-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS July Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE***
Supreme Court Decision
- Thread starter hennypenny
- Start date
- Status
![[party]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/021.gif "Party [party]")
JDL
NES Member
NY could just pass a law banning all guns that hold over 6 rounds. This will fulfill that the state is not taking away your rights because you can still purchase a gun and carry. This will open the door for the state to close down all semi auto firearms pistols or rifle. This could end up being a plus for the gun grabbing NY liberals.
Garys
NES Member
Magazine restrictions are on the block now. Since strict scrutiny will now apply to all gun laws, the state must prove that guns that can carry more than six rounds were not in common use through most of the history of the nation. Before today gun laws were examined under the lower standard of "intermediate scrutiny" and it was easier for the states to claim that it was a matter of a compelling state interest to limit magazine capacity.
I expect that any pending magazine capacity laws will be overturned by lower courts now that SCOTUS has changed the standard. It might take a while, but I think it will happen.
I expect that any pending magazine capacity laws will be overturned by lower courts now that SCOTUS has changed the standard. It might take a while, but I think it will happen.
There's no strict scrutiny test. The state doesn't get to apply ends-means tests.
Double dupe, though. I'm surprised there hasn't been five or six more, given how important the news is.
Been asked a bunch of times already in the main thread. Short answer: nobody knows for sure. Long answer: the restrictions should be going away, if the ruling means what we think it does and supposing MA follows it.
It would be great if someone would roll them together.
It's late and I'm tired. What does "ends-means" mean?
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,851
- Likes
- 5,746
Shall issue versus the current “ Red flag /boyfriend loophole “ Gun control nonsense is very telling. It’s almost like they knew they were going to lose had to come up with another “test” determine your suitability to have have “rights”…
It’s just more political theater but at least it’s going in the right direction. Watch all the violence happened when they rule on abortion.
We’re going to see all the violent wackos come out with their self justified excuses to burn shit down.
The joke being is all the CVS and wallgreens are going to get robbed of other drugs. You know the people who actually provide you the drugs for abortions?
It’s just more political theater but at least it’s going in the right direction. Watch all the violence happened when they rule on abortion.
We’re going to see all the violent wackos come out with their self justified excuses to burn shit down.
The joke being is all the CVS and wallgreens are going to get robbed of other drugs. You know the people who actually provide you the drugs for abortions?
Sorry, the term seems to be means-end. That is "the end justifies the means." It refers to all of the tap dancing around to excuse rights violations based on some perceived societal responsibility, e.g., to reduce "gun violence."
JDL
NES Member
NY dosent care they already don't comply. There is a new laws pushing to declare almost every where in NYC to be a gun free zone making it near impossible to get around the city without being criminal. And the DA's will proacute these new fellons and still let the real criminal back out to the street.
Garys
NES Member
The decision specifically addressed this. "Sensitive areas" must be narrowly defined, not a blanket statement.
The decision is long and detailed, but it's worth reading in its entirety. Justice Thomas has put a lot of thought into this and I wouldn't be surprised if some parts of it were written years ago in anticipation of the day when he could use them.
The decision is long and detailed, but it's worth reading in its entirety. Justice Thomas has put a lot of thought into this and I wouldn't be surprised if some parts of it were written years ago in anticipation of the day when he could use them.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 42,921
- Likes
- 24,567
It means the balancing of competing interests - in this case asking "Does the benefit of unimportant people being armed outweigh the risk?" rather than "Does 2A allow unimportant people to be armed?".
More specifically, and diplomatically, "Does the risk of universal concealed carry justify limitations on the right to carry?" And Thomas says "that test doesn't apply to the Second Amendment (and others BTW)". So the answer doesn't even matter. It's not a viable test.
This statement has huge implications. Going forward no Court can use this test at any level. I think it is a bigger decision than the smackdown itself.
How about going backwards? Could cases already heard by lower courts be reheard because they used 2 tests instead of just 1?
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 42,921
- Likes
- 24,567
An interesting article about the application of res judicata when the law on which the original decision was based changes:
SCOTUS Grants Cert to a Gun Case! (NY State)
Today, the court vindicated LKB’s prognostication powers, granting cert to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, a case that challenges the city’s prohibition on transporting licensed, locked and unloaded handguns outside the city. While ruling the law...
www.northeastshooters.com
- Status
