1. 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.

  2. Dismiss Notice

SCOTUS Grants Cert to a Gun Case! (NY State)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by soloman02, Jan 22, 2019.

  1. Varmint

    Varmint NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,943
    Likes Received:
    3,362
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    So how does this work - I've no doubt the current court will overturn this ridiculous law, but what will that mean for other laws? And what stops NY and others from ignoring the new ruling like they ignore Heller? Is there some punishment for repeatedly ignoring the Supreme Court's precedences?
     

  2. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Medford
    NY does not ignore Heller, at least not totally/more than MA does. You can, in fact, own certain types of guns, even in NYC. NYC has an equivalent to MA's FID, which I believe both are shall-issue. But like MA, NY is finicky with carry rights, which this case involves.
     
  3. Varmint

    Varmint NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,943
    Likes Received:
    3,362
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    This law says you can't leave your home with a gun, even if you move out of state. Either they're ignoring Heller or they didn't read it.
     
  4. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Medford
    Heller affirmed 2A as individual right, but didn't answer whether it includes guns in public places. So the libtard states generally interpret the outcome of Heller as that they must allow you to own a gun in your own home, but that's it. And they can be choosy about what kind of gun.
     
  5. Varmint

    Varmint NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,943
    Likes Received:
    3,362
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    Hmm, if I read it, it seems very clear - as Thomas said, does 'bear arms' mean bearing from bathroom to bedroom? Ridiculous. The decision even says "for example, in the home" - generally one doesn't say for example, if that example is the only example.
     
  6. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Medford
    Heh, I agree with you completely. Just the lib states don't. But prior, they could prevent ownership outright. It's a push-pull relationship unfortunately.

    But between this suit, Gould, and the challenges to AWB, well, there's a lot that could change.
     
  7. M1911

    M1911 Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    38,715
    Likes Received:
    6,360
    Location:
    Near Framingham
    We don’t know what the impact will be. It will depend upon how the justices write their decision. A decision striking down this law could be broad or narrow. I’m betting on narrow.
     
  8. MaverickNH

    MaverickNH NES Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    787
    Location:
    SoNH
    A good article about NYC and the liberal/left anti-gun advocates spraying spittle about “expanding” heretofore well-understood 2ndA limitations.

    Striking down an unconstitutional firearms’ measure isn’t equivalent to expanding a Constitutional right. Rather, an unconstitutional restriction on an enumerated right, unduly impairs fair exercise of a fundamental right. “
     
    PeterC likes this.
  9. rep308

    rep308 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,376
    Likes Received:
    2,071
    Location:
    inside the 495 Belt
    AHM, Masswhole and Varmint like this.
  10. Varmint

    Varmint NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,943
    Likes Received:
    3,362
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    I’m thinking broad, seems why they’d pick this case over others. Or maybe like he said they’ll add the strict scrutiny language.
     
  11. C. Stockwell

    C. Stockwell

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    983
    Location:
    RI
    Usually SCOTUS focuses narrowly on the case at bar. Very wide holdings like Obergefell are rare. Even Heller is somewhat limited - the actual "smackdown" from Heller is that the RKBA cannot be outright denied to otherwise "appropriate" individuals, e.g. able to own per Federal law.

    There is no "punishment" for not "following" SCOTUS. The best example of this is the Trail of Tears and how Andrew Jackson said something to the effect of "they have their ruling, now let them enforce it!", since SCOTUS held that relocating the Cherokee from Georgia was unconstitutional. State supreme courts generally accept SCOTUS case law piecemeal except for truly watershed cases like Gideon or Miranda. Like "SCOTUS got you out of jail" watershed.
     
    Mesatchornug likes this.
  12. VetteGirlMA

    VetteGirlMA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    2,081
    Location:
    western mass
    Don't you worry the liberals will work on a new set of rules if carrying outside the home is allowed like, you can only carry weapons every alternate Tuesday unless it's a leap year and then they will claim it's okay to do this because the NYS decision and Heller didn't say anything about Tuesday or when and how people can carry and here we are back at square one. They will grind down civil rights with trivial lawsuits that waste tons of money in the hopes that some day they will find a group in a weakened condition, lacking the funds to defend themselves and make a bad decision stick.
     
  13. M1911

    M1911 Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    38,715
    Likes Received:
    6,360
    Location:
    Near Framingham
    As C. Stockwell said, SCOTUS usually writes narrow rulings. Broad rulings are rare.
     
  14. Mesatchornug

    Mesatchornug

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    1,114
    Location:
    Medford
    It seems more likely that they'll apply minimum training and proficiency requirements to carry. Or maybe demand perfect concealment and positive retention. You know, things that increase the barrier to entry and aren't defined in the "core right"
     
    CatSnoutSoup likes this.
  15. AHM

    AHM NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,493
    [​IMG]
    (Except for 30.06/30.07; but let that go).

    ... it appears quite likely that the new conservative majority will, for the very first time, extend the Second Amendment beyond the front door and out into the streets, unleashing lower courts to strike down long-standing restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.​

    "Unleashing lower courts", as if; LOL.

    But if it makes moonbat heads explode,
    I'll power through it somehow.
     
  16. Glockster30

    Glockster30 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,157
    Likes Received:
    3,198
    Location:
    Milky Way
    Chief Justice Roberts has always preferred narrow rulings. He doesn't believe that the court should "wander" or "meddle" in facts that are not relevant to the case at hand, so it would be expected that his court rules narrowly on this NY case, i.e., is it constitutional or not.
     
    M1911 likes this.
  17. rwl1955

    rwl1955

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    8,704
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Location:
    Central Ma.
    Talk about fake news. Please cite stats.
    "
    If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?

    There are good answers to these questions. Right-to-carry laws, like those in Texas, appear to contribute to violent crime and increase homicide rates. Individuals carrying a weapon are more likely to escalate incidents of road rage and domestic conflicts into fatal shootings. Cities and states have a strong interest in curbing individuals’ ability to bring deadly weapons into the streets. And when New York City did allow residents to take their weapons to shooting ranges outside the city, the rule proved extremely difficult to enforce: Gun owners simply carried their weapons around and, when caught, insisted that they were heading to target practice."
     
  18. Garys

    Garys NES Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    17,756
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    Location:
    Stoughton
    Texas specifically tracks crimes committed by LTC holders. The last time I looked, it was less than 1% of LTC holders who were convicted of ANY crime. The percentage for LEOs was higher.

     
    CatSnoutSoup likes this.
  19. Garys

    Garys NES Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    17,756
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    Location:
    Stoughton
    Which is why both Heller and McDonald were written as they were. In McDonald at least, Justice Thomas would have decided based on "Privileges or Immunities" as in the 14th Amendment. He's a staunch 2A supporter and I believe that if he had his way, at the least every state would be mandated to recognize every other states permits.

     
  20. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    461
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    That's a good point. I'm betting this case will just define the right to "bear" in the same way Heller defined the right to "keep".
     
    Coyote33 likes this.
  21. LittleCalm

    LittleCalm NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,509
    Likes Received:
    525
    Kind of funny stuff about transporting to ranges. 2A covers right to protect against tyranny of the govt and right of self defense. Both of those unequivocally must be able to occur using firearms outside the home. The whole home vs outside the home is idiocy at is best.
     
    CatSnoutSoup likes this.
  22. M1911

    M1911 Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    38,715
    Likes Received:
    6,360
    Location:
    Near Framingham
    That is true for us, but sadly not to many (most?) people. There are many people who are appalled that people can even own guns, let alone carry a loaded gun.
     
  23. fshalor

    fshalor NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,328
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Location:
    Portland, ME
    And just like with Landon, it's the number of simultaneous insertions which matter..
     
    soloman02 and Dradian like this.
  24. soloman02

    soloman02 NES Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    12,131
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Location:
    NH
  25. rwl1955

    rwl1955

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    8,704
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Location:
    Central Ma.
    sure was and they were SHOCKED at the decision. They were counting on a HUGE victory and the end of personal possession of firearms in this country. They still HATE Scalia for that decision and made him Enemy #1.
     
    soloman02 and Jason Flare like this.
  26. C. Stockwell

    C. Stockwell

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    983
    Location:
    RI
    It does, but that protection is very weak. Realistically, I would call it lip service.

    From 1791 to 2010, the 2A only applied to the Federal government. McDonald held that the 2A was "incorporated", meaning that the 2A applies to both the Feds and the states. The only two major revolts against the Feds between 1791 and 2010 were the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. There were other revolts, like the Dorr War in RI, the Anti-Rent War, and anti-employer/anti-draft riots, but none of significant scale to take down the Federal government itself except the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. The Civil War was also, a, uh, war, between a de facto independent nation and the US. So that taints the facts.

    If the people were ever in a situation where there was an armed attempt to overthrow a state or the Federal government, who wins would be a better form of protection than the 2A. For instance, during and after the Dorr War, RI state militia troops conducted all manner of unconstitutional things, like loot houses (including guns), jump state lines to arrest RI'ers who fled, conduct unwarranted searches and seizures, and hold people without due process, assistance of counsel, etc. Since the RI state government won, all of the courts (RI Supreme, Mass SJC, and SCOTUS) just held that everything was ok based on "wartime" circumstances.

    If the people prefer written rather than natural law assurances of their right to overthrow a tyrannical government, then the people should amend constitutions to create a "right to revolution" amendment like NH has because the 2A has never been used for its intended purpose (thank God).
     
  27. Tallen

    Tallen

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Messages:
    722
    Likes Received:
    408
    Athens, TN, 1946
     
  28. C. Stockwell

    C. Stockwell

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    983
    Location:
    RI
    Again, 2A didn't really apply to the states and local government until 2010 and McDonald.
     
  29. T-Unit

    T-Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    651
    The only one that does know for sure is Roberts because he's the deciding vote on granting cert. For him to do it for a case that will lead to strict scrutiny, he's taking a big leap on something that can in one fell swoop destroy state/local gun regulations.
     
  30. T-Unit

    T-Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    651
    I thought Young vs Hawaii was supposed to be that case? Or are the conservative SCOTUS judges going to wait to grant cert to that case after they adopt strict scrutiny with this NY case?
     

Share This Page