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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1521  
Old 11-18-2021, 8:05 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Really? And if the Court "interprets" the term "lawmaking" to be synoymous with law interpretation? Then what?
Then we avail ourselves of the Constitutional processes for redressing those grievances. An inability to effectively exercise them does not mean they aren't present nor does it mean that they cannot be effectively utilized. We've discussed this, extensively, before as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
See, that's the problem here. If you grant arbitrary interpretive power, then you grant absolute power over everything. This is so because "interpretation" can be used to redefine anything and everything.
This is where you are drifting from actual analysis of the case into a punditry of the 'changes' you wish to make to the Constitution. It's found in why you insist that "arbitrary" is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
I would argue that it is both pejorative and descriptive.
It's a premise you are working from which represents a subjective opinion that you have established to your own satisfaction and the satisfaction of others; but, not to the point where you can Constitutionally invoke those powers by which the Constitution allows for 'a remedy' (altering the Constitution itself). Thus, you are no longer arguing the case, but pursuing your personal agenda, again. As you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
This is precisely why I argue as I do. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, period. It sits above everything else, including the judiciary itself. The judiciary is simply not authorized to alter its meaning from that which was originally intended, period. Because to argue anything else is to grant the courts unlimited power in practice, at least as long as the courts retain any power at all.
As our entire exchange as shown and even you, grudgingly acknowledge (despite your attempts at denial), original, intended meaning is not always as crystal clear as you (or I) would like, is not always absolutely ascertainable, and there are processes (agree with them or not) by which interpretations are derived (meaning they aren't, entirely, 'arbitrary' [at least not in every or even in most circumstance(s)], even if they may seem to be at times). In fact, given the very lack of clarity (to whatever degree), often necessitating pages within a decision to construct an agreed upon meaning (How many pages in Heller did Scalia dedicate to establishing what the majority agreed to as the original, intended meaning?), which is then not necessarily universally agreed to (remember that even Scalia acknowledged that he and Thomas weren't always in agreement regarding original, intended meaning; concurring opinions) but simply accepted within the confines of the question posed and often disagreed with (dissents) in a given case, it can and has been argued that SCOTUS is acting in exactly the manner they declare... as an 'arbiter'... a person with power to decide a dispute; a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative.

I would argue that such is the very basis for which they are Constitutionally empowered. Remember, Article III, Section I... "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish..."

Judicial Power, as it has evolved and currently exists, is what you are getting at as opposed to original, intended meaning; i.e., the power the Judiciary has granted itself and which has been legislated by Congress...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
And most ironically, the only way the courts would be stripped of their power under those circumstances is through the very arms in the hands of the citizenry that we're discussing now.
I get that you (and others) want to change the power of the Judiciary as it is currently exercised, but such is well outside the confines of this case. In fact, it is what is feeding...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Then let me be more explicit. The entire point of any given direction of communication is to convey information as understood by the originator to the recipient(s). Obviously, each recipient can also communicate back, and this expectation of understanding would apply in that direction as well.
How does that resolve the clarity of what "to bear" means? As Scalia himself noted, it's something that will have to be determined (in future cases) as to what limitations are Constitutional. In other words, even Scalia is acknowledging that the original, intended meaning had yet to be established and this case will hopefully be a part of that process. (We don't need to keep going down the rabbit hole of it being interpretive, in many respects, as demonstrated by Scalia and Stevens in Heller.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
I'm not arguing that original intended meaning is a premise at all. I'm arguing that it is the sole legitimate meaning.
Which is, by definition, a premise...

Quote:
a statement or idea that is accepted as being true and that is used as the basis of an argument
Particularly as you further argue...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
So if you agree that the originator's intended meaning is the only meaning that is valid, then everything else I said follows from that...


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
What makes their interpretation arbitrary is the fact that it's not based on the originally intended meaning and therefore there is nothing to materially distinguish their choice of interpretation from any other.
Once again, you are offering your opinion as to the original, intended meaning as the de facto, solely accurate interpretation. As we saw in the 5/4 decision in Heller and as we have been repetitively discussing here, the interpretation you and I have is supported; but, as is argued, so is their's. What it hinges upon isn't 'arbitrary' so much as which source one chooses to emphasize. In fact, that's been one of the drum beats of criticism against the decision as penned by Scalia; i.e., that Scalia was overly selective in his sources and acontextually used material from those sources.

I don't agree, at least for the most part in that criticism. However, I do suspect that was part of the reason SCOTUS 'narrowed' the question in this, specific case. There was likely no desire to go that far down the road and wade through all that, again. It's precisely the reason so many are keeping their fingers crossed that we will see "to bear" applies outside the home; but, not necessarily anything definitive insofar as "manner of carry."

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
I can prove that the authors of the Constitution intended for the meaning of the Constitution to be fixed, and not dependent on the opinion of the reader: the existence of the amendment process. If the meaning of the Constitution were allowed to be anything the government wanted it to be, there would be no need for an amendment process in the first place. The only reason for an amendment process is if there is some wording in the Constitution that cannot be escaped, but the ability to interpret things as one wishes entirely bypasses that problem, and thus eliminates the reason for the amendment process. Hence, the amendment process' presence by itself shows that the authors expected the assigned meaning of the Constitution to be, to the degree possible, that which they intended.
You are not 'proving,' you are inferring and suggesting that your inference is 'proof.' Your inference is unique and not the 'traditional' reasoning ascribed; i.e., that the Founders knew the Constitution was not 'perfect' and that 'lack of perfection' is the very thing which has spawned many of the disputes the Judiciary is Constitutionally empowered to resolve, that the Legislature is Constitutionally empowered to address, that... Remember, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was a COMPROMISE as there were a number of competing intentions at the Convention. As I said before, such is at the core of the criticism of the Constitution as 'insufficient' to govern all those it must encompass and the basis of the perpetual 'balancing act' our society is engaged in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
I'm attempting to show that the original intended meaning of the Constitution is the only legitimate meaning it has, by referencing the methods of understanding that everyone uses, in part because the world forces them to. Failure to properly understand what someone else intended to mean causes, and has caused, untold problems. Wars have started because of it.

Call it truth or whatever you want, but the plain fact is that in the real world, people sometimes die if they fail to properly understand what someone else actually meant.
What you are ignoring is what you snipped out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
You and I have a different assessment (subjective means of interpreting) regarding what "limitations" (standards of accepted/acceptable application of the right in society) may be placed on "the right" than those on 'the other side.' Such is not 'arbitrary,' but it does come with consequences. Those consequences are, in fact, what informs how 'both sides' interpret "the right" and the acceptable application of "the right" and, ultimately, what we deem as 'valid/invalid.' But, that goes back to the previously linked reference...

Quote:
...Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not statements. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call a statement valid or invalid. True and false apply only to statements, not arguments. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call an argument true or false. All deductive arguments aspire to validity.

If you consider the definitions of validity and invalidity carefully, you'll note that valid arguments have the following important property: valid arguments preserve truth. If all your premises are true and you make a valid argument from them, it must be the case that whatever conclusion you obtain is true. (We shall see below, however, that valid arguments do not necessarily preserve truth value: it is entirely possible to argue validly from false premises to a true conclusion)...
You are attempting to convey our understanding as a "truth" which applies to everyone. Yet, the only "truths" to be explicitly declared "self-evident" are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, all of which are subjectively based on an individual's interpretation. Such is at the core of the criticism of the Constitution as 'insufficient' to govern all those it must encompass and the basis of the perpetual 'balancing act' our society is engaged in.
Remember...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
My argument is solely that the original intended meaning is the only meaning that is valid...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
I'm attempting to show that the original intended meaning of the Constitution is the only legitimate meaning...
...while 'valid' and 'legitimate' have similar meanings, they are not always synonymous, even legally.

Quote:
Legitimate [adjective] – Based on known statements or events or conditions... Valid [adjective] – Well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force...
As I indicated, what you are attempting to do is assert your interpretation (one I tend to agree with in the main, but not necessarily when it comes to distinguishing between the scope of the right vs. application of the right) as the premise of an argument for valid/legitimate adjudication of 2nd Amendment and other fundamental rights cases. Presumably, you intend such to be part of your proposed 'systemic restrictions' in your envisioned re-write of the Constitution. But, simply asserting your interpretation as valid/legitimate doesn't make it the only valid/legitimate interpretation or understanding of original, intended meaning. Neither does it make it the historic or traditional one. (Though I would argue that you have a certain amount of support as to the scope of the right from an historical perspective, you have some work to do in demonstrating a consistency in the tradition of the right as it has been applied.)

But, once again, we are drifting from the thread topic; though I have attempted to keep it tied in. So, I suggest we take this to a different thread if you want to continue in this vein.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-18-2021 at 8:18 PM..
  #1522  
Old 11-18-2021, 10:09 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
But, once again, we are drifting from the thread topic; though I have attempted to keep it tied in. So, I suggest we take this to a different thread [PMs] if you want to continue in this vein.
^^^FIFY^^^

Forcing every other forum member to make 15 full rolls of their scroll wheels. Just to get past YOUR LAST POST goes far beyond "WALL OF TEXT" EVEN FOR YOU!

You shooting for a personal record or what?
  #1523  
Old 11-18-2021, 10:47 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
^^^FIFY^^^

Forcing every other forum member to make 15 full rolls of their scroll wheels. Just to get past YOUR LAST POST goes far beyond "WALL OF TEXT" EVEN FOR YOU!

You shooting for a personal record or what?
Just addressing the issues presented directly to me; which is why I suggested we take this to another thread in that we have drifted away from the thread topic appreciably, though not entirely.

Now you invite me to add even more to the thread without actually addressing the topic?

BTW: Not my longest response and, as I have said, numerous times, it takes more than bumper sticker and/or Twitter length posts to unwind what was said and address it. Which, again, is why such discourse, should be taken to another thread, more in line with what is being promoted, in that it is becoming increasingly difficult to stay on topic due to the drift which has occurred and that you are now contributing to.
  #1524  
Old 11-18-2021, 11:17 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Just addressing the issues presented directly to me; which is why I suggested we take this to another thread in that we have drifted away from the thread topic appreciably, though not entirely.

Now you invite me to add even more to the thread without actually addressing the topic?

BTW: Not my longest response and, as I have said, numerous times, it takes more than bumper sticker and/or Twitter length posts to unwind what was said and address it. Which, again, is why such discourse, should be taken to another thread, more in line with what is being promoted, in that it is becoming increasingly difficult to stay on topic due to the drift which has occurred and that you are now contributing to.
Deflect blame onto others, all you want. Your keyboard compulsion remains all yours. The only thing I invited you to do, is take your 10,000 word waste of bandwidth to PMs.
  #1525  
Old 11-19-2021, 8:42 AM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't know if my analysis is better than that of others on this thread, but I can summarize it in fewer words:
1. Strict scrutiny explicitly allows courts to "balance" your Second Amendment rights against the government's "compelling interest" in finding an unending number of ways and reasons to restrict those rights
2. THT makes it harder (but certainly not impossible) for courts to twist and stretch to restrict gun rights
3. Once the Supreme Court sets out the details of how THT applies in a specific context, that interpretation of THT is established and binding on lower courts
4. To the extent the Supreme Court has not addressed specific details, the lower courts have some flexibility in applying THT to cases raising those specific details.
  #1526  
Old 11-19-2021, 9:07 AM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you, stoogesvc.
  #1527  
Old 11-19-2021, 10:10 PM
Ceemack Ceemack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 148
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
^^^FIFY^^^

Forcing every other forum member to make 15 full rolls of their scroll wheels. Just to get past YOUR LAST POST goes far beyond "WALL OF TEXT" EVEN FOR YOU!

You shooting for a personal record or what?
Just put him on your ignore list. Makes life a lot simpler.
  #1528  
Old 11-20-2021, 2:32 PM
pbreed pbreed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Monday

SCOTUS is releasing one or more opinions on Monday.
So in fantasy world...

Its 5-4 with Roberts in the 4. so Thomas gets to write the opinion.
He's really pissed off its taken so long to hear a 2a case...
He already wrote his opinion pre-emptively, so its ready now...

So its a scathing opinion saying some means of carry is required EVERYWHERE. The only sensitive places are places with 100% invasive screening and armed guards. No restrictions on weapon type are allowed.
If the military can have it so can the populace...
NFA is toast...

It will be here Monday at 10Am.

