• 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 schedules Friday Conference.

JoseyWales said:
So, if none of these meaningful cases make it to the SCOTUS and it means we are all stuck forever with the 2A infringements, then the 3 branches of government have failed to protect our fundamental civil rights.

What is there left to do? Civil disobedience?
Click to expand...
It means that more cases will be filed next go round and theyll either decide to hear those or not.

At some point the court will hear another 2A case. Im not an expert but it seems like a couple justices are getting a little ansty with the lack of attention guns have gotten since McDonald. It could be now, could be next time, but eventually they will tackle a gun issue.

Im honestly surprised they bailed on the NY case, it seemed like it could have been decided in a way that was pretty narrow and didnt shake things up too much. Many of the other cases appear to be a lot more volatile in what they deal with.
 
All well and good, but am not getting my hopes up.
It would be cool if they had ditched the NY case so they could take up any one of the other licensing cases that would cover a wider scope.
It would be really cool if states could no longer make arbitrary lists of guns and features that you couldn't have.
It would totally cool make a bunk bed of all the p-mags I had left over after going "a little overboard" when capacity bans were made a historical curiosity like prohibition.
Also it would be sweet if my cats shat strawberry ice cream that also functioned as CLP.

I am not being a pessimistic, but as it relates to gun-rights find its better to have you hope set incredibly low and be pleasantly surprised when the needle moves in the right direction.
 
GoodWillHunting said:
All well and good, but am not getting my hopes up.
It would be cool if they had ditched the NY case so they could take up any one of the other licensing cases that would cover a wider scope.
It would be really cool if states could no longer make arbitrary lists of guns and features that you couldn't have.
It would totally cool make a bunk bed of all the p-mags I had left over after going "a little overboard" when capacity bans were made a historical curiosity like prohibition.
Also it would be sweet if my cats shat strawberry ice cream that also functioned as CLP.

I am not being a pessimistic, but as it relates to gun-rights find its better to have you hope set incredibly low and be pleasantly surprised when the needle moves in the right direction.
Click to expand...

"Low expectations means no disappointments." (Don't take that in any means as a reflection on the hard work by Comm2A, GOAL, etc, but when it's a decision dependent upon govt, it's beyond our control)
 
JoseyWales said:
So, if none of these meaningful cases make it to the SCOTUS and it means we are all stuck forever with the 2A infringements, then the 3 branches of government have failed to protect our fundamental civil rights.

What is there left to do? Civil disobedience?
Click to expand...
It is certainly possible that the justices will deny cert in all ten petitions. Conventional wisdom says they'll grant cert for at least on petition, but conventional wisdom is usually wrong when it comes to SCOTUS. BUT - in this instance it is almost inconceivalbe that they'll deny all ten. The dissents on previous cert denials have been getting angrier and angrier. I think there will be a lot of back and forth in confrenece over which petition(s) to grant. The liberal justices are going to want to weakest and narrowest petitions granted and perhaps the other justices want that too. The bottom line is that they're going to be mapping out strategies for disposing of all 10 petitions with as few being actually heard in the courtroom.
 
The problem is that with the court’s current composition, it won’t produce a decision that is too disruptive of the status quo. See my post above. The court just won’t rock the boat. I would love to see the court do as GoodWillHunting says and, god forbid, actually interpret the 2A as it is written clearly and unambiguously to disallow all the arbitrary gun lists and evil feature stuff.
 
LittleCalm said:
The problem is that with the court’s current composition, it won’t produce a decision that is too disruptive of the status quo. See my post above. The court just won’t rock the boat. I would love to see the court do as GoodWillHunting says and, god forbid, actually interpret the 2A as it is written clearly and unambiguously to disallow all the arbitrary gun lists and evil feature stuff.
Click to expand...
I think it would be a rare thing any future court will hear cases and side with the 2nd and any cases in the past that have sided with the 2nd are just hanging on by a thread.
 
LittleCalm said:
The problem is that with the court’s current composition, it won’t produce a decision that is too disruptive of the status quo. See my post above. The court just won’t rock the boat.
Click to expand...

Historically, that's the usual trend. And I'll be honest: as enraged as 2A violations make me and as badly as I want SCOTUS to strike down every firearms law since 1938 in one fell swoop, I think when I step back and take the broader view I'm happier with a Court that's less activist, instead of more.
 
WSJ wrote Editorial this week on how Dems(Sheldon Whitehouse) threatened and intimidated Roberts with his threats of packing the court if they decided against Dems on the NY case. Today Whitehouse and his Dem lackeys Danang Dick, Mazie Hirono and Dickie Durbin replied with a letter accusing the NRA of trying to use the Supreme Court to attack anti-gun legislation because they can't do it in Congress. HUH? Didn't they dirty Dems have 8 years under Barry's reign of terror to pass all their pet anti-gun legislation? What happened? The WSJ replied;
"The Whitehouse Effect

Our editorial Tuesday on the SC's gun right's ruling has inspired a letter nearby from 4 Senate Dems led by Whitehouse. We recommend it to readers as it amounts to a victory lap and a sign of what's to come on the high court.

Some readers might recall the SC phenomenon known as the Greenhouse effect. That was how Judge Lawrence Silberman of the DC circuit court of appeals described in the impact on the high court of former NYT's legal reporter Linda Greenhouse.
She applied carrot and stick approach to the Justices in her coverage of the Court decisions depending on whether they pleased or offended her political preferences. Justices are human and want to be admired , and over time the Greenhouse effect influenced Stevens, O'Connor and Kennedy to move to the left.

Well now it looks like we have a Greenhouse effect in which Roberts can be moved by political threats to judicial independence. The Chief joined the 4 libs in remanding as moot a case challenging a NYC reg. barring people with a legal gun permit from barring those guns outside the city to a shooting range.

Alito clearly believes in the Whitehouse effect, as he makes specific reference in his dissent to the amicus brief filed by Whitehouse and other Dems that threatened the High Court with restructuring if it didn't toe the line on the NYC gun case. He was joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.

Alito's dissent shredded the short, unsigned majority opinion on the mootness point. NY changed the rule but not enough to eliminate all the burdens it put on the plaintiffs in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Yet the Court's majority didn't even attempt to rebut the dissent's argument.

Note, too, how the Whitehouse letter to us treats all of this as entirely political, as if there is no matter of law at stake. Because the NRA supports the NY plaintiffs, he suggests their case is illegitimate. Does he think plaintiffs backed by Planned Parenthood should be disqualified on abortion cases?

Lower-court judges are flagrantly disregarding the Heller precedent as they uphold new gun laws, yet the Court has stood idly by for a decade. No wonder Whitehouse and his mated are chortling. They think they can turn the Chief Justice their way whenever they whip up the White house effect."
 
Again, I want to see the Court strike down everything since 1938.

But the NY case WAS moot. Whether we like it or not. The majority didn't need to rebut Alito; that's why they're the majority.

We need to quit underestimating the antis. They're not stupid. Just like most of us, they understand that not all court rulings are created equal: some cases are far more broad (and therefore more important) than others.

Here in MA, our esteemed Comm2A is very careful to cherry-pick its cases in order to avoid bad precedent. This, despite some hotheads wanting rapid (but narrow) "wins;" Comm2A understands that it's playing the long game here. The NAACP pioneered this approach during the Civil Rights era. If you don't think the antis are capable of figuring out that trick, you're not paying attention: they, too, understand that letting that NY case get to SCOTUS was potentially catastrophic for their side. Mooting it was an obvious tactic. That's the way this game is played.

Justice might be blind. But the people who are writing briefs and deciding which cases to file? They see all too well.
 
Picton said:
Again, I want to see the Court strike down everything since 1938.

But the NY case WAS moot. Whether we like it or not. The majority didn't need to rebut Alito; that's why they're the majority.

We need to quit underestimating the antis. They're not stupid. Just like most of us, they understand that not all court rulings are created equal: some cases are far more broad (and therefore more important) than others.

Here in MA, our esteemed Comm2A is very careful to cherry-pick its cases in order to avoid bad precedent. This, despite some hotheads wanting rapid (but narrow) "wins;" Comm2A understands that it's playing the long game here. The NAACP pioneered this approach during the Civil Rights era. If you don't think the antis are capable of figuring out that trick, you're not paying attention: they, too, understand that letting that NY case get to SCOTUS was potentially catastrophic for their side. Mooting it was an obvious tactic. That's the way this game is played.

Justice might be blind. But the people who are writing briefs and deciding which cases to file? They see all too well.
Click to expand...
I don't know who under estimates the anti's, they have the media, academia and most of big business on their side. WE are the underdogs because the media casts us as mad dog ignorant gun owners. Most kids are indoctrinated from day 1 in school with the "progressive" agenda and massive gun control is a main tenet. The Dems know they can intimidate their opposition thru media attacks and legal harassment. If Trump wins re-election and Ruthie "Woo Woo" is replaced with Amy Coney Barrett we will have a fighting chance. If not the country will hunker down into either red/blue enclaves and we will have a choice between either total capitulation or open revolt.
"Send Lawyers, Guns and Money. The Shit has Hit the Fan"
Warren Zevon
 
jpk said:
I have to admin, I'm a little bit surprised that the moron in Minnesota is still walking/talking.....it speaks to the tolerance off the american people......she'll be gone when they use the ballot box in november.
Click to expand...

It seems it takes less and less to set people off these days.
If the Libs don't see that , it's at their own peril.
There was a reason a guy that never held an elected office in his life is now the president.
How the Libs have conducted themselves since is a validation of why he was.
 
"Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" were purely terms phrased by gun grabbers to turn the tide on legal ownership. They stuck and to this day people think they actually define a class of firearm - they don't. It's a crock of shit, never meant anything and never will, except where they try to define such by law and it varies place to place.

I hate to see people saying "oh that means full auto" - reality it means nothing and we shouldn't validate the terms by using them.
 
teamRR said:
"Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" were purely terms phrased by gun grabbers to turn the tide on legal ownership. They stuck and to this day people think they actually define a class of firearm - they don't. It's a crock of shit, never meant anything and never will, except where they try to define such by law and it varies place to place.

I hate to see people saying "oh that means full auto" - reality it means nothing and we shouldn't validate the terms by using them.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Assault Rifle has been defined by military forces since WWII. The STG-44 or Sturmgewher 44 was developed in Nazi Germany as a "Storm Gun" where storm referred to the action of a rapid attack on an objective, otherwise known in military parlance as an "Assault"
 
Rocco Mozz said:
Galil ACE, WASR, New Uzis, and of course how could I forget The Judge!
Click to expand...

I would have an ACE pistol on order the very next day. For sure. Not much else I'd really want. Oh yeah, get the stupid FIXED FARKING MAG off of my AR pistol. Other than those 2, I think I'd be good. . . for now. But freedom will smell as fine as a sunny Spring day.
 
Darksideblues42 said:
Incorrect.

Assault Rifle has been defined by military forces since WWII. The STG-44 or Sturmgewher 44 was developed in Nazi Germany as a "Storm Gun" where storm referred to the action of a rapid attack on an objective, otherwise known in military parlance as an "Assault"
Click to expand...
Someone had outlined the historical difference between “assault” and “battle” in the Canada ban thread.
 
Redbeard22 said:
Have a little faith. Easier said than done, but at least this pandemic panic is starting to open people's eyes to the absurdities of these laws. Many people, both anti's and those who have neither been 2A friends or enemies have suddenly jumped on board to getting a gun "for protection" and are finding just how hard it is to get one, let alone how to understand the existing laws. Trying to be optimistic I guess...
Click to expand...

Yes the environment is much more favorable to pro 2A rulings vs a few years ago.
 
Al-Jim19 said:
It means that more cases will be filed next go round and theyll either decide to hear those or not.

At some point the court will hear another 2A case. Im not an expert but it seems like a couple justices are getting a little ansty with the lack of attention guns have gotten since McDonald. It could be now, could be next time, but eventually they will tackle a gun issue.

Im honestly surprised they bailed on the NY case, it seemed like it could have been decided in a way that was pretty narrow and didnt shake things up too much. Many of the other cases appear to be a lot more volatile in what they deal with.
Click to expand...

I think they were smart to drop the NYC case and use another case instead. Why confuse the issue with the city withdrawing the law already? It's not a clean case anymore so better to drop it. Plenty better ones to choose from.
 

Similar threads

The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
638
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
  • Locked
Hawaii State Supreme Court Rules No Right to Bear Arms
Replies
2
Views
376
Admin
Admin
Back
Top Bottom