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
  #81  
Old 01-22-2019, 7:49 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,667
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this case just about transport or does it include any assault weapon/magazine items? (Also when I say 'just', I don't mean 'just'....)
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:00 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,800
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Well, we might just get our locked and unloaded transportation. :/
This.

This seems like a very narrow and not very exciting case to me. They can simply rule that NY has to allow people to transport unloaded guns in locked cases between specified destinations, just like what we have in California. Maybe I'm wrong and it could be more substantial?
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:22 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
This.

This seems like a very narrow and not very exciting case to me. They can simply rule that NY has to allow people to transport unloaded guns in locked cases between specified destinations, just like what we have in California. Maybe I'm wrong and it could be more substantial?
On the surface, yes it appears this case has a narrow scope that doesn't currently apply to us (Californians).

But the Court could use the opportunity to clarify how the 2A gets treated (in general) with regards to state and local laws.

Since Heller seems to be getting treated as "open to interpretation", this case could perhaps end some of the mis-interpretation that's been occurring in the lower courts for the last 9 years.

Or, at the very least, a win would prevent CA from implementing a future law similar to NYC's. Anything that helps rein in the CA government's ability to pass new restrictions is a good win, in my books.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-22-2019 at 8:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:24 AM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The court could use the opportunity to clarify how the 2A gets treated (in general) with regards to state and local laws.
I shan't be arresting my respiration.

Nevertheless a win at SCOTUS (which this really has to be when it comes down) is still a win at SCOTUS, so I'm not going to complain.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:25 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,884
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
It’s going full on. There is going to be a lot coming from Clarence Thomas on this who I think will write the opinion.

It’s clear Kennedy was the log jam now. Look for Thomas to set 2A precedent.
I believe this true too. In John Paul Steven’s memoir he stated that he prereleased his Heller dissent and it caused Scalia to change some language in order for Kennedy to stay on board. So there’s been two theories floated, the majority feels Heller and McDonald are enough, or neither side thought they had Kennedy. After Steven’s remarks it seems likely the latter is the situation, and that’s especially true since cert. was granted on this case. How far Roberts is willing to go, I’m not sure.

It's possible that Roberts is not too big on the second opinion either, but if his feet are put to the fire he will vote conservative. He's clearly willing to go farther than Kennedy but how far I am not sure. The three big cases are Carry, Assault Weapon Bans, and Magazine Capacity. Robert's clearly loves and idealizes the courts public perception. I think the lower courts behavior for the past 6 years has probably really bothered him. Think about it, they've completely rejected the majority opinion in McDonald and Heller which throws out interesting balance tests. Instead they adopted the minority opinions from Steven's and Breyer which believe interesting balance test should be the way 2A cases are decided. On top of that they have not even applied intermediate balance honestly. Besides pre-civil war, I do not know of any time that the courts so willingly, openly, and effectively told SCOTUS to **** off.

Last edited by wireless; 01-22-2019 at 8:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:28 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
I have to think next session is more likely, considering the potential significance.

Am I right in thinking that while the facts of the case are “locked and unloaded,” the Court could use this opportunity to define strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review for 2A?
That would overturn Heller's common usage standard.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:45 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,884
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Here's a gem in the cert petition. Hopefully SCOTUS addresses the standard of review issue:

Quote:
Moreover, even though New York’s ordinance stands alone, it does not mean that the circuits are not in disarray. The City does not and cannot explain why New York City should be allowed to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges outside city limits if it is unconstitutional for Chicago to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges inside city limits. See Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 697 (7th Cir. 2011). The need for this Court’s intervention and further clarification of the proper analysis of various efforts to treat that right like no other constitutional right is acute.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:57 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 826
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
That would overturn Heller's common usage standard.
The Supreme Court could simply say that lower courts have ignored the common-use methodology and been openly hostile to its meaning and therefore strict scrutiny is the remedy.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:14 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,160
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
This.

This seems like a very narrow and not very exciting case to me. They can simply rule that NY has to allow people to transport unloaded guns in locked cases between specified destinations, just like what we have in California. Maybe I'm wrong and it could be more substantial?
Ideally, they use this to address the standard of review. Could be wishful thinking on my part.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:15 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
This.

This seems like a very narrow and not very exciting case to me. They can simply rule that NY has to allow people to transport unloaded guns in locked cases between specified destinations, just like what we have in California. Maybe I'm wrong and it could be more substantial?
Again: I'm getting ready to sell a house and move by spring, so I'm going be mostly passive re. this case (i.e., not keeping up with everything, not knowing all the details), so take this with a HUGE grain of salt....

