US Supreme Court OT 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Varmint

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
12,149
Likes
4,349
Location
North Shore, MA
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,371
Likes
3,081

Cap'n Mike

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
455
Likes
547
Location
Mass
I just noticed this was posted
Sep 04 2019 Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/114641/20190904133735900_18-280rb.pdf
Its a good read
Are SCOTUS oral arguments live streamed anywhere?
I would love to watch the ones in this case.
The NY attorneys in this case are going to look like a monkey fornicating with a football out there.
 

Darksideblues42

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
2,359
Likes
1,638
Location
Hudson, MA
I just noticed this was posted
Sep 04 2019 Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/114641/20190904133735900_18-280rb.pdf
Its a good read
Are SCOTUS oral arguments live streamed anywhere?
I would love to watch the ones in this case.
The NY attorneys in this case are going to look like a monkey fornicating with a football out there.
SCOTUS proceedings are not live streamed. This is to preserve the status of the court. Oral arguments are audio recorded, but there are zero cameras allowed in the court.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
573
Likes
316
Full docket: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of New York, New York, et al.

Some of the amici are interesting, including one guy, Neil Goldfarb, who wants in on oral arguments because he's uncovered new information that will make the court reverse Heller.
Thanks for pointing that one out Knuckle Dragger. While I don’t agree with his premise, it was an interesting read.
In particular, his determination that since “bear arms” was only a military term used in the time of authoring 2A, it was clearly not meant for the people outside of a militia to bear arms.

The whole time I read it though, I kept thinking about how the founders wanted free and liberty minded people to have the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government or a foreign invader. Would that not make the people the military?

So many “thinkers” of our time refuse to believe the meaning of 2A or the fact that the people can be the military. Or, and I love these responses, “you hunt?” or “well you can’t fight the (government sponsored) military” or “the government would never turn the military on the people”. Has anyone not seen what U.S. soldiers faced in Vietnam or Afghanistan? Average people with small arms fighting a guerrilla war against a much more advanced force. The Afghans did the same thing to the former Soviets as well.

Goldfarb completely ignores both the Federalist papers and the independent writings of the founders regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. Disturbing the lengths some will go to to distort the intent of the founders who perfectly understood AND experienced government tyranny. Which by the way, the date on the calendar has no bearing on when tyranny can occur.
 

Darksideblues42

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
2,359
Likes
1,638
Location
Hudson, MA
Thanks for pointing that one out Knuckle Dragger. While I don’t agree with his premise, it was an interesting read.
In particular, his determination that since “bear arms” was only a military term used in the time of authoring 2A, it was clearly not meant for the people outside of a militia to bear arms.

The whole time I read it though, I kept thinking about how the founders wanted free and liberty minded people to have the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government or a foreign invader. Would that not make the people the military?

So many “thinkers” of our time refuse to believe the meaning of 2A or the fact that the people can be the military. Or, and I love these responses, “you hunt?” or “well you can’t fight the (government sponsored) military” or “the government would never turn the military on the people”. Has anyone not seen what U.S. soldiers faced in Vietnam or Afghanistan? Average people with small arms fighting a guerrilla war against a much more advanced force. The Afghans did the same thing to the former Soviets as well.

Goldfarb completely ignores both the Federalist papers and the independent writings of the founders regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. Disturbing the lengths some will go to to distort the intent of the founders who perfectly understood AND experienced government tyranny. Which by the way, the date on the calendar has no bearing on when tyranny can occur.
I can't help but wonder why an argument under Article 1, Section 8 which says that Congress has the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which are documents authorizing private individuals to commit hostile acts against belligerent nations upon the sea hasn't been made. It seems like a pretty simple connect the dots type legal and logical path.

To qualify for a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, the owner of a vessel had to describe the vessel, describe the experience of the officers and captain, describe the armament of the vessel, describe the small arms of the crew, promise to engage only those ships specified in the Letter, swear to uphold maritime law, and post a bond to that effect.

If the framers of the Constitution didn't plan on the general public to have arms, how would such letters be possible?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,371
Likes
3,081
To not play to cameras or recordings for dramatic effect, ego, or politics. This is why court illustrators are a thing. Only way to see images of the proceedings.
So, cameras cannot be trusted, but an illustrator can? Sounds almost backwards to me.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,149
Likes
3,506
Location
My forest stronghold
Goldfarb completely ignores both the Federalist papers and the independent writings of the founders regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. Disturbing the lengths some will go to to distort the intent of the founders who perfectly understood AND experienced government tyranny. Which by the way, the date on the calendar has no bearing on when tyranny can occur.
For me, the most persuasive evidence that the Second Amendment was intended as an individual vs. a collective right was the passage of the 14th Amendment. It is incontrovertible that this amendment was passed in order block the efforts of some southern states to limit the individual liberty rights of recently freedmen. It affirmed that they were citizens of the United States (birthright citizenship) and guaranteed individual rights such as travel, the right to earn a living, and the [individual] right to bear arms.

A really great primer on the 14th amendment is the Bound by Oath podcast from the Institute for Justice.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,467
Likes
1,854
So, who is there to keep the illustrator from getting "creative"?
Who cares? What problem are you inventing here?

The problem isn't how people see them, the potential problem is not getting honest responses and interactions from the people actually doing the work.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
573
Likes
316
For me, the most persuasive evidence that the Second Amendment was intended as an individual vs. a collective right was the passage of the 14th Amendment. It is incontrovertible that this amendment was passed in order block the efforts of some southern states to limit the individual liberty rights of recently freedmen. It affirmed that they were citizens of the United States (birthright citizenship) and guaranteed individual rights such as travel, the right to earn a living, and the [individual] right to bear arms.

A really great primer on the 14th amendment is the Bound by Oath podcast from the Institute for Justice.
Great input, thank you. I will definitely check out the Bound by Oath podcast.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,149
Likes
3,506
Location
My forest stronghold
Full docket: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of New York, New York, et al.

Some of the amici are interesting, including one guy, Neil Goldfarb, who wants in on oral arguments because he's uncovered new information that will make the court reverse Heller.
Oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of New York, New York, et al. have been scheduled for December 2nd. However, that may not happen as the court still has to rule on the mootness issue. There's a distinct possibility that the court will moot this case and hopefully take up one of the New Jersey cases.

Comm2A will start a Supreme Court OT 2019 thread in a couple of weeks........
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,816
Likes
8,110
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
Well, let’s hope that SCOTUS:
1) takes the case
2) rules that 2A covers “bearing arms” outside of the home
3) avoids the “ intermediate scrutiny” trap
Also needs to affirm 14th incorporates the 2nd no different than it does the 1st to cut the shut from lower courts and bigoted states.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,149
Likes
3,506
Location
My forest stronghold
Well, let’s hope that SCOTUS:
1) takes the case
2) rules that 2A covers “bearing arms” outside of the home
3) avoids the “ intermediate scrutiny” trap
That’s a tall order! What’s the likely scenario?
A tall order indeed. Attempting to game likely or possible scenarios is a futile exercise. I do it anyway and am usually wrong - a victim of confirmation bias I suppose.

If SCOTUS does moot the NYC case, there are still many other cases, including thee carry cases from New Jersey alone, that would give them the opportunity to give us what we want. A ruling the the NYC case could be very limiting - just transportation. On the other hand a full carry case would give them a better opportunity to address the larger issue of carry. The only reason NOT to moot the NYC case is to tell New York that the court doesn't like their shit. Mooting NYC and granting Rogers would be a huge win.

Don't expect to see a decision based upon traditional levels of scrutiny. The rational basis - intermediate - strict paradigm is a made-up construct that's not applied across the board and is disfavored by many jurists including some current justices. A broad strict scrutiny decision in any of these cases isn't going to happen. The government almost always loses under strict scrutiny, meaning that even the felon in possession prohibition would fail.
 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,032
Likes
384
Remind us what "Peruta" is, and what "re-apply for cert" means in this case. Thanks.
Peruta v. San Diego County, a concealed-carry case from California. Peruta's argument was that for him, the "and bear" portion of 2A was rendered meaningless, as CA law prohibits open carry and SD County (CCW is issued by local sheriff's offices in CA) made a concealed-carry permit impossible to get for most people. For the "and bear" portion of 2A to have any meaning at all, there must be *some* legal means to carry a loaded firearm for self-defense outside the home, whether that's openly or concealed; and if a permit or license is required, it has to be one that an ordinary citizen can reasonably obtain.

SCOTUS denied cert.
 

Darksideblues42

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
2,359
Likes
1,638
Location
Hudson, MA
Not sure what is meant by "SCOTUS denied cert." here.
The Supreme Court of The United States of America declined to hear the case.

"Cert" is short for "Writ of Certiorari" which is a legal process by which a higher court tells a lower court to turn over all details and jurisdiction on a case to a higher court.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,149
Likes
3,506
Location
My forest stronghold
Can Peruta re-apply for cert, or is that dead?
Dead.

But don't worry, the pipeline is full of carry cases. At this moment there are four open cert petitions on the SCOTUS docket - three from New Jersey and Comm2A's case against Boston and Brookline. And, SCOTUS did grant cert in a the NYC case which arguable could be considered 'carry' or at least outside-the-home.

And there are still more yet still in the circuits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom