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
  #1121  
Old 10-15-2021, 3:46 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,470
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Pointing out that SCOTUS noted that States prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld is drivel?

Pointing out that the act of concealment as the basis for uncivil and criminal behavior and its codification throughout Western Civilization is drivel?

Pointing out that previous jurisprudence on concealed carry viewed it as that which is coveted by criminal and assassin alike is drivel?

Pointing out that choosing to conceal MAY undermine one's self-defense claim is drivel?

The things I'm pointing out didn't come out of my ***.

Actually, they came out of the asses wearing black robes.

So take your ad-homimem "drivel" label and stuff it somewhere else please...I don't own the jurisprudence or historical codification - black robes and political prostitutes do.

=8-|
You have pointed it out for so long, so often, that you spin around like a broken record.
And this total BS about “concealed carry is for criminals, and offensive” (or something along those lines) is as KC described it: BS.
Reply With Quote
  #1122  
Old 10-15-2021, 4:00 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
You have pointed it out for so long, so often, that you spin around like a broken record.
And this total BS about “concealed carry is for criminals, and offensive” (or something along those lines) is as KC described it: BS.
It's literally from a State precedent referenced and cited in DC v. Heller.

Literally.

And try to get it right:

"coveted by"

=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
  #1123  
Old 10-15-2021, 4:00 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,590
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Pointing out that SCOTUS noted that States prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld is drivel?
We will have to wait and see. If you read the plaintiff's reply brief, filed yesterday, there are very good arguments that NY's prohibitions on concealed carry cannot be upheld.

Quote:
Pointing out that the act of concealment as the basis for uncivil and criminal behavior and its codification throughout Western Civilization is drivel?
No, but the argument is debunked by plaintiff's reply brief, filed yesterday. So maybe it is drivel.

Quote:
Pointing out that previous jurisprudence on concealed carry viewed it as that which is coveted by criminal and assassin alike is drivel?
Probably, because you, like the State of NY, are leaving out important parts of the statements, making what is being said misleading at best. Again, see plaintiff's reply brief, filed yesterday.

Quote:
Pointing out that choosing to conceal MAY undermine one's self-defense claim is drivel?
Given that concealed carry is lawful in every state, the claim that concealed carry may undermine one's self-defense claim is not only drivel but BS.

Quote:
The things I'm pointing out didn't come out of my ***.
With the possible exception of "choosing to conceal MAY undermine one's self-defense claim," I must agree with you.

Quote:
Actually, they came out of the asses wearing black robes.
Again, I have to agree.

Quote:
So take your ad-homimem "drivel" label and stuff it somewhere else please...I don't own the jurisprudence or historical codification - black robes and political prostitutes do.

=8-|
I agree in part, you don't own the jurisprudence or historical codification - black robes and political prostitutes do.
Reply With Quote
  #1124  
Old 10-15-2021, 11:29 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,955
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Pointing out that SCOTUS noted that States prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld is drivel?
SCOTUS noted that States upheld prohibitions on concealed carry, and used this as an example of how the right wasn't historically regarded as unlimited. It didn't go any further than that.


Quote:
Pointing out that the act of concealment as the basis for uncivil and criminal behavior and its codification throughout Western Civilization is drivel?
Yes, it is, because it's no longer relevant. The peaceful and harmless actions of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens every year overrides any and all historical understanding to the contrary.


Quote:
Pointing out that previous jurisprudence on concealed carry viewed it as that which is coveted by criminal and assassin alike is drivel?
Yes, because the reasoning of that jurisprudence is no longer applicable.


Quote:
Pointing out that choosing to conceal MAY undermine one's self-defense claim is drivel?
Yes, because it doesn't, in anyone's eyes except yours.


Quote:
The things I'm pointing out didn't come out of my ***.

Actually, they came out of the asses wearing black robes.
That doesn't make them any more valid.

Validity is measured by the real world, and the rules it operates under.

