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
  #1561  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:08 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Hallbrook, who was present during argument, mentioned that Alito brought up that if a NYC resident drove to New Jersey shooting range and then stopped to visit their mother for an hour in NJ before driving home, could still be prosecuted under the revised law. The NY lawyers argument was ďwe promise we wonít prosecute in that caseĒ. I really donít see how Roberts would buy the argument that there isnít still ground to sue for relief under the new law.
Reply With Quote
  #1562  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:22 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I only skimmed it and specifically read Roberts questions. I think Clement make some valid points about mootness and so does NYC.

Can anyone confirm if we will know about mootness after Fridayís conference?
Reply With Quote
  #1563  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:31 AM
tehDiceman tehDiceman is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 103
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I only skimmed it and specifically read Roberts questions. I think Clement make some valid points about mootness and so does NYC.

Can anyone confirm if we will know about mootness after Fridayís conference?
Nope.
Reply With Quote
  #1564  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:31 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,608
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Can anyone confirm if we will know about mootness after Fridayís conference?
Nobody can confirm anything about SCOTUS... They are free to do it their own way.

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #1565  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:33 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Nobody can confirm anything about SCOTUS... They are free to do it their own way.

Right, I guess I mean is weeks a realistic time frame for mootness, or will that decision be like a published opinion on a controversial case thatís almost always published at the end of June.
Reply With Quote
  #1566  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:34 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 244
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If they moot, they would have to draft an opinion and likely wait for the inevitable dissents.

As such, the longer the wait, the more likely they reach the merits.
Reply With Quote
  #1567  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:43 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,639
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I’m not surprised. SCOTUS has abandoned the 2nd amendment. They have allowed lower courts to do as they see fit. This is just another nail in the coffin for gun rights in the US.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1568  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:44 AM
flygrimm flygrimm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This article from TTAG seems to imply that the Chief Justice may not be as squishy as others in the MSM are making him out to be.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/on...y-of-new-york/

Quote:
From LKB’s reading of the tea leaves based on the questions and arguments, he believes that the votes to declare the case moot aren’t there. The motion to kill the case will probably lose by a 5-4 vote.

As for the merits of the underlying case, Alito and Gorsuch were clear skeptics of the constitutionality of the law. Thomas and Kavanaugh, while silent, have made their positions widely know and should be counted on to vote against.

The question, then, comes down to Chief Justice Roberts. He only questioned attorneys on the mootness question and seemed to be solidly against dropping the case on that basis.

As to the merits, questions from Justice Ginsburg suggesting analysis of the case under intermediate scrutiny and conceding no safety issue with regard to the law might have been intended to give Roberts a way to send the case back to the circuit court without ruling on its constitutionality.

Whether Roberts will take that opportunity or fall in line with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is the $64,000 question.
Reply With Quote
  #1569  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:49 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That was not a perfect case to start with. I guess that was Robert's hedge not to take other cases that are on hold.

I would rather they take NJ carry case or roster case to establish strict scrutiny and such. Too bad a year wasted, but may be it is for the better in the election year. Dismiss as moot, take other couple cases.
Reply With Quote
  #1570  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:52 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 667
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
...
if you're looking at a First Amendment right to speak, it's never absolute. There are some words that are not protected
I wonder which words those are ?
Reply With Quote
  #1571  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:54 AM
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flygrimm View Post
This article from TTAG seems to imply that the Chief Justice may not be as squishy as others in the MSM are making him out to be.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/on...y-of-new-york/
This article says Roberts is against mootness on this matter, but there isn't really anything to back that up. At best, he is a coin flip. At worst, his couple of questions indicate he is leaning towards mootness.
Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:55 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,850
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
A real manifestation of the utter outlandishness of your statement is that you can not apply for a premises permit for a temporary residence. You are denied the core right of 2A in a hotel, campground (unsure if these even exist inside NYC) or friendís home, even with their permission.

There is plenty to say that even with the law now changed, that there is still denial of Hellerís holdings in the revised law.
It would certainly keep them busy! Even rejections take resources.
__________________
CA firearms laws timeline BLM land maps
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that ď[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.Ē United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) -Scalia majority opinion in Heller
Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:59 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I wonder which words those are ?
Shouting fire in a crowded theater
Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:01 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Shouting fire in a crowded theater
Also wearing explicit T-shirtís in school, child porn, etc
Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:01 PM
Pappagiorgio Pappagiorgio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Is there any video or audio of the argument?
Our masters in black robes do not allow themselves to be videotaped, no. To do so would reveal Justice Ginsburg sleeps through most court business as she does States of the Union and Inaugurations.
Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:02 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,639
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Shouting fire in a crowded theater
So, if the theater is burning, you canít alert people?

What if you are an actor and the script calls for you to yell fire? Are you not allowed to perform that line?


The answer is no. You are not allowed to create a panic, which causes harm. Somehow, people donít understand that part.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:05 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,282
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Is there any video or audio of the argument?
Was listening to GunTalk on the drive back from Oregon, supposedly audio is available the next day. No video.
Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:06 PM
Rusty_Rebar Rusty_Rebar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 326
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Shouting fire in a crowded theater

What if there is a fire? That would be perfectly legal.

The prohibition is not on the words, rather on the call to action. As far as I know there are not any words that are "illegal" to say. What is illegal is a call to action that is designed to cause immediate breach of peace or result in violence.

For example: "Go kill that guy" would be illegal if directed towards someone with the expectation that action will result. However saying something like "All <insert some class here> should be killed" would not be.
Reply With Quote
  #1579  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:08 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 667
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think Sotomayor is talking about hate speech ..
Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:16 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Getting back to the 2nd A rather than the 1st....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
IIRC, SCOTUS rules say they can add a new case to this term's docket anytime prior to MLK Day.

I'm guessing if they decide this case is moot, they'll publish that within a few weeks (i.e., prior to MLK Day). So they could grant cert to the Rogers, Gould, Cheeseman and/or Ciolek Carry Cases or any one or more of the other 2nd A cases (Pena re. roster), this term easily. I do not think they'd even have to wait until they'd publish their mootness decision -- they could grant it after merely taking the vote re. mootness (at the Conference this coming Friday), assuming they are holding all those cases for NYSRPA. If they are not, they could announce new grants ANYTIME.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Nothing to do now but wait. Vote should be on Friday during their Conference. Until they release an opinion/decision (most likely before the end of June), nothing to do but watch what happens re. granting or denying cert in all the other 2nd A cases pending this one.
Looks like Vox agrees with me.

Quote:
Meanwhile, while New York State Rifle is likely to be declared moot, there is another Second Amendment case — Rogers v. Grewal — that the Supreme Court could take up as soon as Friday. The questions presented in Rogers include “whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.”

If New York State Rifle is declared moot, the Court could simply take up the Rogers case — and there’s still plenty of time for the Court to decide that case before its current term ends this June.
From:
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/2/209917...rk-state-rifle

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-02-2019 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1581  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:21 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Vox is reading what they want to read. I donít think Roberts mootness vote is definite at all.
Reply With Quote
  #1582  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:27 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I Know for a FACT that Roberts will.....
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

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

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #1583  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:29 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,282
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
THE HILL pretty much confirming what I wrote above.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

How I wish Thomas would step down immediately next summer, while the GOP controls both the White House and Senate. Otherwise, in 2 years, he may well be in the situation RBG is in, where he's tired and wants to retire, but dares not.
While it was only a 50 minute PBS program and couldn't cover much in depth, the show "Supreme Revenge" was informative. Had I seen it when Scalia passed I'd have had no doubt that McConnell would have held up the Obama nomination. I think he'd push through a nominee if Ginsburg retires after the 2020 election results - even if the President isn't re-elected and Republicans lose the Senate. That would be interesting. A lame duck President and Senate confirming a SCOTUS AJ on their way out the door. Of course that would be wrong, and I'd wave a disapproving finger their way. It wouldn't be the same finger were it done by the Democrats, but still a "tsk, tsk" would apply.

The only way to depoliticize the court is to return to a 60 vote requirement to confirm. That most always requires a nominee with broad appeal. Absent that, the nominee is linked to the elected majority in the Senate.

