Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1161  
Old 09-10-2019, 12:10 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
[B][I]The longer the delay for NYSRPA orals, the more likely there will be another "vacancy" on the Court. (Looking at RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor and Thomas.)
Five years until 2024. It's a long time, politically speaking. At the end. it's quite possible that Conservative justices will have replaced RBG, Breyer, and Sotomayer. Add Thomas (or his replacement), Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh and our side has seven seated justices. Roberts, having no mind of his own, will continue to twist with the wind. Kagan, being the only remaining left-wing justice will then have a business decision to make: does she remain on the court the rest of her life, cursing the darkness and having zero influence, or does she resign and take on the lecture circuit, virtue signaling every time she takes a step, in the manner of chickens.
Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:48 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm going to disagree just a bit.

Roberts has a mind and set of priorities which are his own. You don't get onto SCOTUS without having a pretty well-entrenched judicial philosophy. His priorities and philosophy don't always parallel mine but that doesn't mean he doesn't have them and doesn't consistently operate based on them.

I think Sotomayor will hang around as long as possible. She's going to try to do an RBG thing and may try to arrange to be mummified and still have a crop of clerks writing her opinions.

Kagan? I think she is going to enjoy serving on SCOTUS even if she (by some miracle) ends up the sole fascist on the court. She is pretty sharp and was actually able to be friends with folk like Scalia despite their judicial differences. If she were the sole fascist serving on SCOTUS I think that if we could see the inner workings of the SCOTUS that we'd find she was surprisingly influential.

Thomas also plans to be there forever. He isn't perfect but I like him on SCOTUS so I'm mostly OK with him not retiring. If you could arrange for a relative youngster with similar judicial philosophy to replace him I'd be happier, however.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 09-11-2019, 3:54 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Thomas also plans to be there forever. He isn't perfect but I like him on SCOTUS so I'm mostly OK with him not retiring. If you could arrange for a relative youngster with similar judicial philosophy to replace him I'd be happier, however.
"Justice Thomas, if you give me the opportunity to nominate a your successor, I'll make my final selection from a list of five that you present to me."
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 09-11-2019, 7:07 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thomas serves a very important function for whoever is put on court, if we get a RBG vacancy and Trump appoints.

He is the senior advisor to advise the nominee whose character and reputation will be so savaged, they will be like Anakin after the duel with Obi-wan in Revenge of the Sith.

And Thomas will be there to be Palpatine, instructing the nominee with how to constructively use the anger and sense of betrayal.

I don’t want another Kavanaugh, with his virtue signaling clerks.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1165  
Old 09-11-2019, 8:52 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Thomas serves a very important function for whoever is put on court, if we get a RBG vacancy and Trump appoints.

He is the senior advisor to advise the nominee whose character and reputation will be so savaged, they will be like Anakin after the duel with Obi-wan in Revenge of the Sith.

And Thomas will be there to be Palpatine, instructing the nominee with how to constructively use the anger and sense of betrayal.

I donít want another Kavanaugh, with his virtue signaling clerks.
Nice try, don't buy it.

Tell us the REAL reason you don't want another Kavanaugh...come on...

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1166  
Old 09-11-2019, 9:54 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Nice try, don't buy it.

Tell us the REAL reason you don't want another Kavanaugh...come on...

=8-|
Luckily I'm not in business so you don't have to buy anything from me, and I don't need a business license.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 09-11-2019 at 10:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1167  
Old 09-12-2019, 4:35 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Luckily I'm not in business so you don't have to buy anything from me, and I don't need a business license.
Well I certainly don't sell "duck".

Come on dude, give us the reaaal reason you don't want another Kavanaugh.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 09-13-2019, 8:41 AM
helicalite helicalite is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Looks like oral argument has been scheduled for December 2nd:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...cember2019.pdf

Edit: presumably assuming the suggestion of mootness isn't granted

Last edited by helicalite; 09-13-2019 at 9:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1169  
Old 09-13-2019, 8:50 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #1170  
Old 09-13-2019, 8:59 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by helicalite View Post
Looks like oral argument has been scheduled for December 2nd:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...cember2019.pdf


Just over 11 weeks!

Expect a decision late June 2020.


__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-13-2019 at 9:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:08 AM
ZNiner ZNiner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kekistan Republic
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

I take it the mootness question has been resolved?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1172  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:11 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNiner View Post
I take it the mootness question has been resolved?
October 1 is the next conference to talk about mootness, or in other words:

Reply With Quote
  #1173  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:17 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 989
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post


Just over 11 weeks!

Expect a decision late June 2020.


Oh lord I hope they have been watching the Debate and following upcoming proposed legislation.

Beto let's the cat out of the bag, they ARE coming to confiscate our semi auto rifles, wants to license the rest.

House proposing Assault Weapons ban, limit on magazine capacity and more.
Reply With Quote
  #1174  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:23 AM
prkcty prkcty is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 40
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I wonder if Roberts will fold with all the media coverage between now and December. Then again, NY's law is egregious. Also, the differences in decision dates based on when cert is granted is frustrating. Any chance they get the decision out earlier?
Reply With Quote
  #1175  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:36 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNiner View Post
I take it the mootness question has been resolved?
Not yet. Thatís decided October 1st. But it being scheduled is a good sign in a spiritual sense, it doesnít necessarily mean anything about the mootness question, because the clerks schedule oral arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old 09-13-2019, 1:00 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,560
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So conference to discuss mootness on the first and a placeholder on the second?
Are both sides expected to be ready to present arguments on 10/2 despite not knowing whether the case will be mooted the day before?
Reply With Quote
  #1177  
Old 09-13-2019, 1:01 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,146
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
So conference to discuss mootness on the first and a placeholder on the second?
Are both sides expected to be ready to present arguments on 10/2 despite not knowing whether the case will be mooted the day before?
Conference Oral argument are 12/2.
__________________

Last edited by ajb78; 09-13-2019 at 7:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 09-13-2019, 1:16 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 126
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

https://mobile.twitter.com/CRPAPresi...97076330504193

Per Chuck Michel, theyíll probably discuss mootness and 2A issues.
Reply With Quote
  #1179  
Old 09-13-2019, 2:57 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
https://mobile.twitter.com/CRPAPresi...97076330504193

Per Chuck Michel, theyíll probably discuss mootness and 2A issues.
The extended quote from his facebook page:

Quote:
BREAKING: the United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the NYSRPA v NYC 2A "bear arms" case for Monday December 2, 2019. So the Court will not immediately dismiss the case on mootness grounds as NYC requested after it repealed the challenged laws. However, the Court will probably hear argument on both the mootness issues AND the 2A issue on 12/2/19, and could decide to dismiss the case on mootness grounds after that. Otherwise we will likely get a ruling at the end of the Supreme Court's session in June 2020. NRA is supporting this vital and potentially game changing case. JOIN NRA (and CRPA)!
Reply With Quote
  #1180  
Old 09-13-2019, 6:34 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,560
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Conference is 12/2.
Oops, that's why I hate reading on my phone (I have a tiny screen)... I seem to miss half of the details.

There's a conference on 10/1, orals scheduled for 12/2. That makes a lot more sense They are still having the 10/1 conference, right? The quote just above in wireless' post makes it sound like the discussion on mootness is happening in Dec, no mention of the Oct date.
Perhaps Oct will just be discussion amongst the court members but the case is still going to orals where they'll decide whether to moot or issue a decision?

Maybe I'm just not getting the whole picture.

Last edited by Sputnik; 09-13-2019 at 6:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1181  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
The extended quote from his facebook page:
Quote:
BREAKING: the United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the NYSRPA v NYC 2A "bear arms" case for Monday December 2, 2019. So the Court will not immediately dismiss the case on mootness grounds as NYC requested after it repealed the challenged laws. However, the Court will probably hear argument on both the mootness issues AND the 2A issue on 12/2/19, and could decide to dismiss the case on mootness grounds after that. Otherwise we will likely get a ruling at the end of the Supreme Court's session in June 2020. NRA is supporting this vital and potentially game changing case. JOIN NRA (and CRPA)!
If Chuck thinks they'll "probably" discuss mootness during orals on Dec 2rd, I won't argue with him. I would think they'd deal with mootness during the Oct 1st Conference or even w/o that conference (and cancel it). They've gotten briefs on mootness, do they really need to have orals on it too to decide the issue??? Mootness isn't a new legal doctrine for SCOTUS.

Given that RBG brought up NYSRPA yesterday and acted as if mootness wasn't even an issue, but just treated the case as an important/divisive case they would be dealing with this term (vs them getting off of the hook by mooting it), my hunch is mootness is already DOA. But that's all it is: a hunch.

Quote:
One can read the tea leaves from Ginsburg’s remarks on the coming term to guess which cases she views as most important.

Mentioned first was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a challenge to New York City’s restrictions on the transportation of personal firearms. Notably, Ginsburg made no mention of the mootness question. (New York City modified its law to redact the most contentious provisions after the Supreme Court granted cert, and the state has since barred future legislation reinstating those provisions; the city now argues that the case is no longer a live controversy and should be dismissed as moot.)
From: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/g...w/#more-289101

I suggest watching the docket page to see if there's an order in the next week cancelling the Oct 1st mootness Conference for NYSRPA.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

Of course, as we've seen since the Nordyke days, 2nd A cases seem to get "special treatment" by the federal courts and often do not follow conventional wisdom (e.g., en banc appeals are rare in CA9 -- except in 2nd A cases where they're routine when we win).

JMHO....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-13-2019 at 9:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1182  
Old 09-14-2019, 6:44 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like the Court watchers at SCOTUSblog are as confused/unsure as anyone else.

Quote:
Court issues December calendar

The Supreme Court issued its calendar for the December sitting today. The justices are scheduled to kick off the sitting, which begins on Monday, December 2, with the oral argument in the challenge to New York City’s ban on transporting guns outside the city’s limits. But it’s not clear that the oral argument will actually take place: On October 1, the justices will consider whether to dismiss the case because the city has amended its regulations (and the state has also changed its gun licensing laws)....
More at: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/c...r/#more-289141

I guess we'll get a better idea what's happening on Monday, Oct 8th when the orders from the Oct 1st conference are publicly released. (Assuming the case still gets discussed on Oct 1st.)

3 weeks!



(Now get off of Calguns and go back to enjoying Indian Summer! Just obey the 4-Stupids Rule and EDC pepper spray and you'll be fine.)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-14-2019 at 6:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1183  
Old 09-14-2019, 9:55 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If Chuck thinks they'll "probably" discuss mootness during orals on Dec 2rd, I won't argue with him. I would think they'd deal with mootness during the Oct 1st Conference or even w/o that conference (and cancel it). They've gotten briefs on mootness, do they really need to have orals on it too to decide the issue??? Mootness isn't a new legal doctrine for SCOTUS.

Given that RBG brought up NYSRPA yesterday and acted as if mootness wasn't even an issue, but just treated the case as an important/divisive case they would be dealing with this term (vs them getting off of the hook by mooting it), my hunch is mootness is already DOA. But that's all it is: a hunch.

From: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/g...w/#more-289101

I suggest watching the docket page to see if there's an order in the next week cancelling the Oct 1st mootness Conference for NYSRPA.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

Of course, as we've seen since the Nordyke days, 2nd A cases seem to get "special treatment" by the federal courts and often do not follow conventional wisdom (e.g., en banc appeals are rare in CA9 -- except in 2nd A cases where they're routine when we win).

JMHO....
Well, SCOTUS just updated the NYSRPA docket page today, but (of course!) not the way I had hoped....

Quote:
Sep 13 2019 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 2, 2019.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

I had hoped they'd also post that the Oct 01 Conference would be cancelled -- they didn't. I assume that means mootness is still an issue. So, what happens if they decide on Oct 01 that the case is moot? Do the justices get to sleep in on Dec 02? Or do they fill the vacant orals slot with another case? How about another 2nd A case???

Yeah, we won't be that lucky.

Regardless, of the carry cases before SCOTUS (IIRC, Rogers, Gould and Cheeseman), is there any priority among the 3? Any reason they shouldn't be heard all together?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-14-2019 at 10:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1184  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:40 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

If the case is moot they will fill it with a different case. Either one of two things has happened. 1- The clerks do the calendar and scheduled it as if the case would go forward, and they can amend it later on. 2- Chief Justice Roberts told them to schedule it, because the October 1st mootness date is a formality and he knows how they will vote.

My guess is that they will not moot the case. RBG and others aren't acting like mootness is a serious question, and the court probably sees this as a cheap attempt at trying to undermine their authority. Couple that with the democrats threatening the court with an unprecedented letter (according to NationalReview), and I think this case goes forward.

I think ultimately NY's attempt to moot the case and the democrat's threat is only hurting their argument. They would have been better off focusing on flipping one of the conservative judges or trying to make the ruling as narrow as possible.

Last edited by wireless; 09-14-2019 at 10:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1185  
Old 09-14-2019, 1:51 PM
kalalp kalalp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South Sierra Foothills
Posts: 227
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

In my view our goal is to incorporate the 2nd under strict scrutiny standards. Then all anti gun laws are subject to intense scrutiny regarding their constitutionality. I believe Justice Thomas wants to use this case for that reason.
Reply With Quote
  #1186  
Old 09-15-2019, 8:40 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,895
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalalp View Post
In my view our goal is to incorporate the 2nd under strict scrutiny standards. Then all anti gun laws are subject to intense scrutiny regarding their constitutionality. I believe Justice Thomas wants to use this case for that reason.
On the theory that if we get strict scrutiny, all else will follow.

Without strict scrutiny, there will be no due process in how the red flag laws work. We'll be targeted since we own guns.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.

Last edited by SimpleCountryActuary; 09-15-2019 at 8:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1187  
Old 09-15-2019, 9:18 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalalp View Post
...subject to intense scrutiny...
I think if the Supreme Court introduces another level of scrutiny I’m going to need more scotch.
Reply With Quote
  #1188  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:30 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalalp View Post
In my view our goal is to incorporate the 2nd under strict scrutiny standards. Then all anti gun laws are subject to intense scrutiny regarding their constitutionality. I believe Justice Thomas wants to use this case for that reason.
Our goal is not strict scrutiny...unless your intention is to not respect Heller v. DC.

History and tradition has already been stated, and repeated in Caetano v. Massachusetts.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1189  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:32 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
On the theory that if we get strict scrutiny, all else will follow.

Without strict scrutiny, there will be no due process in how the red flag laws work. We'll be targeted since we own guns.
History and tradition shows that States always have and always will have the ability to adjudicate the dangerously mentally ill.

History for the past 6 decades also shows that many states have been ignoring the exercise of that right in favor of alternatives that amount to a runaround of due process.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1190  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:33 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
I think if the Supreme Court introduces another level of scrutiny Iím going to need more scotch.
Agreed...totally, utterly, absolutely unnecessary.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1191  
Old 09-15-2019, 5:40 PM
bomb_on_bus's Avatar
bomb_on_bus bomb_on_bus is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bakersfield, CA Kern Co.
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
I think if the Supreme Court introduces another level of scrutiny Iím going to need more scotch.
Lol this is exactly what they want. Us all to cower and self medicate while our right is stripped away slowly and steadily
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
In 1775 we stood up.

In 1776 we announced we would not be sitting back down.


Ahhhhhhhhhhh! Man that was some great Kool-Aid.......... hmmmmmm theres a hint of something metallic. Oh well guess I will get on with the voting.
Reply With Quote
  #1192  
Old 09-16-2019, 7:44 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,895
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
History and tradition shows that States always have and always will have the ability to adjudicate the dangerously mentally ill.

History for the past 6 decades also shows that many states have been ignoring the exercise of that right in favor of alternatives that amount to a runaround of due process.

=8-|
non sequitur

"Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result."

Anyone here who thinks the Government only need satisfy intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review should be unsurprised when they come for your guns after your neighbor sees your American Rifleman magazine and calls the reg flag law down on you.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #1193  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:46 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 930
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
I think if the Supreme Court introduces another level of scrutiny Iím going to need more scotch.
Scrutiny is a entirely non-Constitutional concept made up to get around the attack on the 14th in the post CW era. The court is free to make up more scrutiny nonsense if it wants, like double secret probation scrutiny. Why not?

The 2nd, the 14th and the 13th are all closely linked in history. Can anybody imagine applying scrutiny to a 13th amendment case? For a while I have wanted to re-write -- as a parody -- the dissent in the Heller case using a 13th amendment spin. EG, the black man in question is too big, too fast and has no compelling reason to not be a slave. Throw in a few license requirements/fees and a piles of statistical references to violence in the black community. Use the words of the left to "show" that the 13th has no applicability in "today's world".

My hope is that the court points out the clear and obvious meaning of the law of the land, and that NYC gets sued into bankruptcy when they resist.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #1194  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:57 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by command_liner View Post
Scrutiny is a entirely non-Constitutional concept made up to get around the attack on the 14th in the post CW era. The court is free to make up more scrutiny nonsense if it wants, like double secret probation scrutiny. Why not?

The 2nd, the 14th and the 13th are all closely linked in history. Can anybody imagine applying scrutiny to a 13th amendment case? For a while I have wanted to re-write -- as a parody -- the dissent in the Heller case using a 13th amendment spin. EG, the black man in question is too big, too fast and has no compelling reason to not be a slave. Throw in a few license requirements/fees and a piles of statistical references to violence in the black community. Use the words of the left to "show" that the 13th has no applicability in "today's world".

My hope is that the court points out the clear and obvious meaning of the law of the land, and that NYC gets sued into bankruptcy when they resist.
Big hope. Maybe the continued allegations will make Kavanaugh get that there’s no victory but destroying the left without regard for virtue signaling or fairplay but raw political power. One can hope these new allegations and continued attacks on the man makes at least a Thomas level culture warrior.

That, and John Roberts losing his spoil real victory for the right.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1195  
Old 09-16-2019, 8:53 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
We the People
The Next Big Second Amendment Case?
Aug 29, 2019 ∑ 47 min

The upcoming Supreme Court case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York could be the first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade. It centers around a New York City regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when the guns are unloaded and separated from ammunition. New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, but, in the midst of litigation, New York City changed it – raising the question of whether the case was now “moot”. And, Senate Democrats filed a controversial brief addressed to the Supreme Court warning that they might pursue structural reform of the Court if they don’t like the outcome in this case. Detailing the twists and turns of the case and its potential impact on the Second Amendment – Adam Winkler of UCLA Law School and Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute join host Jeffrey Rosen.

Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week:


Mootness: A case becomes moot if the conflict, or the law at issue, that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists.


Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law:


Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest


Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest.


Rational basis review: The most deferential kind of review to the legislature. A law only has to be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.
audio stream at:
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aH...MmMwZjRh&hl=en
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-16-2019 at 9:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.