Such fantasy is free we can dream for a few days and costs nothing...
Unsure if this is more or less likely than winning powerball.
  #1529  
Old 11-20-2021, 3:32 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,018
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbreed View Post

...Thomas gets to write the opinion.
He's really pissed off its taken so long to hear a 2a case...
He already wrote his opinion pre-emptively, so its ready now...
I actually believe that part. I bet he's had an opinion in his files for years. I hope that his impatience links with the idea that justice delayed is justice denied and in the immortal words of Bruce Buffer, "IT'S TIME!' I HOPE that whoever writes it foresees all the other BS tricks that will be used to obstruct our rights and writes a very directive opinion that forecloses all or most of them.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
  #1530  
Old 11-21-2021, 5:59 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 450
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbreed View Post
SCOTUS is releasing one or more opinions on Monday.
So in fantasy world...

Its 5-4 with Roberts in the 4. so Thomas gets to write the opinion.
He's really pissed off its taken so long to hear a 2a case...
He already wrote his opinion pre-emptively, so its ready now...

So
While I too will pray to God that Thomas writes the opinion, Roberts would likely vote with the other five conservatives simply so he could prevent Thomas from writing the opinion. Roberts is primarily concerned with the image of the court and his ‘legacy’ as Chief Justice, so he would want to steer the opinion into a centrist and narrow interpretation. And its very likely the opinion won’t come until the very end of this term.
  #1531  
Old 11-21-2021, 9:44 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,234
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

That’s not really how it works. The opinion Roberts would write must get at least 4 others to sign on to the opinion.

If Roberts were to vote with a pro-2nd Amendment 6-3 majority and write a weak opinion, the other 5 would write or join a much stronger majority opinion and Roberts’ opinion becomes a concurring opinion.
  #1532  
Old 11-21-2021, 9:47 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
That’s not really how it works. The opinion Roberts would write must get at least 4 others to sign on to the opinion.

If Roberts were to vote with a pro-2nd Amendment 6-3 majority and write a weak opinion, the other 5 would write or join a much stronger majority opinion and Roberts’ opinion becomes a concurring opinion.
^^^^THIS^^^

The system is designed so that the Justice authoring a majority opinion is not able to use the opportunity as a "Bully Pulpit."
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
  #1533  
Old 11-21-2021, 12:46 PM
LoadedM333 LoadedM333 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sunny Diego, Kommiefornia
Posts: 1,687
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
^^^^THIS^^^

The system is designed so that the Justice authoring a majority opinion is not able to use the opportunity as a "Bully Pulpit."

Thanks for the explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA LifeTime Member
  #1534  
Old 11-21-2021, 1:02 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbreed View Post
SCOTUS is releasing one or more opinions on Monday.
So in fantasy world...
Too soon.

Even if the conservatives are in lock step, they will want to make sure each of their discrete and nuanced evaluations is represented. The liberals will lobby to soften and tailor the remarks and try to narrow the decision. Then they will spend a great deal of time writing the opposition statement to challenge every thesis posited in the majority opinion.

This will take a while.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
  #1535  
Old 11-21-2021, 1:08 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Too soon.

Even if the conservatives are in lock step, they will want to make sure each of their discrete and nuanced evaluations is represented. The liberals will lobby to soften and tailor the remarks and try to narrow the decision. Then they will spend a great deal of time writing the opposition statement to challenge every thesis posited in the majority opinion.

This will take a while.
^^^ALSO THIS^^^^

There is a lot of "massaging" that goes into the writing of an opinion, both to integrate, and balance, the opinions of the majority, and to address the dissenting opinions. This one is probably gonna require more of that effort than most. Look for it to come out at the end of the term.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
  #1536  
Old 11-21-2021, 3:05 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
There is a lot of "massaging" that goes into the writing of an opinion, both to integrate, and balance, the opinions of the majority, and to address the dissenting opinions. This one is probably gonna require more of that effort than most. Look for it to come out at the end of the term.
That'd be June, 2022, five months before the mid-terms. Given the Court's disposition on not being seen to interfere in elections, sometimes I wonder if an earlier release might be too much to wish for.
  #1537  
Old 11-21-2021, 7:26 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
That'd be June, 2022, five months before the mid-terms. Given the Court's disposition on not being seen to interfere in elections, sometimes I wonder if an earlier release might be too much to wish for.
The Court isn’t going to prioritize its opinion releases based on future election dates. Arguably more volatile is the Texas abortion case.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
  #1538  
Old 11-22-2021, 8:30 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The opinion released was Mississippi v. Tennessee, about pumping water from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer.

Gun rights are substantially less important to SCOTUS and will take their own time to materialize.
  #1539  
Old 11-22-2021, 12:26 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,018
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The decision was 9-0 so probably easy to write and get agreement.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
  #1540  
Old 11-24-2021, 12:57 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
The decision was 9-0 so probably easy to write and get agreement.
That's why the big contested cases get decided last. They don't just write an opinion, they have to respond to those who didn't join in their opinion.
  #1541  
Old 11-28-2021, 12:59 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
But, once again, we are drifting from the thread topic; though I have attempted to keep it tied in. So, I suggest we take this to a different thread if you want to continue in this vein.
New thread started on the subject here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1760468

I figured we could start "fresh", now that we've had some discussion on it, rather than merely continuing where we are here. Maybe the result will have greater clarity. Knowing how we both are, I suspect we'll both be posting walls of text, because that's how we both are, but it'll be fun regardless.
__________________
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.
  #1542  
Old 12-03-2021, 3:25 PM
Casoobaru Casoobaru is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any updates from the court? I looked at the new thread but its just more literal turd drinkers spewing their turd filled thoughts who don't bother to focus on anything but pure hair brained hypotheticals.
  #1543  
Old 12-03-2021, 3:53 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default They did with this one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The Court isn’t going to prioritize its opinion releases based on future election dates. Arguably more volatile is the Texas abortion case.
Oral arguments in this case were scheduled for the day after the NYC mayoral election. I'm certain they scheduled that way so that whatever happened at oral arguments would not become an issue in the election.

It looks like NY hasn't scheduled it's 2022 primary election yet. My bet would be that they release this decision the Monday after that election. Again, this is so that it doesn't become a last-minute disrupter of the election dynamic.

https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_elections,_2022

However, that may not work during a redistricting year. In 2012, New York didn't finalize it's maps until March of 2012. The primary election was September 2012, with the general election in November.

While contentious, I don't think this needs to be one that's saved until June. Sometimes they lump them all into June to get the controversial decisions out the door before going on summer vacation.

I'm sure that they will wait until after January 1st however, so that NYC has a new mayor as does Seattle and some other important races. This is one they won't hand to the incumbents to mess with on their way out.
  #1544  
Old 12-03-2021, 5:09 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,128
iTrader: 168 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
Oral arguments in this case were scheduled for the day after the NYC mayoral election. I'm certain they scheduled that way so that whatever happened at oral arguments would not become an issue in the election.

It looks like NY hasn't scheduled it's 2022 primary election yet. My bet would be that they release this decision the Monday after that election. Again, this is so that it doesn't become a last-minute disrupter of the election dynamic.

https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_elections,_2022

However, that may not work during a redistricting year. In 2012, New York didn't finalize it's maps until March of 2012. The primary election was September 2012, with the general election in November.

While contentious, I don't think this needs to be one that's saved until June. Sometimes they lump them all into June to get the controversial decisions out the door before going on summer vacation.

I'm sure that they will wait until after January 1st however, so that NYC has a new mayor as does Seattle and some other important races. This is one they won't hand to the incumbents to mess with on their way out.
It's such a political way to prove being apolitical...
__________________
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated.

DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292

Last edited by nick; 12-04-2021 at 3:37 PM..
  #1545  
Old 12-04-2021, 5:04 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
… Arguably more volatile is the Texas abortion case.
I was looking at SCOTUS’ calendar for June and in the last week there is only activity on Monday, the 27th. It’s a Non Argument Day, so it’s perfect for releasing opinions. But then I realized the same thing Dvrjon said: abortion is a far hotter topic than Bearing Arms. So while they still may release it on the 27th, I now doubt it. My guess is earlier in June, but I’d love to be surprised by an even earlier release.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

  #1546  
Old 12-04-2021, 8:25 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I was looking at SCOTUS’ calendar for June and in the last week there is only activity on Monday, the 27th. It’s a Non Argument Day, so it’s perfect for releasing opinions. But then I realized the same thing Dvrjon said: abortion is a far hotter topic than Bearing Arms. So while they still may release it on the 27th, I now doubt it. My guess is earlier in June, but I’d love to be surprised by an even earlier release.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

Does SCOTUS have to be IN SESSION to release opinions?
  #1547  
Old 12-05-2021, 3:59 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I was looking at SCOTUS’ calendar for June and in the last week there is only activity on Monday, the 27th. It’s a Non Argument Day, so it’s perfect for releasing opinions. But then I realized the same thing Dvrjon said: abortion is a far hotter topic than Bearing Arms. So while they still may release it on the 27th, I now doubt it. My guess is earlier in June, but I’d love to be surprised by an even earlier release.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

I think they can release multiple cases in one day. Even so, the last few days of the session will likely have our case released.
  #1548  
Old 12-05-2021, 5:37 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Does SCOTUS have to be IN SESSION to release opinions?
Yes. In fact, it reads its opinions in open court.
  #1549  
Old 12-06-2021, 12:42 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Yes. In fact, it reads its opinions in open court.
Thanks
  #1550  
Old 12-06-2021, 4:16 AM
mofugly13's Avatar
mofugly13 mofugly13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 885
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Yes. In fact, it reads its opinions in open court.
Really? So the entirety of the Heller opinion was read aloud? Wow.

I wonder if, as its being read (by the author of the opinion, I assume) they have moments like I did during an oral report....and hearing the actual words come out, think, oooh..maybe I should have worded that differently, made it more clear.....

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety."
A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.
  #1551  
Old 12-06-2021, 6:00 AM
Flyron's Avatar
Flyron Flyron is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 439
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case - NYSRPA v. Bruen — Decision before 2022 July 4th

If they release any opinion late June, then the 4th of July may be more of a celebration.
  #1552  
Old 12-29-2021, 2:37 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Yes. In fact, it reads its opinions in open court.
It does not. The author of the majority (or controlling) opinion reads a brief summary of the facts, holding, and reasoning, but not the full opinion.

Relatively rarely, the author of a dissent will read his or her dissenting opinion in full.
  #1553  
Old 01-13-2022, 9:01 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I was looking at SCOTUS’ calendar for June and in the last week there is only activity on Monday, the 27th. It’s a Non Argument Day, so it’s perfect for releasing opinions. But then I realized the same thing Dvrjon said: abortion is a far hotter topic than Bearing Arms. So while they still may release it on the 27th, I now doubt it. My guess is earlier in June, but I’d love to be surprised by an even earlier release.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

You'll find the court's calendar is malleable in the month of June. Opinion days can pop up on very short notice on days not scheduled for opinions or orders.
  #1554  
Old 01-16-2022, 8:36 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reno,NV
Posts: 2,027
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

iirc both heller and mcdonald decisions were released at the end of june.
it was torture then, the waiting - they do not seem to be in any hurry to let the hoi polloi enjoy inalienable rights imo
__________________
NRA Life Member
  #1555  
Old 01-16-2022, 9:23 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,018
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm hoping Thomas gets to write it.

I'm also hoping the decision takes a more global results oriented approach, rather than a narrow process oriented approach. If all they do is say GC cannot be required, it will take about an hour and a half for CA, NY and others to find a dozen new ways to continue to infringe, just like states did over voting rights in the Jim Crow era. The only approach that will get us our rights in practice is some sort of global edict that says something like, "Any law, regulation, or procedure that interferes with the right of a non-felon to carry a firearm in public in some manner is unconstitutional."
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
  #1556  
Old 01-17-2022, 1:24 AM
SilveradoColt21's Avatar
SilveradoColt21 SilveradoColt21 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,419
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyron View Post
If they release any opinion late June, then the 4th of July may be more of a celebration.
I agree, it will make all those fireworks that much sweeter
  #1557  
Old 01-27-2022, 12:02 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The case is discussed with the head of the NYSRPA from ~15 to 35 min at


https://youtu.be/z1NxHO3HP0k
  #1559  
Old 01-28-2022, 3:32 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,018
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not that I think the balance of states on one side or the other matters much, but its a nice gesture.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
  #1560  
Old 01-28-2022, 7:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Bottom line;

Quote:
Following the change in Administration on January 15, 2022, the Attorney General has reconsidered Virginia’s position in this case. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that Virginia no longer adheres to the arguments contained in its previously filed brief. Virginia is now of the view that New York’s handgun permit regime is irreconcilable with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which secures an individual right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense.
Closed Thread

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 3:12 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy