Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    11,382
    Thanks (Given)
    6693
    Thanks (Received)
    6643
    Likes (Given)
    662
    Likes (Received)
    2087
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19705042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    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.
    And domestic terrorists. Don't forget that new one.

  2. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes Gunny, NightTrain liked this post
  3. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    40,683
    Thanks (Given)
    27477
    Thanks (Received)
    21977
    Likes (Given)
    848
    Likes (Received)
    7206
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    295 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Diamond View Post
    And domestic terrorists. Don't forget that new one.
    But of course. They will need a Government-approved label to put on the warrants.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  4. #18
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    several homes in the American west and one in the UK
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks (Given)
    176
    Thanks (Received)
    76
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    52
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    237
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I have faith SCOTUS will rule correctly.

    The right of the people to bear and own arms will not be impeded.

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In my knickers
    Posts
    30,934
    Thanks (Given)
    13844
    Thanks (Received)
    15259
    Likes (Given)
    4296
    Likes (Received)
    5412
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    178 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475329

    Default

    Any news on this case?
    After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown

    “Unfortunately, the truth is now whatever the media say it is”
    -Abbey

  6. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    40,683
    Thanks (Given)
    27477
    Thanks (Received)
    21977
    Likes (Given)
    848
    Likes (Received)
    7206
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    295 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abbey Marie View Post
    Any news on this case?
    I've heard/seen nothing. The "news" has been nothing but mostly garbage since the Biden admin put the clamps on after Afghanistan and his vaccine mandate. As this admin's gaffes have piled up, any real news on things that actually matter have been non-existent.

    I would be surprised if the Supreme Court rules on this and doesn't kick it back to the state. It avoids the issue for the Court, while minimizing damage to the Second Amendment in a state that already has no respect for it. A ruling has the potential to affect all 50 states.

    Just a guess.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  7. #21
    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
    430686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abbey Marie View Post
    Any news on this case?
    There have been developments, biggest one is the Biden administration asked the Court to extend the time of oral argument and grant the US government time at oral argument.

    The Court granted the request, giving each side 35 minutes; the Court divided the defendant's time, 20 minutes for the City and 15 minutes for the US government. At face value this means the US government will be arguing against any right to bear arms in public for self defense being recognized for anyone in NY City . . .

    The other developments happened behind the scenes and whether they are newsworthy depends on how into the details of the process you are.

    I am into the that stuff so I'll offer my thoughts on what has happened. I will say, my earlier pessimism about the case after reading the merits brief has swung to the positive.

    As screwed-up as the petitioner's merits brief was, and with all the unnecessary crap they threw at the Court that the Court said it has no interest in, I thought the gun rights case was handicapped, if not completely lost . . .

    Well, NY's AG has thrown the case a life-line in her response to the gun association's terrible merits brief.

    NY could have completely ignored the disjointed gun assoc. merits brief and just focused on defending the restrictive permit, staying within the context of the Court's question. But no, they chose to answer the petitioner's brief and in doing so they made statements detrimental to their case, including a huge concession.

    The NY AG concedes that a right to arms, even outside the home, exists in NY state, but inside NY City the city can limit it with its more restrictive than the state permit system (remember, the first tier of the NY City permit is a residence permit that you need to have just to own a gun).

    That essentially has expanded what the Court can address, it goes from being "limited" to the Court's question to deciding how to divide the baby. Because the NY AG admits that a right to bear arms outside the home exists, the Court must decide if the city should be allowed to violate a right that the state admits exists.

    The gun assoc. lawyers have taken advantage of the state's mistakes and filed a response that gives the Court a lot of info to decide all aspects of this case.

    I still think the Court will decline enforcing a blanket right to carry concealed, but it will force states to recognize the right to bear arms in public for self defense. Whether a state decides that it will be through concealed carry or open carry, will be up to them.

    Oral argument is set for Wednesday, Nov 3rd . . .

    ..............

    Just for informational purpose, for anyone unfamiliar, here is an explanation of the order of the briefs . . . The gun rights group lost at the lower Circuit court; NY's restrictive permit was upheld so an appeal was made to SCOTUS by the gun association.

    That first appeals brief details what defects in the decision and law the loser would like the Supreme Court to correct. The defendants get to reply and then the Court discusses the case on those arguments and decides either to take it, "granting certiorari", or deny the appeal and the lower court ruling stands.

    If the Court takes the case, the Court can either accept the question in law the plaintiffs want the Court to remedy, or the Court can write their own question they want the parties to brief and argue. The Court took the NY case on April 26th and crafted their own question:

    .
    "Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."


    My previous post and pessimism was focused on the "merits" brief, the brief filed by the lawyer representing the NY gun assoc after the appeal is granted and in response to the Court's question -- but failing to answer it.

    NY State filed its reply and then the petitioners get to file a final reply, a last word before oral argument.

    .
    Last edited by Surf Fishing Guru; 10-24-2021 at 07:27 AM.

    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.



  8. Thanks Gunny, Abbey Marie, Mr. P thanked this post
    Likes Gunny liked this post
  9. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    40,683
    Thanks (Given)
    27477
    Thanks (Received)
    21977
    Likes (Given)
    848
    Likes (Received)
    7206
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    295 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475426

    Default

    "Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."
    Poor question, and one SCOTUS should be answering, not asking. Does the Second Amendment guarantee the Right to concealed carry? In general, I think no. However, "the Right to keep and bear arms" is not specific as to how one should carry. The left has done its best to misinterpret this. In its usual "needs to think for us way" because the clause is unspecific, it is open to further (over) regulation.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  10. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  11. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    21,347
    Thanks (Given)
    3064
    Thanks (Received)
    2710
    Likes (Given)
    473
    Likes (Received)
    472
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    18
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8117526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Poor question, and one SCOTUS should be answering, not asking.
    They will answer it. That's just how they do it; by presenting a question.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  12. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes Mr. P liked this post
  13. #24
    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
    430686

    Default

    I am happy to admit my earlier pessimism was in error. I'm happier to report that what seemed to be just legal banter in oral argument, has actually become very significant and has forced some fallout to occur, even with the decision still pending.

    During oral argument (on Nov. 3) both lawyers defending the NY law were queried by the Justices about the legal process used by the lower federal court to decide the constitutionality of this challenged law and has, since Heller, been used by many Circuit courts to decide on gun control laws.

    The Circuit courts use a self-created "two-step inquiry" to apply the 2nd Amendment. Under this test those lower federal courts first determine if the challenged law burdens / implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment. If they conclude the law does infringe on the RKBA, they proceed to the second step, deciding how severe the infringement is . . . They decide whether it is really a significant intrusion on the core right, and thus worth them worrying about.

    Obviously this is an ends focused endeavor and they never fail to declare the gun control law is absolutely needed for public safety and inventing novel ways to explain why this violation of the right must be allowed.

    Understandably, the two lawyers could not defend the "two-step inquiry" and in fact, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the 2nd Amendment's "text , informed by history and tradition" (as articulated years ago by Justice Thomas and explained by Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II) is the proper process.

    This is huge because it looks like the 9th Circuit has read the tea leaves and it knows what is coming.

    After those oral arguments in the NY case and that line of questioning, the losing (gun rights) party in a large capacity magazine (LCM) ban case in the 9th Circuit, made a motion to the 9th Circuit in early December to stay the enforcement of the ban on possession of hi-cap mags until they can appeal to SCOTUS; it was uncontested by California and was granted. The 9th has also suspended (held in abeyance) two assault weapon ban cases until NYSRPA is decided, and the 3rd Circuit has also held a NJ hi-cap mag ban case for the NYSRPA decision.

    What we can draw from this is the lower federal courts realize the "two-step inquiry" is dead, and the cases decided using the "two-step inquiry" are at best, infirm.

    It seems a forgone conclusion (by all parties), that SCOTUS, in deciding the NY case (NYSRPA) will invalidate the "circuit judge two-step" and demand "text, informed by history and tradition" be the only acceptable standard to apply the 2ndA to a challenged gun control law.

    Just like the challenge to Chicago's handgun ban was already written and filed in the 7th Circuit immediately after Heller was handed down, (which subsequently became McDonald) there will be a tsunami of appeals filed in Circuits all across the nation immediately after NYSRPA is handed down (expected in June, 2022). Unlike the 7th's post Heller rehearing of the Chicago ban in 2009, (NRA v Chicago), the Circuits will have no wiggle-room to evade and ignore SCOTUS.

    Understand, NYSRPA will result in a deluge of motions for rehearings in these Circuits and reversals of all these decisions sustaining gun laws, including state assault weapon (AW) and large capacity magazine (LCM) bans and safe storage laws etc., will follow quickly (there is no effective legal defense).

    Note, these rehearings and reversals / invalidations of these bans will not require any appeals or acceptance and hearing by SCOTUS; it all happens in the Circuits that screwed the pooch originally -- forced to reconsider those laws using the "text, informed by history and tradition" standard, deciding those cases like they should have done since Heller and McDonald, declaring those bans invalid / unconstitutional.

    June is going to be a great month!

    .

    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.



  14. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
    Likes Tyr-Ziu Saxnot liked this post

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