Did the Supreme Court tip its hand on the blockbuster gun case it's hearing Wednesday

[igs]

https://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-did-supreme-court-100058728.html

[USMCM16A2]

I would not for one moment, hold your breath. The Supreme Court will take the narrow path, and even if it sides for the plaintiff. Tailor an opinion that will not be the Emancipation Proclamation for gun owners. Don’t get too excited. A2

[wireless]

By training the question presented on these facts, the court hints at an outcome that both sides in the gun debate should be able to live with.

State laws that condition the right to public carry on a demonstrated need for self-defense could be constitutional, in keeping with a lengthy historical tradition of similar laws. So New York would be free to deny licenses to applicants like Koch who lack a special need, thus substantially reducing the number of guns on the streets. But states may not utilize a special need requirement as a de facto ban on all public carry. Doing so would infringe the 2nd Amendment right of those who face real and particularized dangers — such as Nash.

Lol.

Anyways this has been up for debate which is part of why the carry thread was locked.

So what's more likely, the 6-3 court decided to hear the case so that they can rule true "may-issue" is constitutional, or they did it because they want narrow the scope of their decision rather than changing the standard of review for 2A cases?

My guess is the latter of the two. They couldn't get all of the "conservative" justices to agree on changing the standard of review and want to reiterate the history and tradition test. No way the conservative justices who wanted to hear this case would vote for it if they thought thought we would end up at true "may-issue", where you have to articulate a need to exercise a right, and the government has wide discretion to deny that right because they don't think you need to exercise it.

This article is hopium for the anti-2a crowd. I would be willing to bet my savings that this decision expands the scope of the 2A but to what degree is yet to remain seen.

[mit31]

This is a really thin OpEd written by a former Sotomayor clerk. It's very clickbatish. The "tipping of hand" in the title is just referring to the rewritten question, which is not news and has been discussed at length over in this cases thread. There is nothing compelling to me in this article to convince me they will narrowly tailor their ruling.

https://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-did-sup...100058728.html

[homelessdude]

Some of us have been fighting for fifty years. It's time. Lets get on with it.

[p7m8jg]

Like usual, you can expect a decision narrowly tailored to the facts presented - like they most always do. With a sentence here or that that says something like "we are not deciding (insert your most pro-gun outcome here)."

[wireless]

I think they'll address the question of scrutiny to some degree and reject it. The lower courts have been running amuck with it, and I don't know of any other time lower courts behaved this way. We will get some clearer language about what the history and tradition test really means.

While this case is important because it'll tell us which way the wind is blowing, I am far more concerned about "assault weapon" bans and mag capacity limits.

[igs]

I think they'll address the question of scrutiny to some degree and reject it. The lower courts have been running amuck with it, and I don't know of any other time lower courts behaved this way. We will get some clearer language about what the history and tradition test really means.

While this case is important because it'll tell us which way the wind is blowing, I am far more concerned about "assault weapon" bans and mag capacity limits.

Weapons and mags are useless if you cannot carry them.

[riderr]

I hope the law professor at UC Davis and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is just biased and wrong. Otherwise, we are screwed for life, if they decide the 2A only exists inside the house.

[M76]

With stakes so high, commentators have naturally speculated about the outcome. Given the court’s conservative supermajority, many expect the court to dramatically expand the right to carry firearms in public.

“conservative supermajority?”

[riderr]

... in name only

[LonghornBob]

What's the over/under on the Rensselaer licensing authority granting an unrestricted license to the Petitioners today in a last ditch effort to moot the case?

[Jimi Jah]

Irish republic. Follow the laws you like, ignore the rest.

[wireless]

Weapons and mags are useless if you cannot carry them.

Semi auto rifles and standard mags are the only real check we have on government. If you can’t acquire them, that is far more of a burden on the 2A than carrying a gun. It’s also worth considering that carrying a firearm registered to you in CA is a misdemeanor, and in an age where DV is the only misdemeanor that’s even prosecuted, you should ask yourself if you’re a free person or not. I carry a gun every time I go to Los Angeles.

[Guninator]

My guess is the latter of the two. They couldn't get all of the "conservative" justices to agree on changing the standard of review and want to reiterate the history and tradition test. No way the conservative justices who wanted to hear this case would vote for it if they thought thought we would end up at true "may-issue", where you have to articulate a need to exercise a right, and the government has wide discretion to deny that right because they don't think you need to exercise it.

This. It takes 4 justices to grant cert. Theoretically it could have been the 3 libs and Roberts who voted to grant, but that makes no sense with the current "conservative" (hate that term with judges) makeup of the court. So, as you said, why would 4 (or more) judges on SCOTUS vote for a gun rights case just to limit the right? The math doesn't work out. And since Barrett is one of the few judges to have a pro-gun opinion on record before she got to SCOTUS, you have to factor her in as pro-2A.

With that said, predicting what SCOTUS will do is always hard. But with arguably the most conservative court ever*, it is hard for me to see them granting the NYSRPA petition to let the law stand as is - or make it worse. A lot of naysayers in here (I get it, once bitten, twice shy). But it's hard to call this the "Roberts Court" now that it's traded RGB for ACB.

Looks like we'll have live audio for the arguments.