Just going by the "Question Presented" section of the petition (2018 Sept 04 See https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html), I'd say this could be a VERY important case. Heller said there's two rights in the 2nd A: RKA and RBA. Focus on the 2nd paragraph in the Q Presented section: under which prong do you think this case will be decided? My guess is RBA. That will be a first for SCOTUS. (By implication: this case is unlikely to be of any help re. "keep"-ing (making, buying/selling, owning/possessing, using) standard cap mags, AWs, suppressors, AOWs, SBR/SBS, etc)

My guess is they'll (hopefully via Thomas' pen as his "swan song" next year) first step back and do a historical analysis of the RBA, to get a lay of the legal landscape. Like in Heller, we may win "something more than rationale basis" (paraphrased, not exact quote) as the standard of review for RBA out of that. But most of this will be dicta (where people like Nichols will see law...). I haven't decided if they'll get more specific than that re. standard of review for RBA (much less RKBA).

Then they'll clearly identify the relevant law that applies to these specific facts and then come up with the suitable holding. The holding will be, to use CCWFacts' wording: "very narrow and not very exciting."

Will we get something from the intermediate step of identifying and proclaiming the suitable law to help us with RBA (CCWs or LOC) in CA??? That's anyone's guess at this point. My guess is nothing directly (i.e., by just citing this case), but something that can be used in our Carry cases still before lower appeals courts (en banc and 3-judge panels). Those ACs will then declare the law and deciding those cases before we get a direct ruling by SCOTUS on RBA. Even if those ACs are not CA9 (i.e., not controlling law), they may influence district or appeals court judges in CA9 to rule in our favor.

That's just my "off the cuff" impression, thoughts of how this may play out. IOW, do NOT dismiss this case out-of-hand.

But once again, I'll leave it to others to look into and watch this case closely. (FGG? Hello???)

How do I feel about SCOTUS taking this case, then?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-22-2019 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:23 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unloaded in a locked case carry - how exciting.


Well, at least some chance at some limits on stupidity enforced.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:32 AM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 287
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
I have to think next session is more likely, considering the potential significance.
Per SCOTUSBlog (and I haven't checked myself), the court's calendar is full for this term, meaning that it will probably be heard in the fall with a decision likely in early 2020.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:38 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canopis View Post
Meaning that it will probably be heard in the fall with a decision likely in early 2020.
Hopefully the witch will be gone by then.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:41 AM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canopis View Post
Per SCOTUSBlog (and I haven't checked myself), the court's calendar is full for this term, meaning that it will probably be heard in the fall with a decision likely in early 2020.
Probably very good timing.

Increases the chances of RBG leaving.

If we have only a slim majority a narrow victory -- if we have a broader majority a wider victory.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:53 AM
MisterX9 MisterX9 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default How Important?

Thinkprogress an anti 2nd Amendment site thinks it's pretty important and I think their analysis is correct:

"New York State Rifle in other words, is a huge case because it concerns a tiny issue. If the Supreme Court is willing to declare that even very minor burdens on gun owners violate the Constitution, then it is unclear what can still be done to prevent gun violence."

If this case scares our enemies I like it.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-22-2019, 9:57 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterX9 View Post
Thinkprogress an anti 2nd Amendment site thinks it's pretty important and I think their analysis is correct:

"New York State Rifle in other words, is a huge case because it concerns a tiny issue. If the Supreme Court is willing to declare that even very minor burdens on gun owners violate the Constitution, then it is unclear what can still be done to prevent gun violence."

If this case scares our enemies I like it.
Rustling leaves in wind scare them. What we need is a solid carry case. Not transporting in a locked box outside city limits case.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:10 AM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 176
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Cert granted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/u...c-license.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:17 AM
MisterX9 MisterX9 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Rustling leaves in wind scare them. What we need is a solid carry case. Not transporting in a locked box outside city limits case."

I'm sorry. You are just plain wrong. First, we need a Right to Bear Arms case. Second, we need a strong standard of scrutiny case. If the Second gets slapped down for it's bogus heightened scrutiny hand job then it will trickle down to the benefit of ALL 2nd Amendment cases. The court is much more likely to put that hammer down on a case where the lower court used "bad faith logic" in the most extreme way. This is the most extreme example of an Anti Second Amendment ruling in the country. The very fact that it is an unloaded, locked box, city limits case is what makes it perfect for the SCOTUS majority to use it to push de fang the SCOTUS minority and capture Roberts.

THERE IS A REASON THEY TOOK THIS CASE.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:18 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterX9 View Post
I'm sorry. You are just plain wrong.
No, I am not.

Transport unloaded in a locked box case can do more harm to us than good. It may enshrine otherwise draconian restrictions and do nothing for any practical purposes. We need a CARRY case, not TRANSPORT case.

Last edited by Offwidth; 01-22-2019 at 10:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:26 AM
MisterX9 MisterX9 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I listed my reasoning. What is yours? A lot of pretty smart legal minds are behind the case. I'm curious why this concerns you so much?

At the very least it shows that the current majority will grant cert in a 2A case. That in itself is significant.

You seem to want a Silver Bullet case but the Court seldom grants those.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:27 AM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 176
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Cert granted 1-22-19

My initial thought is this is very good no matter how we choose to look at it. SCOTUS finally took a 2A case. New York’s law is a blatant Constitutional violation. We now know that somewhere out there is a line that got crossed by the anti-gunners who are testing the limits.

The biggest question is what will SCOTUS address? Will they address the New York law on its face? Or will they use this case to try to reel in the lower courts? After all, this case currently stands on Second CIrcuit’s twisted legal gymnastics boiled in a soup of diluted Intermediate Scrutiny.

Now we watch and wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:28 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,884
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
No, I am not.

Transport unloaded in a locked box case can do more harm to us than good. It may enshrine otherwise draconian restrictions and do nothing for any practical purposes. We need a CARRY case, not TRANSPORT case.
Unless they clarify how 2A cases must be scrutinized, which could have a ripple effect on other issues- magazine ban, carry, awb, etc. you’re assuming they are going to make a super narrow like they did in Caentano. If that was the case, I doubt they would have granted cert in the first place. Roberts isn’t the most reliable, but I’m not quite sure why you don’t grasp how significant this is after the past 10 years.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:31 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterX9 View Post
I listed my reasoning. What is yours? A lot of pretty smart legal minds are behind the case. I'm curious why this concerns you so much?
I have listed them as well.

Smart minds are playing a game of giving a little bit, while enshrining " long-standing customary" restrictions. You all bought it.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:32 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Caetano did not help us in CA one bit. Still roster, still AW ban, still no carry.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:39 AM
MisterX9 MisterX9 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well California like New York has dug itself an anti 2nd Amendment hole that most of its voters like just fine. If you analysis rises and falls on whether any given litigation is going to save California from its own self induced stupidity and tyranny right here and right now then you aren't likely to see value in much.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:45 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,884
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Caetano did not help us in CA one bit. Still roster, still AW ban, still no carry.
Riiiight. Did you actually read my post?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:01 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This case has several potential avenues for a decision. One which I semi-dread is RBA.

If the SCOTUS determines that there is a RBA outside the home, then the lower court decision violates it by prohibiting NYC residents from bearing arms past a specific point (after which the City has no jurisdiction anyway).

What I dread is if the SCOTUS then deems it acceptable to allow States to "regulate" how/when/where arms are borne. If they do that we're screwed. And I mean BIG TIME SCREWED.

If States are allowed to regulate the manner of bearing arms, then they will immediately regulate the method to unloaded and locked up and nothing else, not even a CCW permit. Thus, "absent a permit issued by your state of residency" which you won't be able to get, you may only bear arms pursuant to your State regulations. Which will be an onerous as possible even to the point of ridiculousness and contradiction.

This would completely eviscerate the 2A and any hope of ever bearing arms in public by anyone unless the State Constitution contains a clause prohibiting the State from limiting/prohibiting the RKBA.

Amici need to be EXTREMELY careful in their briefs to let SCOTUS know that allowing States to individually determine the standard of bearing arms is a slippery slope which will only lead to gutting the 2A and any decision by SCOTUS on the Amendment. When there is a Federal RKBA, allowing States to regulate that Right is tantamount to abdication of the Constitution.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:16 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
What I dread is if the SCOTUS then deems it acceptable to allow States to "regulate" how/when/where arms are borne. If they do that we're screwed. And I mean BIG TIME SCREWED.
Wouldn't that just be the status quo? States already do that.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-22-2019 at 11:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:19 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,884
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Do you really think four conservative justices would have voted to hear this case if they thought that was a realistic outcome? Not even the four liberals would expect Roberts to vote for that. This case will be Caentano or have teeth. I highly doubt it will set us back.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:57 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
This.

This seems like a very narrow and not very exciting case to me. They can simply rule that NY has to allow people to transport unloaded guns in locked cases between specified destinations, just like what we have in California.
This. We'll get a narrow, boring and useless per curiam. At best, we'll get a narrow, boring and CA-useless decision with a concurrence from Thomas stating how "more needs to be done to protect the 2A and clarify Heller".

Yawn.

The only reason this case was chosen is because by it's very nature it is so neutered as to be harmless. So what if 4 people in Manhattan can now drive to PA to go shooting? Not even the Brady Bunch are going to GAF about this, but they'll assign someone to write an amicus brief in opposition just to stay in practice in the unlikely event an important case actually happens.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:06 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Does anyone actually know which justices voted to grant this case cert?

That information would be critical to know before we jump to conclusions about why it was granted cert.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:13 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,884
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Does anyone actually know which justices voted to grant this case cert?

That information would be critical to know before we jump to conclusions about why it was granted cert.
We do not, but it's reasonable to assume four would not vote for the case unless they thought they had a fifth vote. I think Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito are much smarter than that.

I understand why people think the end result may be lackluster, but this case has huge potential with far sweeping implications. This is very exciting if we look at the past ten years. The Roberts pessimism has merit but is also premature.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:16 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I understand why people think the end result may be lackluster, but this case has huge potential with far sweeping implications. This is very exciting if we look at the past ten years. The Roberts pessimism has merit but is also premature.
I share your opinion on that. On the surface, it looks like a boring case. But the majority opinion that we'll ultimeately get (probably in early 2020) could be painted with a much broader brush. Unfortunately we can't know until we've all spent the next 12-18 months speculating about what it all could mean

In a way, we've already won something. We've got a SCOTUS that once again, finally, has said they WILL hear 2nd amendment cases. Thus ending 9 years of speculation that we'll never see them take one again in our lifetimes.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-22-2019 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:18 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Does anyone actually know which justices voted to grant this case cert?

That information would be critical to know before we jump to conclusions about why it was granted cert.
Nope. But logic suggests a way out draconian law is something the 4 liberals would not want to grant cert to.
A far reaching public carry of machine guns case would be one they would want to review.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:28 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Do you really think four conservative justices would have voted to hear this case if they thought that was a realistic outcome? Not even the four liberals would expect Roberts to vote for that. This case will be Caentano or have teeth. I highly doubt it will set us back.
It won't set us back (we won't lose IMO), except for a narrow win that does nothing other than knock down the one-of-a-kind law here and SCOTUS decides that's enough 2A cases for another decade.
There are arguments on the Commerce Clause and right-to-travel, I wonder if the libs may try to wipe out the 2A argument by trying to make a unanimous ruling against NYC based on these arguments only.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:32 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Nope. But logic suggests a way out draconian law is something the 4 liberals would not want to grant cert to.
A far reaching public carry of machine guns case would be one they would want to review.
probably true.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:41 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

When Heller cert was granted, it was about some revolver or something else, in one city, that would only allow one guy to register or own just that one gun...

Except, we got "2A is a fundamental individual right" out of it...

Now, think about what this case will be about. Transport in NY or something about the right outside the home?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:52 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
When Heller cert was granted, it was about some revolver or something else, in one city, that would only allow one guy to register or own just that one gun...

Except, we got "2A is a fundamental individual right" out of it...

Now, think about what this case will be about. Transport in NY or something about the right outside the home?
Except that it was DC, which is a special case all by itself. I'm not sure that anything equally expansive could come from this case, even if the Conservative Majority wants to spend some time clarifying "bear," it will not be in a "shall issue everywhere" kind of way.

Again, I feel that it's a win and I'll take what I can get... but personally I wish they'd focus on "arms" because I really think that's at much greater risk.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:55 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems some of us have not read the case. The court concisely summed it up here on the grant.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...18-00280qp.pdf

Quote:
QUESTION PRESENTED:
New York City prohibits its residents from possessing a handgun without a license, and the only license the City makes available to most residents allows its holder to possess her handgun only in her home or en route to one of seven shooting ranges within the city. The City thus bans its residents from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits-even if the handgun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition, and even if the owner seeks to transport it only to a second home for the core constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense, or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting range to hone its safe and effective use.
The City asserts that its transport ban promotes public safety by limiting the presence of handguns on city streets. But the City put forth no empirical evidence that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in a container separate from its ammunition, poses a meaningful risk to public safety. Moreover, even if there were such a risk, the City's restriction poses greater safety risks by encouraging residents who are leaving town to leave their handguns behind in vacant homes, and it serves only to increase the frequency of handgun transport within city limits by forcing many residents to use an in- city range rather than more convenient ranges elsewhere.
Quote:

The question presented is:
Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 01-22-2019 at 12:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-22-2019, 1:00 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,661
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
if the Conservative Majority wants to spend some time clarifying "bear," it will not be in a "shall issue everywhere" kind of way.
I'm sure it won't be that expansive, too. But we could get, for example, a clarification that states and localities aren't allowed to restrict vehicle transportation of lawfully-owned firearms.

Think about our destination requirements for Assault Weapons, the unloaded rifle/shotgun requirement, and the handgun locked container requirement, as a few examples.
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 4:11 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.