Pretty sure there have been plenty of guns at Bill’s games
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Who's views? Who is OUR ?
LittleCalm
NES Member
I don't disagree with all of that. Just pointing out that SCOTUS always equivocates on 2A to a certain extent, which allows for "misinterpretation".
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,574
- Likes
- 40,176
“13 circuits, 13 justices”. Arguments are irrelevant.
Last edited:
Maybe I missed it, but did they give any sort of time frame on this?
And is this "official"? If so, what makes it official? If not, what else do they need to do to get there?
And is this "official"? If so, what makes it official? If not, what else do they need to do to get there?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Messages
- 93
- Likes
- 120
(Note: I am not a lawyer, just an interested layperson and amateur courtwatcher)
That being said, it's also true that the Supreme Court's job is to judge the cases brought before it, and nothing more. This case is an appeal, so the question before the Court can be phrased as "did the district and circuit courts properly apply the law to the facts of this case?" Appeals courts don't hear evidence or witness testimony the way trial courts do. They hear the lawyers' arguments on which side is right under current law and precedent, and then they decide which side has the more persuasive argument. Sometimes the result is a ruling that fundamentally changes the way the law is read and applied, as with DC v. Heller, but other times the ruling is narrow and focused only on the specific case before them, as with US v. Miller.
I would have said that by taking this case, the Court is saying that the case involves an issue that needs to be addressed by the Court. Many Supreme Court cases involve laws or regulations that have no direct constitutional issue.
Yes. An all-out pro-2A ruling would essentially make "shall-issue" the law of the land and require all gun control laws to pass the "strict scrutiny" standard. Strict scrutiny means that to be accepted as constitutional, the law or regulation must be driven by a "compelling state interest," must be "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest, and must be "the least restrictive means available" to accomplish that interest. I suppose one could find judges willing to rule that may-issue standards like Massachusetts' pass strict scrutiny, but I'd like to think it would be damn difficult.
Nothing is certain when analyzing the Supreme Court. I'm sure they could find a way to dodge the core issue. But I'd like to think they won't do that. The fact they granted cert at all is promising IMHO. The Supreme Court gets thousands of petitions for certiorari every year and grants maybe a hundred or so. It's unusual for them to take a case like this, which addresses a basic constitutional issue on which the lower courts have split, and then punt it.
That being said, it's also true that the Supreme Court's job is to judge the cases brought before it, and nothing more. This case is an appeal, so the question before the Court can be phrased as "did the district and circuit courts properly apply the law to the facts of this case?" Appeals courts don't hear evidence or witness testimony the way trial courts do. They hear the lawyers' arguments on which side is right under current law and precedent, and then they decide which side has the more persuasive argument. Sometimes the result is a ruling that fundamentally changes the way the law is read and applied, as with DC v. Heller, but other times the ruling is narrow and focused only on the specific case before them, as with US v. Miller.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Messages
- 93
- Likes
- 120
All I've heard is that the case will be taken up this term, which means it will probably be argued sometime in the fall and a decision will likely come out sometime between January and June 2022.
I'm not sure what you mean by "official". The grant of certiorari is the Court's statement that it will hear the case.
So, how would this work? Does the legislature have to reconvene and rewrite the now "broken" laws? Or do they just get erased out of the law books? Does it get further argued? What happens after a "decision" is made to the actual laws if changes need to be made? What is the process or mechanism?
So did this grant happen? How does this work? And thanks.
The existing laws are "struck down," meaning that even if they stay on the books, nobody prosecutes them. Then the legislature meets and tries to figure out a new law that'll pass the new level of scrutiny.
Yes.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Messages
- 93
- Likes
- 120
Yes, it happened.
How does it work? Basically like this: You have a case in federal trial court (also called District Court). One side or the other loses on a point that it thinks is critical. That side appeals the decision to the federal appeals court (Circuit Court). The Circuit Court decides the appeal. If the loser is not satisfied with the Circuit Court decision, it files a "petition for certiorari" with the Supreme Court. This petition is a request to the Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the Circuit Court decision. The Supreme Court justices get together weekly to discuss all the petitions for certiorari that they haven't yet made a decision on. Each petition may be "granted", which means the Supreme Court will hear the case. Or the petition may be "denied," which means the Supreme Court won't hear the case and the Circuit Court's decision stands. It could also be "returned for further discussion," which means they haven't decided either way. On occasion, the justices may ask for additional information from one or both parties, information they think they need to make a decision.
The Supreme Court typically discusses pending petitions on Fridays and the resulting decisions are announced the next Monday. The announcements yesterday specifically said that the Court has granted certiorari on this case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett:
AHM
NES Member
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;
it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
From a letter written by a prisoner named King in a Birmingham jail:.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.
When Chicago had a handgun possession ban, City Aldermen were exempt. Anyone with enough power to be making NYC laws probably has the connection and clout to get an unrestricted NYC pistol permit.Thank you. I think I might have know these various things, but you summed it up and put it together in a very understandable way.
+1
See my signature line.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
Or the stricken law remains on the books but unenforceable.
AHM
NES Member
Hell, Imus had one.
Hell, Imus probably still has one.
MaverickNH
NES Member
"Judge Jay S. Bybee, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, concluded: “Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square.”
"Regulate" does not mean to what amounts effectively as a ban.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Didn't you know when the constitution refers to 'the people' it means the actual people living in the US, except for the second amendment where 'the people' means the military.
DarthRevan
NES Member
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
Given the manner in which SCOTUS has rewritten the question to be answered so as to now render the case an "as applied" challenge on behalf of the plaintiffs, could NYS now moot the case simply by issuing the requested permits to the named plaintiffs?
AHM
NES Member
FR: A "judge" (<= note scare quotes) using pre-Revolutionary British legal history to cancel
the US Constitutional clause that was written to redress
the pre-Revolutionary British legal history that caused the Revolution.
And the cash.
Bribes don't pay themselves.
Ex-cop: NYPD gun license division was a bribery machine
They might as well have a had a hotline: 1-800-GIFTS4GUNS. A former city cop spilled his guts Tuesday, telling Manhattan jurors about years worth of bribes he and his fellow officers received for d…
nypost.com
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
iPADS in LA.And the cash.
Bribes don't pay themselves.
Ex-cop: NYPD gun license division was a bribery machine
They might as well have a had a hotline: 1-800-GIFTS4GUNS. A former city cop spilled his guts Tuesday, telling Manhattan jurors about years worth of bribes he and his fellow officers received for d…
The really troubling thing there, is that the “expiditers” are the ones on trial, not the officers who took bribes.And the cash.
Bribes don't pay themselves.
Ex-cop: NYPD gun license division was a bribery machine
They might as well have a had a hotline: 1-800-GIFTS4GUNS. A former city cop spilled his guts Tuesday, telling Manhattan jurors about years worth of bribes he and his fellow officers received for d…
Remember the probation scandal here in MA where the clown 'judge' upon appeal said something along the lines of. "that's how things have always been done in Massachusetts" and ordered the convictions vacated?
Nah that would be an abortion case. Dems like to get riled up about guns but I don’t think they ultimately care all that much.
State of Emergency? Time to get out the guns!
;-)
;-)
Similar threads
