• 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 decides not to hear big gun-rights cases, dealing blow to Second Amendment activists

The SCOTUS has no right to remove 2A so who gives a rats ass? I'll bet you 8 30.06 rounds sent express from my M1 Garand that no one can take away my firearms (after that there's 8 more, and so on and so on and so on...
 
What beautiful eloquent words did Target Sports speak to Maura that convinced her that shipping ammo into Massachusetts can't be stopped?

Can the Massachusetts FFLs just start selling AR15s to residents and when she trys to stop it a new case is born?
 
Because they aren't the correct type to undo Heller & McDonald and define 2A means, muzzleloaders...….in your home...….locked up separate from powder and shot.

Just guessing...………...
 
Quite_Exasperated said:
I would like to know WHY they keep punting on these cases..
Click to expand...

I have two theories:
  1. They're hoping Trump gets to pick RBG's replacement.
  2. The conservative wing of the Court is afraid that a substantial pro-2A ruling on the eve of the election will get out the vote for the Democrats. And that furthermore, should the Dems sweep both houses of Congress and the White House, "packing the Court" may become a reality. Hell, they may even have the liberal Wing of the Court on board with them on this one. Packing the Court would undermine its integrity, nullify the principle of judicial review of laws, and functionally render the Judicial Branch subordinate to the Legislative. I can't imagine any jurist who would see that as a good thing.
 
Many theories.
So f***ed if it keeps getting kicked down the road.
Have a back up plan. If it gets that bad courts and fees are the last thing to think about.
 
JoseyWales said:
What beautiful eloquent words did Target Sports speak to Maura that convinced her that shipping ammo into Massachusetts can't be stopped?
Click to expand...
I believe the message read "nuts"
Can the Massachusetts FFLs just start selling AR15s to residents and when she trys to stop it a new case is born?
Click to expand...
Maura can shut down a Mass FFL with a phone call. She has little to no authority over an out of state business
 
Quite_Exasperated said:
I would like to know WHY they keep punting on these cases..
Click to expand...

Because taking a case knowing that the likely outcome is a shitty ruling is 100x worse than punting. And the players on the court all know this, on both
sides. And the "conservative" wafflers like Roberts know it too, and will agree to a punt vs a ruling.

Also sometimes a "punt" is because of controversy. For example a lot of A-word cases get punted because nobody wants to touch Roe, on either
side. The last A-word case that got granted cert, likely only was granted cert because the players involved figured out how they could address the
case without touching roe, and they basically just walked right around it like avoiding a bouncing betty mine that had a red flag taped near it.

"Whether scotus takes a case" involves a melanage of factors some are obvious and some are almost gnomish mysticism. Part of the reason they took Heller is because Alan Gura basically
went masterclass on the whole thing, and the way that case was constructed was simplistically brilliant enough that it literally would have been embarrassing to the court to not
grant cert. The plaintiffs were perfect, too. The optics of Heller were such that punting would not have been "a good look" for the court. And yes, I realize in writing that, the supreme court has issued shitty decisions over the years, that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the generic respect of the court in the legal community.

This is like a short list of stuff:

-Sympathetic plaintiffs (or lack thereof) - a violent scumbag caught violating a stupid gun law doesn't make for a good plaintiff. Even the conservative justices dont like this because it basically gives their peers an easy chickenshit out excuse by using the "public safety" and "community danger" nostrums, etc. If you have good plaintiffs and you are going off paper law and not
emotionally charged law, it makes the case cleaner.

-Overall Judicial soundness - is the petition too broad in the sense that any decision will also have to be too broad? This is an automatic fail, even moonbat justices generally don't want to make activist rulings to that degree, the attitude is that anything that broad really needs to be addressed by legislative bodies.

-Competing petitions covering the same shit- the supremes are going to punt on something if they see a far more refined case coming down the pipeline.

-3rd way resolution - is there a way to answer the question without opening a can of worms? Caetano is an example of this... No sweeping declaration, just "sorry mass court, you done f***ed up, now fix it" but I think this only existed as an opportunity based on the way the case developed. Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

ETA: The reason you don't see more rulings like Caetano is because the antis are tippytoeing around that shit constantly, if you haven't noticed. Like for example in NJ Krispy Kreme was letting
a bunch of "lady possessing gun unlawfully" cases off the hook because Bloomberg et al don't want those cases going to trial and becoming an easy/cheap 2A win.

-Predetermined feelings by various factions in the court about Case/Issue X. An example in an RKBA case is something like this happens. Say they grant cert on an AWB
case. A case that Roberts really doesn't want to even entertain. Court splits 4/4 with Roberts as the tiebreaker vote- now guess what, this means the pro rkba faction in the
court has to beg him for his vote, which means they have to water down/f*** up their decision in the process to buy his vote. If this kind of situation is a 110% reality, the players
involved will nearly always punt rather than entertain the case. It's also sort of a courtesy thing. Roberts isn't going to fake "liking the case" so he can stab people in the back later, even though he's a shithead there is a sort of professional courtesy there.

Punting is nearly always better than a bad decision. Perfect example- had Abramski been punted, and somehow revisited after Kennedy retired, and we got Kav and Gorsuch, there is no
way in hell that Abramski would have failed under the current court. That case literally only failed because Kennedy was infatuated with knob polishing the state. My guess is Kennedy either tricked them or went turncoat in the middle of the case. Even John Roberts voted correctly on that case, it was a dead simple case about straw purchases and how f***ing stupid that regulation is. It wouldn't have been a wide ruling either, it likely would have just had the effect of tapering "straw purchase" down into meaning what it was really supposed to be to begin with, which is "buying a gun for someone who was legally disabled". (no, I don't agree with the law but its pretty obvious that straw purchase regs federally are a lot wider in scope in practice than they really should be. ) The fact remains though that the political overtones of a pro RKBA ruling in that case would be quiet enough to not attract too much attention as it wouldn't
fundamentally change much (but would keep lots of well meaning people out of jail for doing something which should clearly be legal!)
 
So what now? We just wait until things get even worse, and then wait another 4 years after that, hoping for a new case to be granted cert?
 
Conservatism is a failed ideology. 'Our' judges are conservatards of the highest order. Plus probably pedos with a blackmail film reel. Good news is now you all know it is broken. We can look to what is next. It ain't the courts.
 
Our founding fathers and fellow patriots must have felt the same way when the British tried to take their rights away!
Laws of the land rule.
Not those of a government.
We the people, by the people, for the people.
If those in our government don't think our constitution is relevant.
Then why should we think they are?
Politicians can not take, that which is not their's to give.

The supreme court has not served the people in ages.
How cares what those old and decrepit, politically driven fools, that just won't quit when their time is done, think about "OUR" rights.

Take solace in knowing that they are screwing over their own children's future as well!

I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I can defend my family and our rights.
They hate us because we have arms and know how to use them and have a will they can never understand.

We will gladly lay down our lives for freedom and they are so selfish that they will destroy a nation for their own greed!

Freedom comes from within.
It can not be given to someone.
It must be something they are willing to ensure themselves.
Less they lie down and feel a masters foot on their neck.
Freedom must be earned and like so many things is never free.

This is OUR land, OUR country and OUR people.
That is why they are so afraid of us.

You can never win a war against a people with freedom's determination!
Every slap in the face of the people's rights is a fan on the flame of freedom's fire!

It took many years for the colonist to finally meet their oppressors on the old north bridge.
Someday like those before us, we will again sacrifice all for a cause worthy of freedom!

If we go after the politicians that go after us and order our arms taken away.
We will be home before noon!

This ain't our first rodeo, but it is for those in our government!
 
Last edited:
BigGreen2000 said:
So Blue America will continue to pass more 2A restrictive legislation, emboldened by today’s news. Red America will continue to respect 2A. More court cases will work their way through the system. This issue is not going away anytime soon. . .How long does the court think it can keep dodging this?
Click to expand...
Until they get the results they want.


View: https://youtu.be/civuoU_NE38
 
rivet_42 said:
I have two theories:
  1. They're hoping Trump gets to pick RBG's replacement.
  2. The conservative wing of the Court is afraid that a substantial pro-2A ruling on the eve of the election will get out the vote for the Democrats. And that furthermore, should the Dems sweep both houses of Congress and the White House, "packing the Court" may become a reality. Hell, they may even have the liberal Wing of the Court on board with them on this one. Packing the Court would undermine its integrity, nullify the principle of judicial review of laws, and functionally render the Judicial Branch subordinate to the Legislative. I can't imagine any jurist who would see that as a good thing.
Click to expand...


This is considered "Roberts" court. He is incredibly sensitive to the appearance of politicization of the court, which is why many think in some instances he has sided with the left wing on certain cases. I think it is wrong and by him trying to do this, rather than adhering to an objective interpretation of the law, he IS politicizing the court.

There is absolutely no excuse for the court not to hear these 2A cases. None. Your assessment is a good one and may very well be true. I think the reality is that this comes down to Roberts and his ego.

He doesn't want that legacy on HIS watch, but its already too late.

But once RBG is gone and Trump appoints another judge, these games will be over.

Just look at this latest landmark ruling which completely gives the court the ability to adapt and change the interpretation of EXISTING LAW.

If protections for trans people were really that important, then the law itself would be changed/modernized by Congress, but in this case, the court took it upon itself to legislate.

Go read the dissents in that case to see how f***ed up the court already is on this stuff.

So by your #2 argument, one could make the same argument about this liberal cause. If the court can pull this shit on the eve of the election, then why can't it hear a clean cut 2A case on the issue of suitability, also on the eve of the election?
 
Last edited:
n1bsbri said:
They got Randy Weaver's guns, also Lavoy Finnicum's guns.
Click to expand...

I guess this is the lesson from Antifa and the latest "protests" (riots and mayhem). Weaver and Finicum let the government come to them. Antifa is taking on the government at their front doorstep. The next 2A violation should rouse the constitutional masses with such a fury that 2A will never be challenged again. But, we tend to be rule of law masses as well so good luck with that.
 
rivet_42 said:
I have two theories:
  1. They're hoping Trump gets to pick RBG's replacement.
  2. The conservative wing of the Court is afraid that a substantial pro-2A ruling on the eve of the election will get out the vote for the Democrats. And that furthermore, should the Dems sweep both houses of Congress and the White House, "packing the Court" may become a reality. Hell, they may even have the liberal Wing of the Court on board with them on this one. Packing the Court would undermine its integrity, nullify the principle of judicial review of laws, and functionally render the Judicial Branch subordinate to the Legislative. I can't imagine any jurist who would see that as a good thing.
Click to expand...
I will add a third: The conservative wing was concerned that there were not five votes for a strict constructionist rather than living document viewpoint to prevail. Part of the gamesmanship is only granting cert to cases you either do not particularly care about the outcome of, or that you believe your side will win if they are heard. Remember 5 to win, but only 4 to grant cert.
 
Roberts is 100% on the other side. I don't care who appointed him or what he wrote about in law school. Maybe he is a 'good conservatard' with a pedo film reel, doesn't matter why he works for the left. The courts are not going to fix anything. If it makes you feel better keep sending money to conservatards so they can keep twisting the knife in your back.
Bladerunner said:
This is considered "Roberts" court. He is incredibly sensitive to the appearance of politicization of the court, which is why many think in some instances he has sided with the left wing on certain cases. I think it is wrong and by him trying to do this, rather than adhering to an objective interpretation of the law, he IS politicizing the court.

There is absolutely no excuse for the court not to hear these 2A cases. None. Your assessment is a good one and may very well be true. I think the reality is that this comes down to Roberts and his ego.

He doesn't want that legacy on HIS watch, but its already too late.

But once RBG is gone and Trump appoints another judge, these games will be over.

Just look at this latest landmark ruling which completely gives the court the ability to adapt and change the interpretation of EXISTING LAW.

If protections for trans people were really that important, then the law itself would be changed/modernized by Congress, but in this case, the court too it upon itself to legislate.

Go read the dissents in that case to see how f***ed up the court already is on this stuff.

So by your #2 argument, one could make the same argument about this liberal cause. If the court can pull this shit on the eve of the election, then why can't it hear a clean cut 2A case on the issue of suitability?
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Tyrant NY judge says Second Amendment doesn't exist in her court room
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
3K
paul73
paul73
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
298
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
195
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
656
groundscrapers
G
If Biden were to be elected, what actions could he take to support the Second Amendment (2A)?
Replies
13
Views
320
s&w3913
S
Back
Top Bottom