|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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?
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 01-22-2019 at 8:30 AM.. |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Here's a gem in the cert petition. Hopefully SCOTUS addresses the standard of review issue:
Quote:
|
#88
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 01-22-2019 at 10:16 AM.. |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Cert granted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/u...c-license.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#102
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Smart minds are playing a game of giving a little bit, while enshrining " long-standing customary" restrictions. You all bought it. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#107
|
||||
|
||||
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: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. 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! My Utubery |
#108
|
||||
|
||||
Wouldn't that just be the status quo? States already do that.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 01-22-2019 at 11:19 AM.. |
#109
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
#111
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#112
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#113
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 01-22-2019 at 12:20 PM.. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
A far reaching public carry of machine guns case would be one they would want to review. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#116
|
||||
|
||||
probably true.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#117
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#118
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#119
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Quote:
Last edited by ShadowGuy; 01-22-2019 at 12:59 PM.. |
#120
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Think about our destination requirements for Assault Weapons, the unloaded rifle/shotgun requirement, and the handgun locked container requirement, as a few examples.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|