Now, it may be that courts choose to adopt invalid crap, but that doesn't suddenly make the result of that adoption valid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
It's literally from a State precedent referenced and cited in DC v. Heller.
Referenced and cited is not the same as adopted, but you keep insisting that the Court adopted that state precedent. You keep insisting by way of your claims about what SCOTUS "said" that "referenced and cited" is the same as "adopted", but I've already shown why it's not.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #1125  
Old 10-16-2021, 8:24 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
SCOTUS noted that States upheld prohibitions on concealed carry, and used this as an example of how the right wasn't historically regarded as unlimited. It didn't go any further than that.




Yes, it is, because it's no longer relevant. The peaceful and harmless actions of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens every year overrides any and all historical understanding to the contrary.




Yes, because the reasoning of that jurisprudence is no longer applicable.




Yes, because it doesn't, in anyone's eyes except yours.




That doesn't make them any more valid.

Validity is measured by the real world, and the rules it operates under.

Now, it may be that courts choose to adopt invalid crap, but that doesn't suddenly make the result of that adoption valid.




Referenced and cited is not the same as adopted, but you keep insisting that the Court adopted that state precedent. You keep insisting by way of your claims about what SCOTUS "said" that "referenced and cited" is the same as "adopted", but I've already shown why it's not.
You seem to be posturing yourself as an authority...

Are you claiming that YOU are the authority on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence?

What YOU think (opinion) matters more that what SCOTUS publishes (authoritative opinion) as a decision?

Are you claiming that YOU get to redefine the 2nd Amendment right as things change over time WHEREAS SCOTUS made it clear that they're NOT going to redefine the 2nd Amendment right under the same circumstances?

DC v. Heller says what it says...far as I know, enforceable or not, SCOTUS is the authority on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.

=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
  #1126  
Old 10-16-2021, 9:00 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Irrelevant. "We always did it that way" does not bootstrap a law into Constitutionality.
While I agree it shouldn't, I think Heller leaves some room for doubt. It has bothered me since I read the decision that the provisions respecting "long standing prohibitions" and focusing on weapons "in common use" both seem to stand for the proposition that if the government can abridge a right for long enough (whatever that is) it can vanish like a fart in the wind.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1127  
Old 10-16-2021, 9:42 AM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
While I agree it shouldn't, I think Heller leaves some room for doubt. It has bothered me since I read the decision that the provisions respecting "long standing prohibitions" and focusing on weapons "in common use" both seem to stand for the proposition that if the government can abridge a right for long enough (whatever that is) it can vanish like a fart in the wind.
Take heart. From footnote 24 of Scalia's opinion for the majority in Heller: "As for the “hundreds of judges,” post, at 2, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment Justice Stevens claims we endorsed in Miller: If so, they overread Miller. And their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. In any event, it should not be thought that the cases decided by these judges would necessarily have come out differently under a proper interpretation of the right."
__________________
GC=light green (recreational)
Mailed application = May 10
Reply With Quote
  #1128  
Old 10-16-2021, 2:53 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,955
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
You seem to be posturing yourself as an authority...

Are you claiming that YOU are the authority on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence?

What YOU think (opinion) matters more that what SCOTUS publishes (authoritative opinion) as a decision?

Are you claiming that YOU get to redefine the 2nd Amendment right as things change over time WHEREAS SCOTUS made it clear that they're NOT going to redefine the 2nd Amendment right under the same circumstances?
You obviously don't even understand the argument.
  1. The Supreme Court isn't constrained by any jurisprudence. Nothing says it must adhere to anything it has held in the past, and it certainly isn't limited by any jurisprudence issued by any lower court. This is true even of otherwise valid jurisprudence.
  2. The Court didn't hold in Heller that concealed carry may be prohibited, nor did it rely on that proposition for its holding. Nor did it hold the same thing in Robertson v Baldwin. There is no Supreme Court jurisprudence that says that concealed carry can be banned. None. The only time the Court said anything about it was with respect to justification for some other limitation (in Robertson v Baldwin) or with respect to whether or not the right to arms has historically been limited (Heller). While these things might be informative, they are not binding on the Supreme Court. Their invalidity in the world today only weakens (to the point of nullification) the degree to which they're informative.
  3. The validity of jurisprudence is measured in the real world. While nothing says that a court, including the Supreme Court, cannot issue holdings on the basis of invalid jurisprudence, it should be obvious on its face that the validity of jurisprudence will be the determining factor of whether or not the Court chooses to adhere to that jurisprudence, if the Court is honest.

So I don't have to be an authority on what is jurisprudence and what isn't in order to succeed in my argument here. All I have to do is show that the jurisprudence you claim is currently operative is invalid, and that's exactly what I've done.

So if the Court insists that concealed carry is something that can be prohibited today due to past jurisprudence, I would regard that as a logical error, because any decision which is based on incorrect logic (which is what basing a decision on invalid jurisprudence is) is in fact erroneous. A Court which issues decisions on the basis of invalid logic is a Court that is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.


Quote:
DC v. Heller says what it says...far as I know, enforceable or not, SCOTUS is the authority on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.
=8-|
Yes, it says what it says. And what it says is that concealed carry has historically been excluded from protection, and thus that the right has historically not been regarded as unlimited. That's all. That's what the Court actually said. It did not say that concealed carry is currently excluded from protection. That's your claim about what SCOTUS said, but you cannot directly quote anything uttered by the Court itself in Heller that directly says that concealed carry is currently excluded from protection.

What I've done is laid out why those historical prohibitions are no longer valid jurisprudence. Can the Court insist on using such jurisprudence anyway? Of course. But seeing how we're talking about how the Court should decide the case, it should be obvious that the validity of the jurisprudence they would consider is of primary import.


The plain fact is this: your claim about what SCOTUS said amounts to one that says that the historical prohibitions remain valid jurisprudence. But I've shown why they don't: because the reasoning the historical courts used as the basis for upholding those prohibitions is invalid in light of the activity of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens every day today.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 10-16-2021 at 3:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1129  
Old 10-16-2021, 3:40 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
1. The Supreme Court isn't constrained by any jurisprudence. Nothing says it must adhere to anything it has held in the past
Plessy ............ 1896

Brown ............ 1954

SCOTUS has overturned previous SCOTUS decisions over 300 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...S.%20(17%20How.)

Yes, the Heller decision says, what the Heller decision says.

But as has been shown untold number of times. It doesn't say what the rabbit man claims it said.
Reply With Quote
  #1130  
Old 10-16-2021, 4:01 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

@ KCBrown

I have developed a deep respect for your thinking on judicial matters. (See my sig line.) I would be curious to know, irrespective of what you think should happen, what you think is actually going to happen in this case. What will the holding actually contain?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1131  
Old 10-16-2021, 5:04 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,955
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
@ KCBrown

I have developed a deep respect for your thinking on judicial matters. (See my sig line.)
I can't help but LOL at your sig line.


Quote:
I would be curious to know, irrespective of what you think should happen, what you think is actually going to happen in this case. What will the holding actually contain?
Oh, boy. This is an immensely difficult question to answer.

Firstly, I see no logical reason that the Court would have taken this case if the conservative majority intended to side with NY. So at a minimum, I see no reason to believe it will issue a decision that says that concealed carry is not protected, especially in light of the open carry prohibition.

Secondly, my hope is that it leaves open the possibility that both modes are protected simultaneously, meaning that it is impermissible to prohibit either mode. Honestly, I don't expect the Court here to explicitly address open carry at all, except perhaps to note that it has been prohibited here and thus that concealed carry must be available to the ordinary law-abiding citizen as a matter of right. However, I do expect it to write the decision in such a way as to leave open the possibility that all forms are protected.

Finally, one thing I do expect the Court to do here is to articulate that the measure of the government's respect of a right is the degree to which it allows ordinary law-abiding citizens to exercise it, and that a government always violates a right when it denies that right to any ordinary law-abiding citizen. That should put an end to the claim that "may issue" is something that "satisfies the right", when it clearly doesn't precisely because it denies the right to at least some law-abiding citizens.

A right that is not exercisable by all law-abiding citizens is not a right at all, and that's that.


I haven't been able to figure out why the Court chose to narrow the question the way it did, but I do have a possibility: because it intends to address concealed carry in this case, and open carry in Young.

This is one of the very few times I strongly disagree with curtisfong on something, namely his assessment of this case and Young. I don't believe the Court would have bothered with this case or with Young if it intended to limit "bear" to "in the home". This is so because if that were its intent, it could simply have denied cert to all these carry cases and the result would be precisely that, but without the "danger" of taking sides. This Court has shown itself to have a lot of cowardice, and denying cert would be the easy way out for it if limiting "bear" to "in the home" were really its intent.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #1132  
Old 10-16-2021, 6:19 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...mxR?li=BBnb7Kz

OP-ED written by;

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

Rather insightful with likely motive quotes from the Justices.

In relation to the shenanigans pulled by NY in the prior NYSRPA case, several justices look on NY unfavorably in relation to 2A.

Quote:
The court ultimately dismissed the case but did so over the objections of three dissenting justices. It was a rare instance in which the court resisted such a mootness ruling after a party sought to withdraw - but, then, few litigants have had the temerity to do what New York did. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas specifically called out New York for "manipulating" the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined in the condemnation and added menacingly that "some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

The court then did precisely that, by accepting a case with the very same plaintiffs: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. On this occasion, however, the court is unlikely to tolerate another bait-and-switch by state officials trying to withdraw the case at the last minute.
And with ACB now on the court, things aren't looking good for NY. And IMHO are looking up for the 2A rights of citizens long oppressed.
Reply With Quote
  #1133  
Old 10-16-2021, 7:32 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...mxR?li=BBnb7Kz

OP-ED written by;

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

Rather insightful with likely motive quotes from the Justices.

In relation to the shenanigans pulled by NY in the prior NYSRPA case, several justices look on NY unfavorably in relation to 2A.



And with ACB now on the court, things aren't looking good for NY. And IMHO are looking up for the 2A rights of citizens long oppressed.
This is why I would not be surprised if they release their decision as early as St Valentines Day. Sometime between that and Independence Day 2022 is my “window”.

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1134  
Old 10-17-2021, 4:13 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Different grid square
Posts: 1,540
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
All I remember is there were several instances where FGG predicted both we’d lose a case and why when our self proclaimed “Right People” said we’d win. When those cases were decided, FGG was vindicated on both counts.

Thus, I respect FGG’s opinion even while I detest FGG’s snarky attitude.
Well, yeah... it wasn't that he was wrong, it's just that he was obnoxious. I, for myself, don't feel particularly compelled to put up with one just to have access to the other.
__________________
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
  #1135  
Old 10-17-2021, 5:35 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
This is why I would not be surprised if they release their decision as early as St Valentines Day. Sometime between that and Independence Day 2022 is my “window”.
More: the conservative justices read the same news as the rest of us, so if/when they read stories like the linked, I think they realize a decision needlessly delayed means more innocent blood needlessly shed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tan-bench.html
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1136  
Old 10-17-2021, 10:33 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
This is why I would not be surprised if they release their decision as early as St Valentines Day. Sometime between that and Independence Day 2022 is my “window”.

I’m expecting/hoping for a good news/bad news outcome.

The good news
is that SCOTUS says clearly that states and localities must issue permits to law abiding citizens for some form of carry without regard to GC or measures of GMC. They can’t restrict both. Bonus if they set some clear limits on other forms of obstructive shenanigans for carry such as: excessive fees or training requirements, delays, rosters, ridiculous extensions of “sensitive places” etc.

The bad news
will be that starting about a day and a half after the decision is announced, it will be a couple of years before you will find a handgun or any handgun ammo on any store shelf. If you think it’s bad now? Whooo boy!
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1137  
Old 10-18-2021, 2:27 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
...They can’t restrict both. Bonus if they set some clear limits on other forms of obstructive shenanigans for carry such as: excessive fees or training requirements, delays, rosters, ridiculous extensions of “sensitive places” etc. ...
I suspect the 'best' we can hope for out of this decision is a determination that they can't universally DENY both; not just in terms of the theoretical, but on a pragmatic basis. Technically, even the more restrictive states allow for carry; but, the limitations on where/when/how/who are and have been becoming more onerous. At some point, it's going to be up to SCOTUS to set some clear limits as to 'allowable restrictions' and/or 'mandatory preconditions.'

