Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case


    Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case
    John Kruzel 28 mins ago

    Supreme Court set to take up major Second Amendment case


    The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

    a large stone building: Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case© Greg Nash Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case
    In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state's denial of their applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense.


    The case represents the first time the 6-3 conservative court will hear arguments over the nation's long-running and fraught debate about gun rights in America.

    It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

    In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

    Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

    According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

    Updated at 10:31 a.m.
    A very , very important case!!
    Especially important to me personally as a lifelong gun advocate and devoted shooter.
    Yes I shoot guns - not just bows...
    And I am a lifelong, devoted advocate for the rights that were are supposed to have under our Constitution..
    The --rights-- the ffing dems are hellbent on taking away.
    Which is exactly why-- I SO VERY DEEPLY DESPISE THE FFING BASTARDS( all of them)!!!-- -Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  2. Likes jimnyc, icansayit liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    I am scared of this case going wrong and then other states switching to a New York style law.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  4. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes jimnyc, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot liked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darin View Post
    I am scared of this case going wrong and then other states switching to a New York style law.
    Yes, that is my main worry as well.
    But may be a blessing this case being heard as the court is now comprised, with the 6 to 3 majority.
    The dems are definitely going to pack the court if they can-- during the idiot/puppet O' Biden's term.-Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    I think it's more like 5.5 to 3.5 as John Roberts is a wildcard.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  7. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Mr. P liked this post
  8. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darin View Post
    I think it's more like 5.5 to 3.5 as John Roberts is a wildcard.
    Well, that is a more accurate assessment methinks. -Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  9. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    USA East Coast
    Posts
    3,091
    Thanks (Given)
    3048
    Thanks (Received)
    2042
    Likes (Given)
    4798
    Likes (Received)
    1751
    Piss Off (Given)
    230
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6803333

    Default Only the beginning...

    The Socialists will stop at nothing to bring down our nation...starting with IGNORING all of the Constitutional Amendments They Don't Like. But they won't touch the 16TH AMENDMENT
    Income Tax
    Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. The 16th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 9

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


    That is their never-ending CASH COW... START AT THE 3:00 Minute mark.
    Last edited by icansayit; 04-26-2021 at 07:36 PM.
    I may be older than most. I may say things not everybody will like.
    But despite all of that. I will never lower myself to the level of Liars, Haters, Cheats, and Hypocrites.
    Philippians 4:13 I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me:

  10. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  11. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    181
    Thanks (Given)
    59
    Thanks (Received)
    174
    Likes (Given)
    76
    Likes (Received)
    128
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    430712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    A very , very important case!!
    Yes it is and gun rights people really need to temper our expectations. IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and IMO, is doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

    I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

    The best we can hope for is for Thomas to write the opinion. He is our (gun rights supporters) best chance for a comprehensive opinion that will both correct the errors and settle issues left open by Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald.


    You can not truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
    If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.



  12. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Gunny thanked this post
    Likes NightTrain, jimnyc, SassyLady liked this post
  13. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Surf Fishing Guru View Post
    Yes it is and gun rights people really need to temper our expectations. IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and IMO, is doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

    I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

    The best we can hope for is for Thomas to write the opinion. He is our (gun rights supporters) best chance for a comprehensive opinion that will both correct the errors and settle issues left open by Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald.

    We're working on that here in TX. Just about have a right to open carry law through our Congress.

  14. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  15. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    181
    Thanks (Given)
    59
    Thanks (Received)
    174
    Likes (Given)
    76
    Likes (Received)
    128
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    430712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    We're working on that here in TX. Just about have a right to open carry law through our Congress.
    The Senate passed it (HB-1927) with some changes so now it has to go back to the House for final approval. Abbott says he will sign the bill.

    It will make Texas the 5th state this year to become permitless concealed carry and will include open carry if the gun is in a shoulder or belt holster. Earlier this year, Montana's and Utah's law went into effect, Tennessee and Iowa will go into effect on July 1st and Texas TBD.

