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
  #601  
Old 05-16-2019, 6:33 PM
green grunt's Avatar
green grunt green grunt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Left Coast..middle end side
Posts: 1,001
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

^ gun control advocates see the writing on the wall and are panicked.


I like the sound of that !
__________________
Semper Fi.
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 05-16-2019, 8:18 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 459
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
If this was just about right to travel to your other home with a legally acquired firearm, it would have been overturned like Caetano and done nothing to expand the status quo. The fact that they granted cert means they are considering raising the baseline for infringement. Where they will put that base no one knows, but the huge flush of amici briefs is a good indication gun control advocates see the writing on the wall and are panicked.
Let’s not call them gun control advocates. Let’s call them gun confiscation advocates. And hoplophobes. And pandering *******s... err, politicians.
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:29 AM
Lovesick Warrior Lovesick Warrior is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If only 3 transportation options are legal to NYC gun owners, namely:

To a gunsmith (with permission)
To a NYC shooting range
To a hunting area (with permission)

Is the gun owner in violation of the law when they bring the newly purchased gun home from the gun shop??
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:52 AM
Cavalier Knight's Avatar
Cavalier Knight Cavalier Knight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: New York NY
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovesick Warrior View Post
If only 3 transportation options are legal to NYC gun owners, namely:

To a gunsmith (with permission)
To a NYC shooting range
To a hunting area (with permission)

Is the gun owner in violation of the law when they bring the newly purchased gun home from the gun shop??
No after purchasing the firearm you have 72 hours to bring it to 1 Police Plaza for inspection.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:15 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 923
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I was especially pleased to see this in the brief from the United States:
Quote:
In Heller, this Court explained that the Second
Amendment guarantees “the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” without
suggesting that the guarantee is limited to the home.
554 U.S. at 592. The Court’s references to the “core” of
the Second Amendment served to distinguish self-defense
from other lawful purposes such as hunting, not to distinguish the home from places outside the home. The
Court thus explained that “self-defense” is “the central
component of the right,” id. at 599; that the “right of
self-defense” is “central to the Second Amendment
right,” id. at 628; and that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to use firearms “for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” id. at 630. In McDonald v. City
of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Court reaffirmed
that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’
of the Second Amendment right” and that the “ ‘inherent
right of self-defense [is] central to the Second Amendment right.’” Id. at 767 (citations omitted). In neither
case did the Court suggest that the right to keep and
bear arms is limited to the home.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:52 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm surprised at how many briefs are basically looking this as a "bear" AND "infringement" case.

The law in question obviously violates the 2A based on "bear". But, the deeper issue that keeps cropping up is the "2-step" and how the Courts are using that method to allow unfettered "infringements".

If the SCOTUS deems this case one in which it needs to spank the lower courts, the rationale behind those "infringements" will be the vehicle it will have to use. As such, those 4 little words at the end of the Amendment become much more important.

Can even strict scrutiny survive "shall not be infringed"? Because of those 4 words, is there an even higher standard that MUST be used for 2A cases that is not applicable for other enumerated Rights which don't have that specific limitation expressed in them?

For purposes of debate, could we assert that such an Uninfringible standard is required? Would such an argument succeed? Doubtful, in my opinion even if the plain wording of the text appears to compel such a standard.

On the other hand, could we create a test in which "core" elements of the Right are Uninfringible, with a lower standard of Strict Scrutiny for those other elements not directly within the core of the Right?

Core elements such as keep and bear and any other legal or lawful use by the public would be "unfringible" while the "non-core" elements regarding purchase, shipping, storage, etc would be "Strict Scrutiny" level "regulations".

Would such a new look at the entire Amendment under those 2 standards alleviate the issues we are seeing by those States and Courts which do not wish to adhere to precedent and protect the guarantees enumerated in the Constitution and BoR?

To me, it would be refreshing for people and legal scholars to stop parroting the tired memes of the past and actually look at the current 2A mess with an eye toward fixing it so that the Right is as envisioned by the Framers while also ensuring that lawful infringements by the Government are considered and taken into account.

I am hoping, but not optimistic because far too often the petty bickering of man interferes with clarity and union of purpose, that this is the case SCOTUS will use to do that.
__________________
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.

Last edited by rplaw; 05-17-2019 at 11:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:06 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 767
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No, the bar will not be set that high, Roberts won't allow it. NFA/GCA will survive in whatever decision is produced.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:51 AM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 769
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

This. Someone write a friend of the court brief, stat!



Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I'm surprised at how many briefs are basically looking this as a "bear" AND "infringement" case.

The law in question obviously violates the 2A based on "bear". But, the deeper issue that keeps cropping up is the "2-step" and how the Courts are using that method to allow unfettered "infringements".

If the SCOTUS deems this case one in which it needs to spank the lower courts, the rationale behind those "infringements" will be the vehicle it will have to use. As such, those 4 little words at the end of the Amendment become much more important.

Can even strict scrutiny survive "shall not be infringed"? Because of those 4 words, is there an even higher standard that MUST be used for 2A cases that is not applicable for other enumerated Rights which don't have that specific limitation expressed in them?

For purposes of debate, could we assert that such an Uninfringible standard is required? Would such an argument succeed? Doubtful, in my opinion even if the plain wording of the text appears to compel such a standard.

On the other hand, could we create a test in which "core" elements of the Right are Uninfringible, with a lower standard of Strict Scrutiny for those other elements not directly within the core of the Right?

Core elements such as keep and bear and any other legal or lawful use by the public would be "unfringible" while the "non-core" elements regarding purchase, shipping, storage, etc would be "Strict Scrutiny" level "regulations".

Would such a new look at the entire Amendment under those 2 standards alleviate the issues we are seeing by those States and Courts which do not wish to adhere to precedent and protect the guarantees enumerated in the Constitution and BoR?

To me, it would be refreshing for people and legal scholars to stop parroting the tired memes of the past and actually look at the current 2A mess with an eye toward fixing it so that the Right is as envisioned by the Framers while also ensuring that lawful infringements by the Government are considered and taken into account.

I am hoping, but not optimistic because far too often the petty bickering of man interferes with clarity and union of purpose, that this is the case SCOTUS will use to do that.
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 05-17-2019, 2:31 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
For purposes of debate, could we assert that such an Uninfringible standard is required? Would such an argument succeed? Doubtful, in my opinion even if the plain wording of the text appears to compel such a standard.

On the other hand, could we create a test in which "core" elements of the Right are Uninfringible, with a lower standard of Strict Scrutiny for those other elements not directly within the core of the Right?
Invariably all regulations survive the lowest standard, rational basis. Rarely does a regulation, impairing a fundamental right, survive strict scrutiny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-19-2019 at 5:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 05-17-2019, 6:14 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
No, the bar will not be set that high, Roberts won't allow it. NFA/GCA will survive in whatever decision is produced.
There is a possible argument that "core" Rights wouldn't be affected, (readiness and capability for Militia service, Individual Right of the People, Keep / Bear, ARMS in common use (not just guns), etc) by these 2 sets of laws because of the type of weapons and the Gov interest in reducing crime. If that argument is successful, both would survive under Strict Scrutiny since the Gov would have a compelling interest in specifically limiting public ownership of NFA arms due to the "dangerous and unusual" standard. Note; this wouldn't apply to general arms since they don't fit within this category. The GCA would probably be Ok as well since it's really the vehicle for tracking arms and keeping prohibited persons, who wouldn't be eligible for protection under this Amendment, from obtaining arms. Background checks would probably fly too for the same reason. Red flag laws probably wouldn't.

Both the NFA/GCA are broad but when viewed in the light most positive for them, they are narrowly tailored to do exactly what they are intended to do. I would have no issues with those 2 laws as written being upheld under the Strict Scrutiny standard. I think they easily fit within the intended framework of that standard.

Waiting periods are a different animal and probably wouldn't survive SS but the Courts would have to look at it and see if there is a legit basis and whether the laws fit within the requirement for SS.

Mag capacity limits, storage laws, limits on ammo purchase amounts/ID cards, bans on interstate shipping, firearms rosters, and bans/serializing requirements for "home-made" firearms are all deep direct infringements on the "core" Rights in the Amendment. As such they should fail the "uninfringible" test.
__________________
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.

Last edited by rplaw; 05-17-2019 at 6:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 05-17-2019, 6:27 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another amicus brief in support from Tuesday has been posted to the Supreme Court's website:

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al.
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 12:41 AM.




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.