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

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,114
Likes
3,410
Location
My forest stronghold
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?
The 9th Circuit just today vacated the Young v. Hawaii decision and is ordering rehearing en banc. It won't be SCOTUS ready until next term at the earliest. Rogers (petition submitted) and Gould (petition due April 1st) are rather along.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
1,565
Likes
833
The 9th Circuit just today vacated the Young v. Hawaii decision and is ordering rehearing en banc. It won't be SCOTUS ready until next term at the earliest. Rogers (petition submitted) and Gould (petition due April 1st) are rather along.
Which would be after strict scrutiny is applied and possibly when a successor to RGB is on the bench.

Things look like they're shaping up to be like SCOTUS will rule open carry must be permitless nation wide.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,114
Likes
3,410
Location
My forest stronghold
Which would be after strict scrutiny is applied and possibly when a successor to RGB is on the bench.

Things look like they're shaping up to be like SCOTUS will rule open carry must be permitless nation wide.
We shouldn't get too hung up on the tiers of scrutiny paradigm. Scrutiny levels are an invention of the courts, they aren't the standard marker in every civil rights context, and a lot of judges have a problem with them. They're a convenient way to talk about what does and does not burden a constitutional right, but they're not the end-all. Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court takes a different approach to the Second Amendment.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,018
Likes
2,892
... Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court takes a different approach to the Second Amendment.
This is what I don't get. How can they interpret things a certain way 9 times, then suddenly differently on the 10th? What logic can they possibly use to justify this break in consistency?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
67,102
Likes
23,793
Which would be after strict scrutiny is applied and possibly when a successor to RGB is on the bench.

Things look like they're shaping up to be like SCOTUS will rule open carry must be permitless nation wide.
I have a nice bridge to sell you if you actually believe that. They will contort themselves into a knot to have a narrow ruling.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
This is what I don't get. How can they interpret things a certain way 9 times, then suddenly differently on the 10th? What logic can they possibly use to justify this break in consistency?
There is a strong political consensus around the other rights, which allows for relatively consistent application of the tiers of scrutiny among judges across the political spectrum. That is not the case with the Second Amendment. It is also much more difficult and inherently political to apply balancing tests to 2A. No one denies the centrality of crime prevention to the government's legitimate purpose, so you have a heavy weight on the other side of the scale in any balancing test situation.

We're better off with a text, history, and tradition analysis: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=5763&context=faculty_scholarship
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
3,109
Likes
983
Location
SoNH
Here’s the SCOTUS Docket page to track filings and briefs. Time to file amicus brief extended to Aug19 - one recent Mar19 is worth a read.

Quotable bit: “At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”

Search - Supreme Court of the United States
 
Last edited:

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,505
Likes
7,763
Location
North Shore
Here’s the SCOTUS Docket page to track filings and briefs. Time to file amicus brief extended to Aug19 - one recent Mar19 is worth a read.

Quotable bit: “At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”

Search - Supreme Court of the United States
Or . "Do you know how hard it is to force your will onto people who can fight back ?"
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
4,500
Likes
2,071
Left-wing Statist Regimes don't trust their Citizens because they need them to comply with the oppression in the name of the Greater Good.

The only solution to the Constitutional Crisis over 2A is separate Countries. Everything that happens with SCOUTUS, State/Municipal ploicies, and Individual disobedience is just leading up to a Revolution and forming of a new Nation.

Here’s the SCOTUS Docket page to track filings and briefs. Time to file amicus brief extended to Aug19 - one recent Mar19 is worth a read.

Quotable bit: “At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”

Search - Supreme Court of the United States
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,018
Likes
2,892
...The only solution to the Constitutional Crisis over 2A is separate Countries. Everything that happens with SCOUTUS, State/Municipal ploicies, and Individual disobedience is just leading up to a Revolution and forming of a new Nation.
What?
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
10,013
Likes
4,616
Location
Granite State of Mind
“At their heart, gun control regulations have always been about a fundamental mistrust of one’s fellow citizens to behave in a civilized way.”

They wisely did not insert what I’m sure they wanted to say: “...mistrust of one’s fellow citizens [by the wealthy, elite ruling class] to behave in a civilized way [befitting their place in society].”
Short version: gun control only applies to those people, not good people like us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,846
Likes
2,979
Short version: gun control only applies to those people, not good people like us.
Slightly longer version,
for the truthiness:
Gun control only applies to
the people that vote for us,
and the people that don't vote for us -
not the people that are us.​
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,846
Likes
2,979
Don’t expect this case to move quickly. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and that applies double for the Supreme Court.​

Keep filing those motions, NY.
You don't want that case heard by the current court.
See if you can get it delayed until RBG checks out.
Yeah; that's the ticket.


Someone should troll Moonbat Nation -
spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about
which cases in the pipeline will be heard
after she's gone.
 

PeterC

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
187
Likes
162
Location
North East MA
Don’t expect this case to move quickly. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and that applies double for the Supreme Court.​

Keep filing those motions, NY.
You don't want that case heard by the current court.
See if you can get it delayed until RBG checks out.
Yeah; that's the ticket.


Someone should troll Moonbat Nation -
spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about
which cases in the pipeline will be heard
after she's gone.

Well, true that. However, it is *moving* and, so far, it's moving in a direction seemingly favorable to our side. We'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
34,197
Likes
10,633
A danger is that SCOTUS will rule for us while adding additional verbiage like "nothing in this shall be construed as placing any limits on who may be granted a license to carry a gun outside the home".
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
2,965
Likes
5,381
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
A danger is that SCOTUS will rule for us while adding additional verbiage like "nothing in this shall be construed as placing any limits on who may be granted a license to carry a gun outside the home".
That would be unfortunate because while I don’t see the court saying that constitutional carry is the law of the land any time soon I do hope that sometime soon one of these cases results in “shall issue” being ruled the minimum standard.

:emoji_tiger:
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,256
Likes
8,481
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
It's hard to imagine you need to write such a document. It should be sufficient to simply point at Heller.

The problem with these cases is states and cities run by anti gunners can just pass 50-100 more laws in the time it takes to combat a single one through the system.

The scrutiny system is f***ing absurd to boot. There's one f***ing test for a natural right. Does what your asking to do physically or financially harm another citizen? If the answer is no, you can't pass a law regulating or banning it.

The design of the court system was a terrible travesty in the creation of this country. The assumption in court should always be the citizen is free to do as they please unless the state can produce a harmed citizen with a complaint that is provable AND the state cannot present itself as the victim.
 
Top Bottom