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. Waher

    Waher NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    7,361
    Likes Received:
    5,228
    Location:
    BG&RA, BR&PC
    Uh... the deliberations behind the writing and passage of the 14th Amendment to incorporate states under the Bill of Rights specifically mentioned "freed men being able to bear arms".

    The 2nd has applied to states since the 14th. Courts just haven't readily enforced it.
     
    milktree and Jason Flare like this.

  2. Mike Stanton

    Mike Stanton

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2018
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    561
    You are a nice person.

    I wish her DEAD - and soon.
     
  3. PeterC

    PeterC NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    North East MA
    Aaron[MA] and AHM like this.
  4. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    461
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    I think it's possible that, like with Heller, the court picked a particularly ridiculous and unusual law so that it could make a foundational ruling about the scope of the Second Amendment without radically and suddenly shifting the legal landscape. They know how important it is to not move too quickly if they want their rulings to stick around and not generate too big of a backlash, especially in the current political environment.

    That said, obviously a "bear" case should have been taken up back in 2012 or so, moving with cautious but deliberate speed. Clearly the problem was Kennedy.

    The standard of review is a separate issue that is very unlikely to need to be decided in this case, because the law is so stupid it fails any form of heightened scrutiny.
     
    T-Unit likes this.
  5. T-Unit

    T-Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    654
    I agree with the last sentence, but it's the 9th Circuit, they're going to overturn the previous ruling no matter what.

    I don't think SCOTUS will have a choice but to take up Young v Hawaii because it will be so soon after they rule on this NYC case.
     
  6. C. Stockwell

    C. Stockwell

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    1,197
    Likes Received:
    997
    Location:
    RI
    If courts don't enforce incorporation, then the debate is purely academic and hypothetical re: the states. And it's also important to note that 2A arguments were made before SCOTUS when Reconstruction ended. Those arguments failed and gave us some horrible case law that still had sway until the modern day.
     
  7. HARRYM

    HARRYM NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Location:
    Massachusetts/NH
  8. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,186
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    Young is still going through the en banc process in CA9. The justices potentially two other cases ahead of it to pick from - Rogers (NJ), petition field in December, and Gould (MA), petition due 4/1. Young won't be petition ready until at least next term.

    With respect to the NYC case, the excitement here is that cert was granted at all. I don't expect that anything too ground breaking will come out of this, (but I could be wrong and frequently am). The NYC law is pretty stupid on its face. In accepting the City's rational for preventing people from leaving the city with their guns, CA2 was directly at odds with CA7 which knocked down't Chicago's requirement that people HAVE to leave the city with their guns in order to maintain proficiency. I think the NYC law is silly enough that there may be more than five votes to overturn.
     
    JJ4, Boston4567 and yanici like this.
  9. KBCraig

    KBCraig NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    3,784
    Location:
    Granite State of Mind
    Good lord, I hope not. Texas is among the worst when it comes to handgun carry laws. It's definitely the worst of the "shall-issue" states, and worse than several "may-issue" states.
     
  10. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,734
    Likes Received:
    7,561
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    I thought the same thing. Only an anti gun retard thinks Texas is the most lax law state
     
  11. Reptile

    Reptile NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,124
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    What good could this ruling do?

    The plaintiff only wants to take a gun to any range in NY instead of staying local.

    The court might allow an unloaded gun be transported in a locked case anywhere in NY.

    How could this case help a person CCW with a loaded handgun anywhere else other than going to a range?

    Also, any dissent from Ginsberg will be written by her clerks. Her brain has fizzled out.

    Only way she stays on the bench for the conclusion of this case is if she gets stuffed by a taxidermist with extra lotion in the bucket and a long hose.
     
  12. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    310
    Location:
    Medford
    Or it might compel more lax CCW laws. Like others have said in the thread it's about the scope of the ruling. Could be broad or narrow.
     
  13. oldguy68

    oldguy68 NES Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1,240
    Location:
    3 miles out
    The fed and states could give two sh_ts about the constitution.

    What makes anyone think a ruling is going to change "Our" 2A rights?

    New York and New Jersey refuse to acknowledge FOPA and somehow the outcome of a case is going to reverse that and many other illegal laws against our rights as American citizens?

    A police state is what the elites, state/federal judges, politicians,state/local/federal law enforcement want.
    Greed and control of the surfs are what it's all about.
    Don't worry they will have the walls around their homes, armed security and the common citizens are looked down on as the scum of society and are left to fend unable to defend themselves..

    Someday, god helping the tyrants will be removed from office and the small man will once again have equal rights of self protection!
     
    vicorjh likes this.
  14. exodious

    exodious

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,442
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Location:
    Vermont
    So, re: some of the commentary on Miller in this thread...

    I thought according to Miller, the only firearms protected by the 2A were those of military utility? So I don’t understand it being used as any justification or rationale for banning machine guns. IIRC Miller was about short barreled shotguns, which his lawyer might have argued did have military utility if only Miller hadn’t died and anyone had bothered to show up to argue his side.
     
  15. Reptile

    Reptile NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,124
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    Thanks.

    I need to reread and study the prior posts.
     
    crispnipz likes this.
  16. C. Stockwell

    C. Stockwell

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    1,197
    Likes Received:
    997
    Location:
    RI
    Miller's facts involved a SBS. However SCOTUS held that NFA34 was constitutional. NFA34 regulates machine guns. If NFA34 is constitutional, then regulation of MGs is constitutional (via the $200 tax stamp), and then other restrictions on MGs are legal like the registry and closing the registry. GCA68 modified or incorporated (not sure which) NFA34 and FOPA86 revised much of GCA68. So NFA34 --> GCA68 --> FOPA86.

    The U.S. v Miller, revisited

    This case is probably something that should be revisited by a 2A group, but I'm not sure how. A bump stock case probably wouldn't cut the mustard because 1) the military doesn't use bump stocks, they use real MGs; and 2) bump stocks are largely toys rather than serious defensive or offensive weapons. Maybe a guy with an AR that malfunctions and double fires and ATF immediately comes and seizes the gun?

    Then there's the totally different problem created by the artificial machine gun market. Who's going to be your plaintiff and do people who own machine guns want them democratized? Does the guy who spent $74,750 on an honest to God Izhevsk AK-47 want to open up the registry, or do away with the registry, to see his investment effectively annihilated? Not to mention gun stores with rental ranges, who have more cash to support a law suit?

    Rock Island Auction: AK47 NFA Fully Automatic Assault Rifle Ishevsk
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  17. VetteGirlMA

    VetteGirlMA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    2,095
    Location:
    western mass
    The scotus decision US vs Cruikshank (1876) specifically identified the 1st and 2nd amendments as not being part of the 14th, that is until the McDonald decision in 2010 that overturned Cruikshank. I personally spent the time to read the MA supreme court decisions based on gun ownership in 1970s and 80s and Cruikshank is referenced in all of them. Cruikshank is a good example of institutional racism being upheld by the courts and today in modern times liberals hide behind that very decision when discussing gun control even if they are unaware that the decision did once exist and it's only reason for existing was to deny any minority from having a say in theri government or keeping arms for lawful purposes.

    ps: The story behind Cruikshank is absolutely fascinating and should be made into a movie, if anything to shame the left.
     
    JJ4 and MuzzleDiscipline like this.
  18. VetteGirlMA

    VetteGirlMA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    2,095
    Location:
    western mass
    Carrying guns outside the home. Several circuits have said that carrying a gun outside the home is not a constitutional right. If scotus says that it is indeed a natural right to be able to carry a weapon for self defense in places other than the home then other laws and decisions like locking and storage, etc could all be on the table.
     
    MuzzleDiscipline likes this.
  19. GlockJock

    GlockJock NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,557
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Location:
    The CommonPuke of LiberChusetts
    1548597121-picsay~2.jpg
     
    Jason Flare and AHM like this.
  20. AHM

    AHM NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Messages:
    5,087
    Likes Received:
    2,494
    As icing on the cake, [Slate‘s Jurisprudence columnist Mark Joseph Stern] describes the apocalypse that will befall us if this breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment is honored:​

    Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. Lower courts, now packed with pro-gun Trump nominees, will swiftly tear down restrictions on concealed and open carry. ...​

    [​IMG]
    Meh; a scant few individual posters are good,
    but there's nothing else in the Reader Comments
    I can't get in higher quality on NES.


    Marsha couldn't name two of the good people in the Commonwealth if her life depended upon it.
     
    crispnipz likes this.
  21. Coyote33

    Coyote33

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,481
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Can we only use "military purpose" arms, or is it that we are PREVENTED from using "military purpose" arms?

    Seems to be some disagreements here.
     
  22. exodious

    exodious

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,442
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Location:
    Vermont
    The founders intended there to be a well armed populace that could defend themselves from a tyrannical government. They wrote extensively on the subject. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, ignorant, or both.
     
  23. Varmint

    Varmint NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,963
    Likes Received:
    3,395
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    A lot of libs just don't give a crap what the founders thought.
     
  24. rwl1955

    rwl1955

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    8,704
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Location:
    Central Ma.
    Because they were rich, slave owning white folks. Leftists HATE the Constitution and BOR's.
     
  25. Palladin

    Palladin NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    23,779
    Likes Received:
    5,361
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
  26. Tallen

    Tallen

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Messages:
    722
    Likes Received:
    408
  27. mlaboss

    mlaboss NES Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    Their conclusion shows just how little regard for the 2nd amendment the author has:

    You mean the court may treat the 2nd amendment as a...CIVIL RIGHT!?!? The horror!
     
  28. Varmint

    Varmint NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,963
    Likes Received:
    3,395
    Location:
    North Shore, MA
    Skip all the blather and just read this, for grins. :)

     
    Coyote33 and Jason Flare like this.
  29. KBCraig

    KBCraig NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    3,784
    Location:
    Granite State of Mind
    AHM and Palladin like this.
  30. AHM

    AHM NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Messages:
    5,087
    Likes Received:
    2,494

Share This Page