Such seemed to be Scalia's agenda post-Heller when he spoke with Chris Wallace regarding the role of the Court being the determination of the limitations allowable under the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Justices we're relying on also happen to be strong proponents of States' rights. Thus, we're unlikely to see any 'radical' rollback, for now, on some of this stuff. (Cynically... Even if there were, it would still be years before we'd see any sort of effective, widespread implementation.)
Reply With Quote
  #1138  
Old 10-18-2021, 9:55 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,237
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
More: the conservative justices read the same news as the rest of us, so if/when they read stories like the linked, I think they realize a decision needlessly delayed means more innocent blood needlessly shed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tan-bench.html
It’ll come out in June. All of the major politically charged decisions come out at the end of the year. It’s just the way they work and this case has been cited as a controversial case.

Only chance we have at an early decision is if someone is terminal and they want to release it before they die.
Reply With Quote
  #1139  
Old 10-18-2021, 2:21 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
It's literally from a State precedent referenced and cited in DC v. Heller.
You understand absolutely nothing about that case.
Reply With Quote
  #1140  
Old 10-18-2021, 3:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
You understand absolutely nothing about that case.
But what he claims to understand more than makes up for his lack.
Reply With Quote
  #1141  
Old 10-18-2021, 4:55 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
You understand absolutely nothing about that case.
A literal reading doesn't require "understanding", just comprehension.

Large portions of DC v. Heller only require literal reading - including many of the cites - including those dealing with open carry and concealed carry and the two militias.

=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
  #1142  
Old 10-18-2021, 5:54 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,964
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Oct 18 2021 The time for oral argument is allotted as follows: 35 minutes for petitioners, 20 minutes for respondents, and 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General.
they posted the time outlay for the case. Looks different from what I expected. I thought they would give more time to respondent and SG.
Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 10-18-2021, 6:20 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,955
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
A literal reading doesn't require "understanding", just comprehension.
That's fine if you're content to just parrot what someone else says without any clue as to whether or when you should.

Except even that isn't what you're doing. You're claiming "Heller says ...", but then don't actually quote it saying what you claim it says. You paraphrase it, and do so incorrectly.

We know you can quote from decisions because you've done it before.


Quote:
Large portions of DC v. Heller only require literal reading - including many of the cites - including those dealing with open carry and concealed carry and the two militias.
Yes, and that literal reading makes it clear that Heller was talking about the historical view, and not whether or not that view is applicable today. It also makes it clear that the context was to answer the question of whether the right was regarded as limited or not, and whether the right was regarded as being limited to militia service.

Since the reasoning behind the jurisprudence on concealed carry is no longer valid, then neither is the jurisprudence, and thus it is incorrect to claim that concealed carry is not part of the protected right in the absence of some other valid jurisprudence, because most certainly the words of the 2nd Amendment themselves don't exclude it (and, in fact, the Supreme Court's own definition of "bear" explicitly includes it).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 10-18-2021, 8:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
It’ll come out in June. All of the major politically charged decisions come out at the end of the year. It’s just the way they work and this case has been cited as a controversial case.

Only chance we have at an early decision is if someone is terminal and they want to release it before they die.
FWIW Heller took only 3.5 months from orals to opinion:
2007 Nov 20: cert granted
2008 Jan 04: petitioner DC merits brief
2008 Jan 22: orals scheduled for March 18
2008 Feb 04: respondent Heller merits brief
2008 March 05: reply of petitioner DC
2008 March 18: orals
2008 June 26: decision released

Thus my decision window of St Valentines Day to Independence Day.

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 10-18-2021 at 8:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 10-18-2021, 8:33 PM
igs igs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 604
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Locked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment
__________________
ATF Form 4473: If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun.
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 10-19-2021, 5:51 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
FWIW Heller took only 3.5 months from orals to opinion:
2007 Nov 20: cert granted
2008 Jan 04: petitioner DC merits brief
2008 Jan 22: orals scheduled for March 18
2008 Feb 04: respondent Heller merits brief
2008 March 05: reply of petitioner DC
2008 March 18: orals
2008 June 26: decision released

Thus my decision window of St Valentines Day to Independence Day.

