|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It seems unlikely the liberal SCOTUS wing would vote to grant cert to review a case that the anti-gun side won in the lower court. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The question I have is whether FOPA is controlling over contrary state or local law--which is a big issue in NY since no one can transport firearms in one's luggage through the airports if the owner takes or has "possession" of the firearms while at the airport. FOPA should cover this as well, but the NYPD doesn't care. |
#124
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
It seems to me that this case, assuming we win, is a two part win:
1. People in New York gains some transportation rights. 2. To reach that win the court needs to decide that the test the lower court decided was incorrectly reviewed and the wrong standard was applied. Then SCOTUS would, in its opinion, apply the correct standard. Either true intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. The Court then has demonstrated that the proper standard for even a relatively narrow case such as this is higher than most circuits are applying currently and that even a narrow restriction such as this impacts the "core" of the 2nd Amendment. The lower courts would all be on notice going forward that they have been effectively violation the standards of review set in Heller. That seems important to me and to have a broader impact. |
#126
|
||||
|
||||
The Court didn't take this case to tinker with the transportation laws, but to answer important constitutional question(s).
At the minimum, if the ban is overturned, we will get a confirmation that the 2A right extends outside the home and it forecloses completely the "in the home" misinterpretation. It will be the core case for all the pending "carry" cases. What we can also get, if we are lucky, is something along the lines of "strict scrutiny" or a commerce clause based prohibition on certain regulations, etc.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#127
|
||||
|
||||
Not likely. The case is about transportation and *outside* the home. Any effect on "in the home" will be incidental, e.g., we get scrutiny standard so it affects the "in the home" too.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#128
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My money is on the latter. Clarifying that the right extends outside the home answers a very important constitutional question, while remaining very clean and narrow. It would be the first domino for all "carry cases."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#131
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Roberts will certainly go along with "2A exists outside the home like any other fundamental civil right." That's sufficient for all future carry cases... I'm quite optimistic. The only better thing that can happen is that they also take Pena.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#132
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I don't know **** from shinola. Fun to talk about, though, and I would most certainly be satisfied with carry outside of the home. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Okay, some might argue, they could do both with the one case, however, based on Thomas's scathing dissent in Silvester v Bacerra, it doesn't seem like that is going to happen.
__________________
Quote:
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps this has already been asked. But why is this thread in a forum which supposedly is for "Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here."
?? What is the California angle?
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm not sure why it seems less likely. For the court to rule in our favor on the underlying issue they will have to apply some level of review. It seems very likely to be a higher level than the Second applied in the underlying case. |
#140
|
||||
|
||||
It sure doesn't seem like it, because I spoke about the possible far reaching implications this could have, and that a narrow case like this may be vastly different than Caentano, and your response was "Caentano didn't help us", when that's clearly not what I was saying or imply.
|
#141
|
||||
|
||||
Huzzah!
Quote:
We will know one way or the other by June 2020 at the latest.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people |
#142
|
||||
|
||||
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Here is your "and bear". |
#144
|
||||
|
||||
This thread lived in the National 2nd forum since last October and just got moved today.
|
#145
|
||||
|
||||
Having trouble getting a clickable link for the source where I got this quote from... (Chuck Michel's facebook page)
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#146
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You can't use Caetano as a yardstick here. That case involved a combination of plaintiff and circumstance that tugged at the heart strings of the liberals on the Court. That case was granted, and a per curiam decision issued, strictly to change the outcome because the liberals didn't like it -- nothing more. What's the incentive for the liberals on the Court here to change the outcome? The answer is that there is none, while there's plenty of reason for them to reject the case. This isn't a stun gun case, it's a firearms case. It involves the very instrument the liberals on the Court loathe most. They would ensure that the current outcome remains in place if they were in control. But they're outnumbered. And that means that it's the conservatives on the Court that granted cert to this. What possible incentive would they (even Roberts) have to take the case only to issue such a narrow decision as you claim they will? Seriously, that would simply be a complete waste of their time. No, the situational logic very clearly indicates that the purpose of granting cert to this case goes well beyond merely knocking down a very specific law in a very specific way. Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 01-23-2019 at 12:29 AM.. |
#147
|
||||
|
||||
This^^
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#149
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#150
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#151
|
||||
|
||||
Sshhh! We can't let that get out, can we?
Seriously, though, I can't rightfully conclude anything else given what we know. All other possibilities either look logically foreclosed or at least lack any reasonable justification, for one reason or another.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#153
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#154
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Playing to Thomas’s disfavored right. You have the right to free speech and the right to travel, but not to travel while speaking. Maybe I am over simplifying, but that doesn’t play out logically. |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
Opposition piece from Slate:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ase-heller.amp The antis see the potential of this case. There’s some “chicken little” sensationalism for sure, but the potential of this case extending far beyond the nuances of firearm transport rules is underscored. We see it. They see it. The antis tried and failed to keep Kavanaugh off the bench. The reason they pushed so hard was his stern opposition to gun control. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...me-court%3famp “When you aim for the king, you better not miss.” The antis missed. They will now reap what they have sown. In my personal opinion, it will take extraordinary emotional restraint by justice Kavanaugh to not serve up a cold dish of revenge to the antis on this case. He might as well do so, they still want him investigated and impeached. |
#157
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
KC, please do us all a favor and watch some depressing movies, to get yourself out of any optimistic moods, because I think a successful outcome depends on KC never becoming optimistic about it.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|