    When Iowa, Tennessee and Texas's constitutional carry laws become effective, that will make 21 constitutional carry / unrestricted carry states (in green). When one sees the progression from "shall issue" to now states going permitless, it is impressive:




    You can not truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
    If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.



  16. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes icansayit, jimnyc, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot liked this post
  17. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Surf Fishing Guru View Post
    The Senate passed it (HB-1927) with some changes so now it has to go back to the House for final approval. Abbott says he will sign the bill.

    It will make Texas the 5th state this year to become permitless concealed carry and will include open carry if the gun is in a shoulder or belt holster. Earlier this year, Montana's and Utah's law went into effect, Tennessee and Iowa will go into effect on July 1st and Texas TBD.

    When Iowa, Tennessee and Texas's constitutional carry laws become effective, that will make 21 constitutional carry / unrestricted carry states (in green). When one sees the progression from "shall issue" to now states going permitless, it is impressive:



    This of course begs the question: Do I want to strap on a hogleg to go to 7-11?

  18. Likes Tyr-Ziu Saxnot liked this post
  19. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    181
    Thanks (Given)
    59
    Thanks (Received)
    174
    Likes (Given)
    76
    Likes (Received)
    128
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    430712

    Default

    With the briefs filed and oral arguments coming up in November it's a good time to take another look where this case is.

    I'm only stronger in my opinion that there's no way the Court rules there is a 2ndA recognized, federally enforced right to carry concealed.

    I'm thinking there is a slim chance the Court does recognize a federally enforced right to bear arms in public for self defense but the Court will allow states to set the manner of carry . . . Meaning that NY (and the other restrictive states like NJ, MD & CA) will be forced to institute a "shall issue" system with the states retaining the power to mandate the manner of carry.

    I'm saying there is a slim chance of coming away with that relatively "clean" situation, because . . .

    1) The merits brief for the petitioners, (written by NRA lawyer Paul Clement), is a total disaster. It never actually gets to addressing the question SCOTUS wants argued . . . Incredibly, Clement never tells the Court how the denial of the petitioners’ applications for concealed carry licenses actually violated the Second Amendment. He spends most of his time pounding on the question the Court left open in Heller; does the 2ndA right extend outside the home . . . Oh yeah, the Court is just gonna love that . . .

    2) Alito and Thomas have established a principled rule that they do not join majority opinions that endorse merits / questions / arguments not briefed by both sides. If those two simply reject the NYSRPA position on that principle, Roberts will surely flip in with Breyer, Sotamayor and Kagan and the end result would be a BIG win for NYC.

    3) The case could end with a per curiam decision issued without comment or dissent because no Justice will want to write an opinion and have their name associated this turd . . . A naked per curiam decision would leave so much unresolved and the lower federal courts still wandering in the darkness, still with no standard of scrutiny and firm interpretive direction. It could be the beat result because it wouldn't set down new grand rules of law, it would just dispense with the case at hand.



    OTOH, there are some points that would work to smooth out those bumps in the road . . .


    A) The many amicus for petitioners are very good and Clement could save himself at oral argument. We know Thomas really wants to write a 2nd Amendment decision -- which, if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, Thomas, as senior Associate Justice could assign to himself. That scenario would be the best for gun rights supporters; losing Roberts' wishy-washy vote is worth Thomas writing the opinion. We will know if this -save the baby- attempt is happening if we see Thomas be an active participant at oral argument, asking Clement the questions Thomas needs answered to decide the case.

    B) The Court does have a chance to fill in contours of the 2ndA, establish a standard of scrutiny and to remedy the rights abuses in these states without a RKBA provision in their state constitutions. Those states have run roughshod on the rights of their citizens and really need to be put in the constitutional paddock.

    C) I doubt the Court would have taken this case if the will wasn't there to get the 2nd Amendment onto equal plane as the other rights as far as 14thA incorporation. States like NY, NJ, CA and MD have enjoyed essentially limitless power to restrict the right to arms of their citizens because they have no RKBA recognition and protection in their constitutions.



    Looking deeper into "C", the Court knows the legal justification in NY, NJ, CA and MD for their state courts sustaining various state gun control schemes (not just for concealed carry, we are looking back 100+ years of gun laws) was not built upon any interest in what a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is, and how that constrains legislative action. In fact, that lack of a RKBA provision was taken by those states to mean anything goes.

    There was never any sophisticated testing of state gun laws being challenged against a state RKBA provision and certainly no consideration of the 2nd Amendment as an impediment. Those states sustained their laws by lazily relying on 20th Century (post 1942) lower federal court decisions pushing now invalid collective "militia right" / "state's right" theories and the legal fact that before 2010, the 2ndA did not apply to state action.

    This has led to much real or purposeful ignorance regarding what the right to arms is in those states and has polluted their state court decisions which establish the underlying law for the federal districts and circuit courts to examine. It is a mess because decades of those state and lower federal court case law is actually abrogated and invalid and of zero use after Heller and McDonald and Ceatano.

    With SCOTUS taking a hiatus from addressing the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, judges (state and lower federal ones) have been allowed to just make it up as they needed and ignore (or misrepresent) what the 2nd is and what it does -- all in an attempt to avoid enforcing Heller and delay enforcing McDonald and the application of the 2ndA under the 14thA against the states. The Court knows this must be addressed and remedied.


    This NY case could either be a bad loss, or a dud where the Court declines to settle these questions or, it could be Earth shaking and we will see the Court do for the 2nd Amendment in one decision, what it took 70+ years to do with the 1st Amendment.

    Whether the Court has the chance to address any of that depends on whether the roadblock of the NRA's arrogance and stupidity can be overcome.

    Clement's lousy merits brief has created a huge problem for the Court; he made those same arguments in the appeal for certiorari, and the Court in accepting the case, rejected Clement's rehashing and wrote its own question it wanted argued -- and Clement ignored it.

    I'm hopeful but I'm far less optimistic about a big win . . . I believe the Court took this case knowing the Court needed to fix 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, now I'm praying the end result will be something other than a big defeat.

    Yay NRA!

    You can not truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
    If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.



  20. Thanks JakeStarkey, NightTrain thanked this post
  21. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    13,988
    Thanks (Given)
    8494
    Thanks (Received)
    15307
    Likes (Given)
    3307
    Likes (Received)
    3829
    Piss Off (Given)
    27
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475184

    Default

    I have faith that they'll do the right thing.

    It needs to be resolved while there's a common-sense majority seated. Kick the can and this could be addressed with 5 Sotomayor-grade hacks delivering the ruling.
    Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

  22. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Lose/lose. The State of NY's argument blows chunks. Why do I need some "non-speculative" reason to prove I need to defend myself? Stupid. I don't need to defend myself until I do Gee, shall I call the defunded NYPD?

    On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the Second Amendment is going to cause the hair-pulling and nail-biting on the left over the "radical Supreme Court" and they'll start their stacking the court rhetoric back up.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  23. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    13,988
    Thanks (Given)
    8494
    Thanks (Received)
    15307
    Likes (Given)
    3307
    Likes (Received)
    3829
    Piss Off (Given)
    27
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the Second Amendment is going to cause the hair-pulling and nail-biting on the left over the "radical Supreme Court"
    Eh... I'm good with that. Looking forward to it, actually!

    and they'll start their stacking the court rhetoric back up.
    They don't have the votes for it. I think we're safe.
    Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

  24. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  25. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NightTrain View Post
    Eh... I'm good with that. Looking forward to it, actually!



    They don't have the votes for it. I think we're safe.
    Not concerned with the votes. Listening to the left and MSM carry on like it's the end of the World is what I get tired of.

    When governments actually come for guns, they do it one at a time. Since no one on the right wants to get together to take a stand an agree on anything, it will be relatively easy. There'll be a few shootouts, and the gun owners will ALWAYS be the outlaws, conspiracy theorists, etc.

    Most will just hand over their weapons like good little sheeple.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums