was granted. The guy that was denied was an anti-2nd amendment lawyer with a specialty in linguistics. He wanted to take apart the language in Heller largely placed there by Scalia. The conservative justices on the Court wanted none of that!   


18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.  The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to
 participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided  argument is granted. The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to
 participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided  argument is denied.

While I like that fact, based upon what I believe is Constitutionally correct, I think it’s an issue if opposing viewpoints are selectively denied.  

Im not familiar with procedure, and so perhaps there’s a procedural basis. I also appreciate that we don’t need linguists picking apart every last comma in a law all the time. But I’m sure if the tables were turned, we’d want the linguist picking apart commas.  
I just fear that stuff like this gets used against us or the court by the do-gooders, due to some aspect of implied “fairness”.

2 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

While I like that fact, based upon what I believe is Constitutionally correct, I think it’s an issue if opposing viewpoints are selectively denied.  

Im not familiar with procedure, and so perhaps there’s a procedural basis. I also appreciate that we don’t need linguists picking apart every last comma in a law all the time. But I’m sure if the tables were turned, we’d want the linguist picking apart commas.  
I just fear that stuff like this gets used against us or the court by the do-gooders, due to some aspect of implied “fairness”.

Having some idiot with a PhD tell you what the guy you had extended conversations with about the ruling meant in the ruling might be viewed with a giant mug of STFU by certain members of the court, and they might not all be pro-2nd justices. I'm pretty sure most, if not all of them want the world of post-modern, deconstructionist academia taking root in dissecting legal rulings. 

34 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Having some idiot with a PhD tell you what the guy you had extended conversations with about the ruling meant in the ruling might be viewed with a giant mug of STFU by certain members of the court, and they might not all be pro-2nd justices. I'm pretty sure most, if not all of them want the world of post-modern, deconstructionist academia taking root in dissecting legal rulings. 

That's exactly the type of hair splitting definitions that got Clinton cleared when Monica waxed his weasel.  When he said he did not have sex with that woman and they proved he did, he then proved sex to legally be defined as needing penetration to be called sex.      

43 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Having some idiot with a PhD tell you what the guy you had extended conversations with about the ruling meant in the ruling might be viewed with a giant mug of STFU by certain members of the court, and they might not all be pro-2nd justices. I'm pretty sure most, if not all of them want the world of post-modern, deconstructionist academia taking root in dissecting legal rulings. 

Totally agree. But the court could say that after giving him ten minutes to describe his months of analysis... and then say “thanks, we’ll take that into consideration”.

My concern is that some whiners cry foul.

I couldn’t really care less about the person’s analysis, as I think I have developed my own opinion of what is meant by the 2A by the framers, and in Heller, and I assume the Justices have as well. 

51 minutes ago, BobA said:

That's exactly the type of hair splitting definitions that got Clinton cleared when Monica waxed his weasel.  When he said he did not have sex with that woman and they proved he did, he then proved sex to legally be defined as needing penetration to be called sex.      

And you know what? It's a legal defense parsing the defendants words. Was it a deeply stupid claim? Yes. But does it bother me that much? No. Because it wasn't a court, and because he got impeached anyway. Also, it wasn't splitting hairs over something that was actually a product of the court. It was splitting hairs on how behavior that was subject to a trial of sorts did or did not fit into that legal definition. 

This is some bullshit on someone telling the court what they said. 

 

On 10/17/2019 at 10:05 PM, JHZR2 said:

From there, you know they’ll vilify the NRA.  I think the NRA would be well served to really push more grassroots stuff and prepare more for their legal battles.  We need to support the various groups, but there’s a reason why the NRA is the target...  every dollar spent fighting on alternate legal fronts, backed by big anti money that they’re willing to burn for that reason, is a dollar less for fighting for legitimate causes.  That’s the goal of the leftists.

This is a great point. And frankly, aren't there an estimated 80-100M gun owners in the country? And yet, the last I heard, the NRA had only... 5M+ members? Can you imagine if they had 25M members? Damn! And, can you imagine if they - on occasion - did campaigns that were coordinated with and even promoted by the other pro-2A groups (like GOA) ...instead of them bickering with each other as is most often the case? 

You see these other groups on the gun control side being all lovey-dovey and uber-cooperative with each other... we need to be doing the SAME thing! I truly think part of the problem is mindset. The whole act of being a gun owner requires a certain element of self-reliance/independence - although those are arguably good traits, I think those same traits sometimes interfere with being a "good follower", because good followers need to be compliant. This presents challenges from a social organizing perspective, I think, for the pro-2A side.

1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

 

This is some bullshit on someone telling the court what they said. 

 

That’s part of the reason why I feel like it would be best to let this person attend.  
 

Denial means it’s spun into someone being “against” hearing another viewpoint (which of course is a key hypocrisy of the left).

Allowance means thanks, now go away is the outcome, for the exact reason you mention, and everyone “had their say”.  

11 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

That’s part of the reason why I feel like it would be best to let this person attend.  
 

Denial means it’s spun into someone being “against” hearing another viewpoint (which of course is a key hypocrisy of the left).

Allowance means thanks, now go away is the outcome, for the exact reason you mention, and everyone “had their say”.  

protip: SCOTUS is not big on hearing all viewpoints, that's what the paperwork is for. Most people who want to speak during oral arguments are told to go pound sand. 

The solicitor general gets to. It is literally his job. The solicitor general LITERALLY has an office in the supreme court building. They also appear before the court more frequently than anyone else. 

Saying that because the solicitor general gets to speak, we need to hear out every fucktard who can file an amicus brief is stupid. It's stupid no matter the subject matter of the case.  It is nearly as stupid as suggesting that because there's a conservative jsutice showing up and speaking, that we need to let all voices from the left be heard there. 

 

You can read the pile of shit argument here: 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/112062/20190812163502955_Amicus Brief of Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts.pdf

I will put forth as something to keep in mind with regard to their argument this question: 

Do we generate more documents, especially the government, with regards to the machinations of war, or with regard to Farmer ted running around with his hunting rifle?  Because the entirety of their argument is that because the majority of written use is referring to one context, nothing written down could be of another context. Despite the fact they slyly admit that not all usage was referring to a military when discussing the bearing of arms. 

It would be kind of like me arguing you can't be an artist without being famous and citing as evidence the sheer pile of news, media postings, etc. that refer to famous musicians and actors and such as artists and then saying there are lots more of those occurrences than other uses of the word artist.  Thus, first amendment protections on art as free speech should only apply to artists that are famous because that is the most prevalent use of the work and thus its dominant meaning in all cases. 

Which is total bullshit. It's a gun grabbing academic smelling their own farts and telling you they smell fine. 

It also completely ignores the fact that even if you do accept that bearing arms was primarily used in a context discussing military entities, you are talking about the context of a document written at the time where the only military was supposed to be the people. We weren't supposed to have a frikin standing army. So what frikin military were they reserving that right to? 

 

 

 

 

 

I read their argument, @raz-0... and I think your analogy is spot-on. What these kinds of papers do though... these esoteric attempts to control the narrative... well, it just makes me realize just how TERRIFIED the left is of this new Supreme Court. They are lobbing out everything they can to try to get this case either tossed or construed as narrowly as humanly possible.

I'll be VERY curious to see what happens with this case. I'm guardedly optimistic. Not because I think the court has a solid majority, but because I think the law was SO outrageous, SO flagrantly anti-constition, that even the more liberal judges won't have a lot to stand on. We shall see...!

18 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

SO flagrantly anti-constition, that even the more liberal judges won't have a lot to stand on.

This is what I’ve been thinking. 

I expect that it will all boil down to whether or not Roberts want to allow a victory for the right.  I suspect he doesn’t.  

Just saw this article if anyone is interested.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/constitutional-case-gun-control/600694/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

31 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:

Just saw this article if anyone is interested.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/constitutional-case-gun-control/600694/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

Written by another liberal college student who is wet behind the ears and knows nothing of the freedoms that have been built upon the shoulders of giants before him.  

1 hour ago, Bklynracer said:

Just saw this article if anyone is interested.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/constitutional-case-gun-control/600694/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

Interesting piece.  The authors twist themselves up in knots to reach their convoluted conclusions. 

12 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Interesting piece.  The authors twist themselves up in knots to reach their convoluted conclusions. 

That's how I felt reading it, almost confusing, wanted to see if it was just me. 

On 10/22/2019 at 11:40 PM, Kevin125 said:

I expect that it will all boil down to whether or not Roberts want to allow a victory for the right.  I suspect he doesn’t.  

I 've said it before but I still think that  Roberts is tired of all these circuit court challenges to SC authority.

I'll bet he would love to do something with strict scrutiny to get rid of these troublesome cases.

1 minute ago, drjjpdc said:

I 've said it before but I still think that  Roberts is tired of all these circuit court challenges to SC authority.

I'll bet he would love to do something with strict scrutiny to get rid of these troublesome cases.

That idea excites me to no end!