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
  #1321  
Old 10-07-2019, 3:42 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I have no idea what will be in the decision. OTOH, the odds for a favorable decision just went through the roof.

Anything from FOPA controls, to public carry (with or without restrictions), to reiterating the required level of scrutiny will be fine with me.

Why?

Because Constitutional Rights WIN! no matter what the court decides as long as it's in favor of obeying the founding documents and intentions of the framers.


Jefferson:
Quote:
Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them
https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...erson-memorial

So why was Plessy v. Ferguson struck down, and stare decisis thrown out the window?

Hamilton on Immigration:

Quote:
If the rights of Naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of their intention to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the Message, would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty.
https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../01-25-02-0282
How’s that 1965 immigration act, and the injunctions against Trump turning out? 14th amendment?

Edit; misunderstood the meaning of original post. I’m dubious if the original intention of the founders will be held to- maybe the result will, but intentionality I doubt. The second amendment is definitely not about personal self defense. The practical implications do encompass self defense, but as a group defense against Tyranny from a non-centralized militia, the self-defense focus of Heller isn’t accurate. Helpful to us, but not accurate. Of course, my original point is that the original intentions of the founders is basically irrelevant now, and nearly everyone on the right and left accepts as a premise the founders were wrong in their original meaning and intentions.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 10-07-2019 at 4:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1322  
Old 10-07-2019, 6:17 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,035
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I want to hear KCBrowns opinion on this...what's his view on today's events.
Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 10-07-2019, 6:21 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post

Edit; misunderstood the meaning of original post. I’m dubious if the original intention of the founders will be held to- maybe the result will, but intentionality I doubt. The second amendment is definitely not about personal self defense. The practical implications do encompass self defense, but as a group defense against Tyranny from a non-centralized militia, the self-defense focus of Heller isn’t accurate. Helpful to us, but not accurate. Of course, my original point is that the original intentions of the founders is basically irrelevant now, and nearly everyone on the right and left accepts as a premise the founders were wrong in their original meaning and intentions.
Here is my take on this:

Self defense is a natural right, cannot be given by a government. A government can try to take it away, in which why the founders enumerated the right to keep and bear arms to balance the power between the people and the government.
Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 10-08-2019, 4:00 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Great great news!

The Supreme Court has a fantastic opportunity to not only rein in the anti-gun defiance of the Lower Federal Courts but also cut off at the knees the anti-gun agitation of the Democrats which has the potential of endangering the Republic.

Whichever way the Court eventually rules, it isn't going to be a nothingburger. It's going to be a big big deal. The context of our times, the stakes of 2020 make it so.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #1325  
Old 10-08-2019, 6:16 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post


Jefferson:

https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...erson-memorial

So why was Plessy v. Ferguson struck down, and stare decisis thrown out the window?

Hamilton on Immigration:


https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../01-25-02-0282
How’s that 1965 immigration act, and the injunctions against Trump turning out? 14th amendment?

Edit; misunderstood the meaning of original post. I’m dubious if the original intention of the founders will be held to- maybe the result will, but intentionality I doubt. The second amendment is definitely not about personal self defense. The practical implications do encompass self defense, but as a group defense against Tyranny from a non-centralized militia, the self-defense focus of Heller isn’t accurate. Helpful to us, but not accurate. Of course, my original point is that the original intentions of the founders is basically irrelevant now, and nearly everyone on the right and left accepts as a premise the founders were wrong in their original meaning and intentions.

Really? You believe that the intent of the framers and founders is somehow found in specifics rather than generalities?

Our Constitution is written in generalities. It's deliberately broad and without exactness as to what it encompasses. It was written like this because the founders knew that society changes and today's views may not be tomorrow's. However, the constraints on government toward the people shouldn't ever change regardless of the winds of a ever altering social order.

Our government is limited to what it is allowed to do. This limit applies whether women have the Right to Vote or not, whether consumption of alcohol is legal or not, or whether the people can bear arms outside their homes or not.

That in the early years of this nation society held differing views toward each other as individuals is irrelevant to whether GOVERNMENT can infringe on the liberties which are supposed to apply to all. Thus, your points about race and racism have no point at all.
__________________
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
  #1326  
Old 10-08-2019, 6:23 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Just thought I'd point out something...

...SCOTUS while keeping to the later scheduled hearing, SCOTUS did leave the door open for further discussion of mootness - including reminding parties to be prepared.

NYC can prepare for their oral arguments by implementing another change in the law - in a further attempt to moot.

Just thought I'd toss that out there...

=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
  #1327  
Old 10-08-2019, 7:22 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
.
.
.

Edit; misunderstood the meaning of original post. I’m dubious if the original intention of the founders will be held to- maybe the result will, but intentionality I doubt. The second amendment is definitely not about personal self defense. The practical implications do encompass self defense, but as a group defense against Tyranny from a non-centralized militia, the self-defense focus of Heller isn’t accurate. Helpful to us, but not accurate. Of course, my original point is that the original intentions of the founders is basically irrelevant now, and nearly everyone on the right and left accepts as a premise the founders were wrong in their original meaning and intentions.
Well, sorta.

Everyone was in the militia and it was in that context that the individual's right to keep and bear arms was recognized as fundamental.

The problem is that the government now views the militia as generally undesirable unless directly controlled by them. But this does not mean that the individual right to keep and bear arms does not persist.

No, the right persists despite the perversion of governments. It is fundamental.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1328  
Old 10-08-2019, 8:21 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,754
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Self defense is a stand alone right (or perhaps subsidiary to right to life). Self defense while using arms is protected under 2A. It's not semantics.
Reply With Quote
  #1329  
Old 10-08-2019, 8:57 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Self defense is a stand alone right (or perhaps subsidiary to right to life). Self defense while using arms is protected under 2A. It's not semantics.
I'm not sure I'd be disagreeing with you but the way I'd say it is:

The right to self-defense is fundamental and cannot be revoked. The Constitution/2A was written to ensure that the RKBA is understood to be a part of that right to self defense.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1330  
Old 10-08-2019, 9:11 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,679
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post

...SCOTUS while keeping to the later scheduled hearing, SCOTUS did leave the door open for further discussion of mootness - including reminding parties to be prepared.
It's also entirely plausible that SCOTUS may wish for NYC to muster every conceivable argument FOR mootness in order to officially, publicly smack them down in a display to others who want to play this kind of shell-game with a specifically enumerated fundamental right. So they don't have to worry about such nonsense in the future. My sense of it is that SCOTUS is tired of people playing political games and wants to see the courts come back to executing good constitutional jurisprudence instead of playing political games. There are 3 branches of government and they are tired of having to play referee on every politically divisive issue to come down the pike... courts are supposed to be above that kind of petty nonsense... meaning the courts are supposed to call foul on the political games, not participate in them.

This is a trap IMHO and let's hope NYC walks right into it.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.

Last edited by bruss01; 10-08-2019 at 9:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1331  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:02 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 7,426
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
It's also entirely plausible that SCOTUS may wish for NYC to muster every conceivable argument FOR mootness in order to officially, publicly smack them down in a display to others who want to play this kind of shell-game with a specifically enumerated fundamental right. So they don't have to worry about such nonsense in the future. My sense of it is that SCOTUS is tired of people playing political games and wants to see the courts come back to executing good constitutional jurisprudence instead of playing political games. There are 3 branches of government and they are tired of having to play referee on every politically divisive issue to come down the pike... courts are supposed to be above that kind of petty nonsense... meaning the courts are supposed to call foul on the political games, not participate in them.

This is a trap IMHO and let's hope NYC walks right into it.
I think this is the most likely route. There is no reason to continue to hear the case, ask them specifically to talk about the moot issue at the case, and not work that into the ruling.

NYC has very likely screwed the anti-gun movement in a major way. If they thought they had a chance in hell, they wouldn't have played the game they did by changing the law at the last minute. I think that game will also come to cost them in a big way.
__________________
For Sale: 3 M1 Garands, 3 91/30s, Lithgow SMLE, Sino Chinese Type 56 SKS

For Sale: USFA SAA, S&W Model 27, Colt Police Positive .38 $325

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
eh why bring logic into this, that makes too much sense... besides when you have bested a fool, you have accomplished nothing and he is a fool.
Reply With Quote
  #1332  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:02 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 168
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
It's also entirely plausible that SCOTUS may wish for NYC to muster every conceivable argument FOR mootness in order to officially, publicly smack them down in a display to others who want to play this kind of shell-game with a specifically enumerated fundamental right. So they don't have to worry about such nonsense in the future. My sense of it is that SCOTUS is tired of people playing political games and wants to see the courts come back to executing good constitutional jurisprudence instead of playing political games. There are 3 branches of government and they are tired of having to play referee on every politically divisive issue to come down the pike... courts are supposed to be above that kind of petty nonsense... meaning the courts are supposed to call foul on the political games, not participate in them.
Agree. If SCOTUS intended to seriously entertain mootness, they would have done so already and moved on to other things on their rather full schedule. This indicates that Roberts is on-board for a favorable decision and very likely not a narrow one. He's had every opportunity to punt it with "mootness" cover.
Reply With Quote
  #1333  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:41 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3,859
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Anyone know who the poor sap is that gets to argue for NYC?
Reply With Quote
  #1334  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:01 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 698
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think that since mootness is dispositive if granted, and a death knell to NYC if denied, the Court is merely allowing argument to accord due process. I can't read anything else into it.
Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 10-08-2019, 2:25 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Really? You believe that the intent of the framers and founders is somehow found in specifics rather than generalities?
Uh, yes, I believe when people are being specific they are being clearer about what they think and want than when they talk in generalities. Only a law school or other critical legal study could pervert logic to mean otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Our Constitution is written in generalities. It's deliberately broad and without exactness as to what it encompasses. It was written like this because the founders knew that society changes and today's views may not be tomorrow's. However, the constraints on government toward the people shouldn't ever change regardless of the winds of a ever altering social order.
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and [bold]our Posterity,[/bold] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Seems pretty specific to me what the constitution was intended for- it even says who it’s intended for. What does posterity mean again? Something about a proposition nation or some other nebulous, hard to define group everyone can be a part of, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Our government is limited to what it is allowed to do. This limit applies whether women have the Right to Vote or not, whether consumption of alcohol is legal or not, or whether the people can bear arms outside their homes or not.
Yes, women were not allowed to vote and it took an amendment- a very high bar- to actually change the constitution and affirmatively take the position the founders were WRONG to make that change. Just as the 14th amendment was an explicit repudiation of the original founding document and intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
That in the early years of this nation society held differing views toward each other as individuals is irrelevant to whether GOVERNMENT can infringe on the liberties which are supposed to apply to all. Thus, your points about race and racism have no point at all.
The original view of the founders was to allow a communist state to be allowed next to an anarchocapitalist state next to a catholic theocracy state. There were basically NO impositions on states aside from interstate commerce that slowly started to swallow everything; and in fact the decentralization and true freedom of states to set policy was considered a necessity. The 1861 national conversation and subsequent incorporation saw the death of home rule in any significant way. John C Calhoun’s nullification doctrine sounded crazy to me until I looked to see California engaging in the same doctrine, and the conservatives defending using original language.

The point is, the original intentions of the founders are in fact a concrete doctrine of originalism, and the actual original thoughts and desires of the founders are anathema to most on the right and left. Though the left is starting to get behind segregation, nullification, and the rest. Regardless, the actual desired outcomes- both in private correspondence and even IN the constitution- are abjectly rejected by both sides. Which is why originalism is a silly argument because very few people actually wish to abide by such.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1336  
Old 10-09-2019, 7:33 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
Anyone know who the poor sap is that gets to argue for NYC?
Hopefully, the city pool attorney who gets all the cases that the "big wigs" in the pool don't want.

=8-)

Think the Hawaiian attorney who hung himself with his own rope while Mr. Beck sat quietly nearby with an expressionless face.

=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
  #1337  
Old 10-09-2019, 7:51 AM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
Anyone know who the poor sap is that gets to argue for NYC?
IANAL, but doesn't whoever argues it have to be admitted to argue before the Supreme Court?

I don't know how exclusive that club is, but it might narrow down who is currently employed by NY and can make the argument. OTOH, they might want to hire outside counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #1338  
Old 10-09-2019, 7:56 AM
NATO762 NATO762 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Which is why originalism is a silly argument because very few people actually wish to abide by such.
Not to drag this thread (further) off topic. But no. You do not speak for me, or for the majority. The founders chose their words carefully, and gave mechanisms (amendments) for changing those words as necessary. Give me Originalism or give me Death

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean? -- Antonin Scalia

Last edited by NATO762; 10-09-2019 at 8:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1339  
Old 10-09-2019, 8:02 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3,859
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Hopefully, the city pool attorney who gets all the cases that the "big wigs" in the pool don't want.

=8-)

Think the Hawaiian attorney who hung himself with his own rope while Mr. Beck sat quietly nearby with an expressionless face.

=8-)
Hopefully. But I suspect bloomberg and the anti gun brigade wont let that happen unless their options are limited. It seems it would really take a special person to argue the nonsense they are dishing along with dealing with the onslaught from the states mutness nonsense, that appears they will be forced to face.
Reply With Quote
  #1340  
Old 10-09-2019, 8:49 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NATO762 View Post
What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean? -- Antonin Scalia
Haha, I hadn't heard that quote before, did he really say that? That's awesome
Reply With Quote
  #1341  
Old 10-09-2019, 9:18 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NATO762 View Post
Not to drag this thread (further) off topic. But no. You do not speak for me, or for the majority. The founders chose their words carefully, and gave mechanisms (amendments) for changing those words as necessary. Give me Originalism or give me Death

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean? -- Antonin Scalia
Quote:
In a 1989 article, Justice Antonin Scalia famously described himself as a “fainthearted originalist,” By which he meant that he would sometimes vote against the outcome dictated by the original meaning of the Constitution if strong precedential, moral, or other considerations cut the other way.
http://volokh.com/2013/10/07/justice...d-originalism/
Quote:
Whenever liberals want to argue that Clarence Thomas is really scary, they point out that “even Scalia” thinks Thomas is too quick to throw precedents out the window: Scalia was quoted in Ken Foskett’s biography of Thomas as saying that Thomas “doesn’t believe in stare decisis, period,” adding that “if a constitutional line of argument is wrong, he’d say let’s get it right. I wouldn’t do that.”

Why not?
https://spectator.org/48477_scalia-v-thomas/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=880112
Scalia, as bombastic and fun and Media darling he was, was never half the jurist and follower of originalism/textualism Thomas is. Scalia admitted he got it wrong earlier and for most of his time on bench wasn’t pursuing even what he would characterize as “stout-hearted” or “actually” originalist decisions.

Which raises the question: if Scalia was by his own admission a fake originalist for most of his career, would that mean any true originalist who proudly states they are unafraid of where it leads to repudiate the decisions made under Scalia’s fake originalism?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 10-09-2019 at 9:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1342  
Old 10-09-2019, 9:36 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
http://volokh.com/2013/10/07/justice...d-originalism/

https://spectator.org/48477_scalia-v-thomas/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=880112
Scalia, as bombastic and fun and Media darling he was, was never half the jurist and follower of originalism/textualism Thomas is. Scalia admitted he got it wrong earlier and for most of his time on bench wasn’t pursuing even what he would characterize as “stout-hearted” or “actually” originalist decisions.
Despite conservative media and pundits proclaiming him to be otherwise, Scalia was an activist judge - just better at being quiet about it.

=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
  #1343  
Old 10-09-2019, 12:02 PM
dogrunner dogrunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E/Central Fl
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah, MMR, he was as anti-venom is to rattlesnake saliva.


Thank God for that man!
Reply With Quote
  #1344  
Old 10-09-2019, 2:12 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Getting back on topic....

Any chance we will get an opinion in the week following oral arguments? Or do we have to wait til June? Any one going to attend?
Reply With Quote
  #1345  
Old 10-09-2019, 4:27 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 698
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Getting back on topic....

Any chance we will get an opinion in the week following oral arguments? Or do we have to wait til June? Any one going to attend?
Until June. The Court issues opinions on all of its cases in the last few weeks of its term. In fact, the usual practice is that the opinions are read in court by the Justices who wrote them, as I recall.
Reply With Quote
  #1346  
Old 10-09-2019, 6:04 PM
spectralhunter spectralhunter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 171
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Until June. The Court issues opinions on all of its cases in the last few weeks of its term. In fact, the usual practice is that the opinions are read in court by the Justices who wrote them, as I recall.
I suppose there's a reason for this but isn't it...

justice delayed is justice denied?
Reply With Quote
  #1347  
Old 10-09-2019, 6:27 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Until June. The Court issues opinions on all of its cases in the last few weeks of its term. In fact, the usual practice is that the opinions are read in court by the Justices who wrote them, as I recall.
Suppose if that’s the case then what about all those cases held per opinion? Do we assume the will issues orders along side an opinion, or do we have to wait another year?
Reply With Quote
  #1348  
Old 10-09-2019, 6:34 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,026
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Suppose if that’s the case then what about all those cases held per opinion? Do we assume the will issues orders along side an opinion, or do we have to wait another year?
Hopefully they would issue grant, vacate, and remand orders on anything else they’re sitting on.
Reply With Quote
  #1349  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:51 PM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 179
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Oral Args 12-2-19

“The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.”

How does New York City defend the constitutionality of their original law? At the same time they are also forced to explain why the law needed to be changed.
Reply With Quote
  #1350  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:27 PM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

June 2020 is going to be one dramatic month, that's for sure.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #1351  
Old 10-10-2019, 8:34 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,231
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhart356 View Post
“The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.”

How does New York City defend the constitutionality of their original law? At the same time they are also forced to explain why the law needed to be changed.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #1352  
Old 10-10-2019, 9:43 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 230
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Anyone have thoughts on FOPA coming into play?
Reply With Quote
  #1353  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:33 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
June 2020 is going to be one dramatic month, that's for sure.
The case is going to be argued this term before the holiday break. Usually that means that the decisions for the fall calendar are handed out during that recess and the spring docket decisions are released in June.

I think that's the usual practice anyway. Whether this case will follow that or not is unknown.
__________________
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
  #1354  
Old 10-10-2019, 1:43 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
The case is going to be argued this term before the holiday break. Usually that means that the decisions for the fall calendar are handed out during that recess and the spring docket decisions are released in June.

I think that's the usual practice anyway. Whether this case will follow that or not is unknown.
Yes, but they sometimes hold decisions for the most politically charged cases until the end of the term.
Reply With Quote
  #1355  
Old 10-10-2019, 1:57 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Yes, but they sometimes hold decisions for the most politically charged cases until the end of the term.
Usually.

Unlike cases involving spanking (where Scalia faltered) where you can pull your kids out of a school, or even move to a district that doesn’t, public carry of firearms nationwide( and no, I’m not arguing some ridiculous theory. SCOTUS cases are nationwide by default except in US territories/DC decisions; and the question of law is being allowed to move firearms in some capacity outside the home)- which is what SCOTUS is deciding without some ridiculous per curiam decision- is about the most consequential thing you can decide as there’s no amount of money or zip code to move to that insulates the elites from it. Proles being allowed to defend themselves removed the specialness and brazilification hat has been ongoing since the 1970s in coastal locations. Truly, nothing scares them as much. Except maybe allowing those who are poor to allow people in and exclude from communities the same way the rich can.

This definitely will be among the last cases they release, unless somehow influence of the election in a way bad to democrats becomes overwhelmingly evident.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 10-10-2019 at 2:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1356  
Old 10-10-2019, 2:58 PM
Fedora Fedora is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
This definitely will be among the last cases they release, unless somehow influence of the election in a way bad to democrats becomes overwhelmingly evident.
Whether a pro or anti-gun decision, a release before the holiday recess will stir the electorate. On the other hand, a release four months before the 2020 elections will also stir the electorate. What is that phrase, "between Cylla and Charybdis"?

My guess is that since orals could just as well have been scheduled for January, 2020, the Court seems to view the lesser evil to be a pre-recess release, giving as much time as they can for the post-release storm to move on to something involving the Kardashians.

Last edited by Fedora; 10-10-2019 at 3:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1357  
Old 10-10-2019, 3:06 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 640
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

And imagine if a good decision is 5 to 3, with Ginsburg's seat vacant.

Wouldn't that be just great?
Reply With Quote
  #1358  
Old 10-10-2019, 3:09 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Normally SCOTUS holds off on releasing decisions on controversial topics until June. But that will be in the thick of the campaign and conventions next year. Plus, SCOTUS is already dealing with what this term: LGBetc “rights”, abortion “rights”, and 2nd A rights and maybe even impeachment? Will they really hold those first three to deliver them in June and think that won’t turn a spotlight (and political heat) on the Court?

While I don’t see them delivering an opinion in NYSRPA before the holidays, I could see it after February.

But who knows? I won’t put money on anything in 2020....

Last edited by Paladin; 10-10-2019 at 8:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1359  
Old 10-10-2019, 5:50 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
And imagine if a good decision is 5 to 3, with Ginsburg's seat vacant.

Wouldn't that be just great?
If Ginsburg was good enough for Caetano v. Massachusetts, why not for NYSRPA v. NYC?

A little respect...

=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
  #1360  
Old 10-10-2019, 6:37 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
If Ginsburg was good enough for Caetano v. Massachusetts, why not for NYSRPA v. NYC?

A little respect...

=8-|
Because NYSRPA is about guns, not about ineffective little zap toys.

Filling in for KCbrown.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
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 12:45 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.