Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

SCOTUS takes on 2A case

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    mshill
    Veteran Member
    • Dec 2012
    • 4450

    Originally posted by TFA777
    This ruling should be clear per their prior decisions.

    CCW is not an assumed right to bear.
    But that would mean open carry has to be.
    In before the rabbit
    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

    Comment

    • #17
      riderr
      Calguns Addict
      • Sep 2013
      • 6632

      Originally posted by TFA777
      9th circuit En banc just ruled in hawaii v young right to keep and bear doesn't mean u get to bear.

      Likely they will turn down this case and wait until young v hawaii gets to SCOTUS. One thing they love is kicking the can as far as possible
      It really was a bad timing for 9CA to issue that decision. That really can trigger SCOTUS to cert.

      Comment

      • #18
        Citadelgrad87
        I need a LIFE!!
        • Mar 2007
        • 16869

        Originally posted by EQTrax
        "to discuss" really means they are going to do anything though? Could this just be another discussion where they decide to leave it to lower courts and they make zero rulings?
        This is correct. They are going to talk about whether they should hear it, they have not agreed to do so.
        Originally posted by tony270
        It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
        Originally posted by repubconserv
        Print it out and frame it for all I care
        Originally posted by el chivo
        I don't need to think at all..
        Originally posted by pjsig
        You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        sigpic

        Comment

        • #19
          Citadelgrad87
          I need a LIFE!!
          • Mar 2007
          • 16869

          Originally posted by IVC
          Thread title is misleading. They didn't "take on a 2A case," they are debating "WHETHER to take on a 2A case."

          As for labeling the three most recent justices as "iffy," you should look at Gorsuch joining Thomas in the written dissent of denying cert to a 2A case (pre-ACB), Kavanaugh's dissent on an AW case while he was on the D.C. court of appeals and ACB's history on 2A. Roberts might be playing the middle, but he is likely to join the majority if the majority (without him) decides to take the case and rules pro-2A. However, Roberts is now only determining whether it's a 6-3 or a 5-4 decision.

          We might still not get this case accepted, but that would be based on other cases lining up, not the unwillingness of *this* court to tackle 2A. In the highly unlikely case that the court is overall still "political to the left" even after replacing RBG with ACB, then SCOTUS is really in the toilet. I would wait with this assessment for two reasons: (1) we don't know yet, and (2) evidence and plain common sense points to the exactly opposite conclusion.
          Agreed. I think Roberts will swing back to the right now that he is not the swing vote/peacemaker. I
          Originally posted by tony270
          It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
          Originally posted by repubconserv
          Print it out and frame it for all I care
          Originally posted by el chivo
          I don't need to think at all..
          Originally posted by pjsig
          You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
          sigpic

          Comment

          • #20
            Dirtlaw
            CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
            CGN Contributor - Lifetime
            • Apr 2018
            • 3480

            Originally posted by riderr
            It really was a bad timing for 9CA to issue that decision. That really can trigger SCOTUS to cert.

            Liberals are "feeling their oats." They're confident they have conservatives on the ropes, so they're not so concerned about "playing it safe."

            Comment

            • #21
              riderr
              Calguns Addict
              • Sep 2013
              • 6632

              Originally posted by Dirtlaw
              Liberals are "feeling their oats." They're confident they have conservatives on the ropes, so they're not so concerned about "playing it safe."
              Considering today's decision on Young and the language 9CA used, SCOTUS must spank them back.

              Comment

              • #22
                BajaJames83
                Calguns Addict
                • Jun 2011
                • 6034

                Lets hope this going towards/ in favor the 2nd but it really is unknown....
                NRA Endowment Life Member
                USMC 2001-2012

                Never make yourself too available or useful...... Semper Fidelis

                John Dickerson: What keeps you awake at night?
                James Mattis: Nothing, I keep other people awake at night.

                Comment

                • #23
                  Harry Ono
                  Senior Member
                  • Jul 2018
                  • 965

                  Originally posted by homelessdude
                  The real question is: Can any of them grow a pair by Friday. They have been pretty disappointing up to now.
                  Pro 2A 5 and Gun Control 4. With Amy Barret on board it shifts the balance in favor of 2A.

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Librarian
                    Admin and Poltergeist
                    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                    • Oct 2005
                    • 44649

                    Main thread for this is http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...hlight=corlett
                    ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

                    Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    UA-8071174-1