After replacing Ginsburg, should it happen, McConnell could "see the light" and Rs change Senate rules to require 60 votes. A simple majority is all that's needed to do so. If the Ds later took the Senate they can of course undo that, but let them be the ones to reverse the effort at bi-partisanship, self-servingly offered though it may have been.
Reply With Quote
  #1584  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:36 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,210
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Is there any video or audio of the argument?
Argument Audio:
Quote:
The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference.
Oral Argument Transcript: now available. Page 5, Line 6, Ginsburg raises mootness.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.Ē
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #1585  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:38 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
The Fate of the entire Republic rests in the hands of just Nine Five People, somehow I don't think this is what the Founders intended. Not just gun laws but ...
FIFY

FWIW RBG was asking Qs in re. NYSRPA orals today.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-02-2019 at 12:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1586  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:47 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Vox is reading what they want to read. I don’t think Roberts mootness vote is definite at all.
Agree: Roberts isn't showing his hand. IMO, he also wants to do that to, once again, show there are no Repub justices or Dem justices, just non-political justices, contrary to Trump's imprudent statements.

Regardless, the reason I posted that was to show that if it is mooted, the other 2nd A cases being held in limbo by SCOTUS might start moving. I assume CA9 cases held (Young), will wait until announcement NYSRPA is mooted (I assume same time as its opinion released).

If other 2nd A cases "move" and any are granted cert, looks like SCOTUS has a full calendar until late March or April.

Compare calendars at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ showing available slots
https://www.scotusblog.com/events/2020-03/ showing filled slots
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1587  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:54 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems to me that if there were 5 votes for mooting the case that they would not have had the case argued in the first place. It's not like the Justices didn't know the relevant law or lack the ability to declare it moot and drop the case.

I think mootness likely fails.


Regarding the primary question(s) it seems to me that SCOTUS would not have held the other cases if they didn't have a pretty good idea that they were going to issue an opinion which was going to affect the other cases.

So best guess is that there will be meaningful recognition of the right to self-defense and that the other 2A cases which are dangling out there will be sent back to the lower courts for decision in light of the decision in this case.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1588  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:55 PM
boxcab boxcab is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

After reading Justice Sotomayor's questions and Justice Robert's questions in the transcripts.... I'm very encouraged that the case will not be mooted.

Justice S. is in panic and was looking for Clement to concede mootness in order to kill the case.

Justice R. was making sure that he had not missed anything on mootness.




Just my .02.




.
Reply With Quote
  #1589  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:56 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Oral Transcripts

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-280_m64o.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #1590  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:59 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
It seems to me that if there were 5 votes for mooting the case that they would not have had the case argued in the first place. It's not like the Justices didn't know the relevant law or lack the ability to declare it moot and drop the case.

I think mootness likely fails.


Regarding the primary question(s) it seems to me that SCOTUS would not have held the other cases if they didn't have a pretty good idea that they were going to issue an opinion which was going to affect the other cases.

So best guess is that there will be meaningful recognition of the right to self-defense and that the other 2A cases which are dangling out there will be sent back to the lower courts for decision in light of the decision in this case.

All very good points that are founded in logic. We can only hope that the tide is turning. But it won't be the last battle even if we win.
Reply With Quote
  #1591  
Old 12-02-2019, 1:03 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 667
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcab View Post
After reading Justice Sotomayor's questions and Justice Robert's questions in the transcripts.... I'm very encouraged that the case will not be mooted.

.
I agree .. I don't think it's not mooted and we will get a decision.
Reply With Quote
  #1592  
Old 12-02-2019, 1:07 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reading the tea leaves, seems to yield the following two outcomes:

1. If the mootness argument carries the day, the decision will be handed down quickly (as in before end of January, 2020).

2. If the mootness argument fails, then it will be probably June before the decision will be handed down.

Then again, tea leaves haven't been too accurate of a prediction device of late.
Reply With Quote
  #1593  
Old 12-02-2019, 1:49 PM
Fedora Fedora is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
If the Ds later took the Senate they can of course undo that, but let them be the ones to reverse the effort at bi-partisanship, self-servingly offered though it may have been.
Having observed the Other Side for the past 7 years, my appreciation for bi-partisanship is much reduced.
Reply With Quote
  #1594  
Old 12-02-2019, 1:54 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Agree: Roberts isn't showing his hand. IMO, he also wants to do that to, once again, show there are no Repub justices or Dem justices, just non-political justices, contrary to Trump's imprudent statements.

Regardless, the reason I posted that was to show that if it is mooted, the other 2nd A cases being held in limbo by SCOTUS might start moving. I assume CA9 cases held (Young), will wait until announcement NYSRPA is mooted (I assume same time as its opinion released).

If other 2nd A cases "move" and any are granted cert, looks like SCOTUS has a full calendar until late March or April.

Compare calendars at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ showing available slots
https://www.scotusblog.com/events/2020-03/ showing filled slots
There is a bit of irony in this, in that, in order for Roberts to show us there are no political justices he has to play politics with our case.
On it's face, y'all are discussing just how political the SCOTUS actually is by all the gamesmanship going on instead of just ruling on the merits of the case.
If Roberts really wants to convince us that SCOTUS is not political, all he needs to do is quite with the games, hear the case, deliberate, and decide.
It really is not that complicated, or not supposed to be.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #1595  
Old 12-02-2019, 2:08 PM
yacko yacko is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 65
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't believe it will moot.

Best snippet here shows why....

" JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the -- are people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before? MR. DEARING: We -- we -- no, I don't think so. We made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that -- that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it. JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned? MR. DEARING: It was a reasonable -as we've outlined in our briefs, it was a reasonable implementation of the -- of the state premises license, carry license division. I think -- and we've explained that there was -was a verification benefit to the way that that rule was set up."
Reply With Quote
  #1596  
Old 12-02-2019, 2:12 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 955
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
There is a bit of irony in this, in that, in order for Roberts to show us there are no political justices he has to play politics with our case.
On it's face, y'all are discussing just how political the SCOTUS actually is by all the gamesmanship going on instead of just ruling on the merits of the case.
If Roberts really wants to convince us that SCOTUS is not political, all he needs to do is quite with the games, hear the case, deliberate, and decide.
It really is not that complicated, or not supposed to be.
Of course it’s a guise that the court is hiding its political ambitions behind a veneer of impartiality.

If that weren’t the case, Thomas and Kavanaugh would both be active during orals when the case has a right-leaning political charge. Their being silent is implicit recognition that such activity brings an unwelcome aire to the proceedings, given their respective confirmation hearings.
Reply With Quote
  #1597  
Old 12-02-2019, 2:12 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,282
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I read through the transcript. Mootness aside the two issues that I noticed most are that the case doesn't seem to be about "carrying in public" as in bearing for self-defense so much as possession while traveling to a specific destination. It seems to me a locked and unloaded gun isn't useful for bearing, so why is this case being presented as having an impact on CCW?

On the plus side, and related to mootness, assurances by NYC that they would respect "reasonable and necessary" stops that could violate "continuous and uninterrupted " travel were well questioned by Gorsuch and Alito. I think they realize depending on the forbearance of NYC is insufficient guarantee.
Reply With Quote
  #1598  
Old 12-02-2019, 2:20 PM
yacko yacko is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 65
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Of course itís a guise that the court is hiding its political ambitions behind a veneer of impartiality.

If that werenít the case, Thomas and Kavanaugh would both be active during orals when the case has a right-leaning political charge. Their being silent is implicit recognition that such activity brings an unwelcome aire to the proceedings, given their respective confirmation hearings.
They read the briefs. They know how they want this to go. They didn't need to ask any questions to clarify ANYTHING.
Reply With Quote
  #1599  
Old 12-02-2019, 2:23 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 955
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Because the licensing for the premises permit is both discretionary and includes a good moral character component. If we are to believe that the second amendment’s core right of self-defense in the home is truly a right, then both of those need to be struck down.

The premises permit is the most benign form of permitting, but it can be denied willfully. It would seem to reason that the justices should strike down such willful permitting, regardless of the scope, on the basis of the implications for defense, the core right of 2A.

Also, given the disparity between the premises license and the carry license, and the fact that the transport license was removed from their penal code in favor of just the premises license, makes the step between premises and carry too great. The other remedy option to the court is to force allowance of the carry permit to alleviate the issues of transport.

I don’t think that they will go there, but they may indeed opine that willful permitting of the core right of 2A is impermissible, as was hinted in Heller.
Reply With Quote
  #1600  
Old 12-02-2019, 2:28 PM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 894
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
So...seven more months of "wait and see"? ok, June it is.
I'm still holding out for Two Weeks™
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
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 11:39 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.