Now let’s look at McDonald

2009 Sep 30: cert granted
2009 Nov 16: petitioner McDonald merits brief
2009 Nov 30: orals scheduled for March 02
2009 Dec 30: respondent Chicago merits brief
2010 Jan 29: reply of petitioner McDonald
2010 Mar 02: orals
2010 Jun 28: decision released, reversed & remanded

Again, 3.5 months from orals to decision. Neither had a long, needless delay between orals and decision to put off decision until end of term. We should not assume there will be one for NYSRPA.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 10-19-2021 at 5:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 10-19-2021, 8:50 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 402
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This was a decent article. Sets the stage well, especially for anyone who has not been keeping up with the last 29 pages of this thread.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 10-19-2021, 8:56 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 402
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Now let’s look at McDonald

2009 Sep 30: cert granted
2009 Nov 16: petitioner McDonald merits brief
2009 Nov 30: orals scheduled for March 02
2009 Dec 30: respondent Chicago merits brief
2010 Jan 29: reply of petitioner McDonald
2010 Mar 02: orals
2010 Jun 28: decision released, reversed & remanded

Again, 3.5 months from orals to decision. Neither had a long, needless delay between orals and decision to put off decision until end of term. We should not assume there will be one for NYSRPA.
I want to agree with you as I think there is 5 person voting block that is driving this case forward. However, assuming a win. Sotomayer I suspect is going to drag her feet to pen a lengthy dissent. I am not sure how much Roberts can or is willing to push her on that.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 10-19-2021, 1:11 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Assuming a positive decision that states there is a right to carry outside the home...what would the process be of actually changing how things work in California?

Would there need to be a subsequent case (and more years of waiting) or would the fact that Young is being held be the vehicle through wich this issue would be addressed in the 9th circuit.
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 10-19-2021, 2:36 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,036
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Why would SCOTUS - unanimous 9-0 against concealed carry as NOT being a right or protected in DC v. Heller 2008 vote in favor of concealed carry as a right or protected this time around?

Alito - CCW not the right
Thomas - CCW not the right
Roberts - CCW not the right
Gorsuch - Bound by DC v. Heller - CCW not the right
Kavanaugh - Bound by DC v. Heller - CCW not the right
Kagan - Bound by DC v. Heller - CCW not the right
Barrett - Bound by DC v. Heller - CCW not the right
Sotomayor - Unknown
Breyer - CCW not the right

You need a 5-4 vote to get a win for CCW in this case.



How do you get that from the list above?

=8-|
^^^^This^^^^ is cray cray. Heller had NOTHING to do with concealed carry.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 10-19-2021, 3:21 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,377
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
Assuming a positive decision that states there is a right to carry outside the home...what would the process be of actually changing how things work in California?

Would there need to be a subsequent case (and more years of waiting) or would the fact that Young is being held be the vehicle through wich this issue would be addressed in the 9th circuit.
It will take CA about 10 minutes to pass a new unconstitutional law to nullify any SCOTUS ruling they don't like. The scope is endless if you have no morals and no accountability
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 10-19-2021, 5:20 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We must prepare ourselves for the possibility that the Supreme Court issues an unsatisfying per curium opinion, à la Caetano, that grants the petitioners relief, but does nothing to advance gun rights. I hope not, but if so, it could go something like this.

The Supreme Court should base its decisions on the record it is provided. Here, the respondents have left little for the Supreme Court to decide.

There is no controversy for the Supreme Court to decide whether Petitioners Nash and Koch:

1. may lawfully carry concealed handguns outside the home for self-defense;
2. may lawfully carry concealed handguns not frequented by the general public;
3. may carry concealed handguns in areas frequented by the general public without criminal prosecution; or
4. may lawfully carry concealed handguns in areas frequented by the general public upon a showing of a “non- speculative” need for self-defense.

The State of New York has conceded all of these points. As such, there is no reason for the Supreme Court to address these issues.

The only controversy is whether Petitioners Nash and Koch, in the absence of showing a “non-speculative” need for self-defense, may carry arms in areas frequented by the general public, without risking revocation of their licenses to carry concealed handguns while hunting, target shooting, in remote country areas, and in the case of Nash, commuting.

If “[r]educing violent crime and gun violence” are such “urgent goals” and “compelling interests,” why are the potential revocations of their licenses to carry concealed handguns while hunting, target shooting, in remote country areas, or commuting, the only penalty Petitioners Nash and Koch face?

How does a law that decriminalizes carrying a handgun in any areas frequented by the general public for anyone who establishes a desire to concealed carry for a specified purpose, such as target shooting, but only penalizes people who actually value their right to concealed carry for such a specified purpose reduce violent crime and gun violence?

For a person who cares nothing about target shooting could easily declare their need for a concealed carry license on such a basis, and then carry concealed handguns in areas frequented by the general public for self defense without any penalty other than losing a license to concealed carry while target shooting. If such a person cares nothing about target shooting, nothing is lost under New York law by doing so, as all that could happen is losing a license which is of little or no value to them. If such a person does value concealed carrying while target shooting, they won’t carry in areas frequented by the general public, and the law actually puts them at a disadvantage over those who don’t.

Such a law has no rational basis in furthering the goals of reducing violent crime and gun violence. As such, the Supreme Court orders that the restrictions placed on the licenses granted to Petitioner Nash and Petitioner Koch be removed, but states that it has not addressed (1) the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns in public for self-defense, or (2) what test or heightened level of scrutiny should be applied to such a right to whatever extent it exists. As the Supreme Court declares that the law lacks a rational basis, there is no need for the Supreme Court to do anything more at this time.

Afterwards, no Supreme Court precedent prohibits New York (or any other state) from passing a more restrictive law, and we are left with nothing except perhaps a robust opinion concurring in the judgement, like Alito’s concurring opinion in Caetano, which is of little consequence.

Last edited by LonghornBob; 10-20-2021 at 6:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 10-19-2021, 6:52 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
It will take CA about 10 minutes to pass a new unconstitutional law to nullify any SCOTUS ruling they don't like. The scope is endless if you have no morals and no accountability
Yep!

I bid 9 minutes. In fact, depending on how the argument goes, they may even do it preemptively before the decision is even announced. I don't think anybody should be specific and give them any more ideas, but I can think of 10 different things they could do, not any more outrageous than they or others have actually done, as fast as I could type them
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 10-19-2021, 7:34 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
^^^^This^^^^ is cray cray. Heller had NOTHING to do with concealed carry.


=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
  #1155  
Old 10-20-2021, 5:02 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 10-20-2021, 7:45 AM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,470
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Yep!

I bid 9 minutes. In fact, depending on how the argument goes, they may even do it preemptively before the decision is even announced. I don't think anybody should be specific and give them any more ideas, but I can think of 10 different things they could do, not any more outrageous than they or others have actually done, as fast as I could type them
Might they (state legislature) simply go full “Reggie Jones Sawyer”, and decree that the 2A “no longer applies”, and be done with it all….and leave it up to the Marixist sheriffs, chief’s of police, and DOJ who could enforce that….
Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 10-20-2021, 11:14 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Might they (state legislature) simply go full “Reggie Jones Sawyer”, and decree that the 2A “no longer applies”, and be done with it all….and leave it up to the Marixist sheriffs, chief’s of police, and DOJ who could enforce that….
Ah yes, the California version of a 2A sanctuary, except in this case it means sanctuary FROM the 2A, rather than sanctuary FOR the 2A
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 10-20-2021, 11:23 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post


=8-|
He is right and you are wrong. Again. Go read Heller.
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 10-20-2021, 11:24 AM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 535
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Paladin, do you mind reiterating where you saw that oral arguments will be livestreamed?
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 10-20-2021, 1:16 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,964
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
Paladin, do you mind reiterating where you saw that oral arguments will be livestreamed?
this is what I found,

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...n-its-homepage

I guess it's new as of 2021.
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 7:48 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical