2013 Supreme Court Term

Status
Not open for further replies.
Outside of the primary issue in Drake, the right to carry outside the home, there looks to be a pretty interesting supporting issue as well. That being the idea that the appeals court accepted the state's argument of a fit between issuing based only on justifiable need and the state's interest in public safety, without requiring any evidence to support the alleged fit.

I would certainly like to see SCOTUS reaffirm the requirement that regulations infringing on 2A activities actually be supported credible evidence of the fit between the regulation and the claimed governmental interest. It seems that in too many cases, the government's claim of a public safety interest trumps all contrary claims without having to be proven.
 
Outside of the primary issue in Drake, the right to carry outside the home, there looks to be a pretty interesting supporting issue as well. That being the idea that the appeals court accepted the state's argument of a fit between issuing based only on justifiable need and the state's interest in public safety, without requiring any evidence to support the alleged fit.

I would certainly like to see SCOTUS reaffirm the requirement that regulations infringing on 2A activities actually be supported credible evidence of the fit between the regulation and the claimed governmental interest. It seems that in too many cases, the government's claim of a public safety interest trumps all contrary claims without having to be proven.
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.

That's exactly right and the problem with many of these lower court rules, particularly this one. It is as if when talking about the Second Amendment we'll call it heightened scrutiny, but not actually follow that standard. The problem is particularly transparent in the Drake decision.
 
Without that requirement of evidence, I fear where a declaration of gun violence as a public health crisis will take us. New regulations of 2A activities based on a governmental interest of public health requiring nothing more than anecdotal evidence of fit could be disastrous. Thus a worthy fight to prevent the confirmation of a rabidly anti-gun surgeon general.
 
Without that requirement of evidence, I fear where a declaration of gun violence as a public health crisis will take us. New regulations of 2A activities based on a governmental interest of public health requiring nothing more than anecdotal evidence of fit could be disastrous. Thus a worthy fight to prevent the confirmation of a rabidly anti-gun surgeon general.

I agree here. But fortunately or unfortunately it seems there's a newfound focus on a opiate/heroin crisis. Whether or not this is a "good distraction" is another story, but I've seen more coming out of Linsky and police chiefs about opiates and heroin than about guns lately. In a way, this makes sense. My town had something like 8 ODs and a couple deaths last year apparently, but nothing worth talking about in terms of gun violence. Should we be pushing this public health people to spend their time on opiates instead of gun violence? I don't know. If the end result is more swat teams kicking down doors than I say no. But if the end result is actually helping people with addiction... Meanwhile, "concerned neighbors" prevented a doctor offering addiction treatment from opening in town last year...

Back on topic. I read the plaintiffs reply. Good read. Made me feel warm and fuzzy. Also, "at least I don't live in NJ". Sending more money to SAF and Comm2a ASAP.
 
It isn't just the Second Amendment. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled against following the Constitution on grounds of a 'substantial government interest' or 'public safety', while likewise consistently ignoring or even bothering to see if there is any evidence that support those claims. I mean, not only are those things NOT relevant to the constitutionality of things, not only are those things the exact opposite of the intention of the Bill of Rights, but even if they were, they have outright refused to even attempt to support them as being true!

Pure, unfettered corruption. The courts don't care to follow the law. It couldn't even be much more clear that they only wish to support 'governmental interests'. They have said as much.
 
No news on Drake today. Much better than being denied outright, but now more waiting.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
No news on Drake today. Much better than being denied outright, but now more waiting.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Drake was re-listed for Friday. Perhaps another week before we know anything. Although, the justices could be waiting to see if 9CA grants en banc to Peruta (or Richards, or Baker).
 
Just caught on SCOTUSBlog that Johnson v US was granted on Monday. This isn't a 2A case, but another wonkish statutory construction case ala Abramski or Castleman. The question presented is: "Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act." Johnson pled guilty to felon in possession in 2012. He got a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence because the ACCA triggers one if you are convicted of FIP and have 3 prior convictions for 'violent felonies'. Two of his prior convictions are for robbery and aren't at issue, the 3rd was for possession of an SBS. There's a circuit split on this issue and some prior SCOTUS decisions that petitioner claims preclude the 8th circuits decision that it counts as a violent felony.

This probably doesn't have much implication for us, but I found it interesting.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/johnson-v-united-states-3/
 
Just caught on SCOTUSBlog that Johnson v US was granted on Monday. This isn't a 2A case, but another wonkish statutory construction case ala Abramski or Castleman. The question presented is: "Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act." Johnson pled guilty to felon in possession in 2012. He got a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence because the ACCA triggers one if you are convicted of FIP and have 3 prior convictions for 'violent felonies'. Two of his prior convictions are for robbery and aren't at issue, the 3rd was for possession of an SBS. There's a circuit split on this issue and some prior SCOTUS decisions that petitioner claims preclude the 8th circuits decision that it counts as a violent felony.

This probably doesn't have much implication for us, but I found it interesting.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/johnson-v-united-states-3/
Probably not quite as wonkish as Castelman, but close. Still, it will be a great opportunity for the Brady types to stir the pot. I predict a Brady amicus brief followed by a press release crowing about how they stood up to the gun lobby's support for arming career criminals.
 
Oh goodie. Another SCOTUS ruling that directly perverts the Bill of Rights. Just more examples of how the SCOTUS has outlived it's usefulness and is yet another government entity that works for the governments interests, and not the people's. How not surprising.
 
Dementia?

-Proud to be dad every day, a licensed plumber most days, and wish I was a shoemaker on others.
 
Scrape off your pro-2A number stickers guys.

No shit, wow!


So do we get a vehicle that is very common OR very unique and drive like a "Sunday Driver"? Though this would not seem to matter as long as the anonymous caller is believed. [puke]


The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and
(2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police.
 
I said what I meant to say.

You're actually seriously advising people to remove their pro-2A bumper stickers from their cars because of this ruling?

At first I was going to suggest that you just missed the wink emoticon, but if you meant what you said, I guess I was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom