Nov 3 SCOTUS arguments

Jmoser

Jmoser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,631
Location
Greater Charlotte Area
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Last edited:
The usual suspects have all filed briefs, although I got a chuckle from the very second one, which was filed by Korte Tree Care (yes, a tree service in Missouri).

Since this is the first substantive 2A case the conservative Justices have been willing to take in over a decade, there should be real fireworks during the orals.
 
Last edited:
I predict we get shall issue but states can keep burdensome fees and training requirements [to be litigated as reasonable or not in lower courts for years to come.]

Far more interesting to me is nationwide reciprocity . . . . including travel / airline checked bags / in your vehicle while driving across state lines etc etc etc.
 
Whenever the topic of federally imposed gun regulation or reciprocity comes up one needs to remember "that which the Feds give, the Feds can take away." States rights are very important on issues like this, even when it means some people lose if they choose to stay in a state that's got laws contrary to their natural and constitutionally guarenteed rights. Being able to continue to make a decision to move to a place that still honors those rights is what has kept the Second and Fourth Ammendments alive thus far.
Having this go through the supreme court is probably the only way to resolve the issues that have popped up at the state level. Even that isn't a guarentee though. Lawyers and judges are weasels. They've taken the Heller ruling out of context and used it to impose gun control within limited jurisdictions.
 
Jmoser said:
Mark your calendars - oral arguments scheduled for the biggest 2A case in a long time.
June 2022 before any ruling tho.

Hoping NYC gets its arse handed to it.

www.foxnews.com

NRA preps arguments for potential landmark Nov. 3 Second Amendment SCOTUS case

The National Rifle Association is getting set to argue would could be a landmark Second Amendment case in front of the Supreme Court
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Absolutely should get their arse handed to them. But when elitism, racism, and corruption serve the anti gun agenda you can be guaranteed the left end of the court will vote to uphold elitism, racism, and corruption every time. The question is whether squish Roberts grows a spine again.
Every state with "may issue" has a massively corrupt process that favors the wealthy politically connected, and those with the cash to pay the required bribe.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Timfoilhat said:
Whenever the topic of federally imposed gun regulation or reciprocity comes up one needs to remember "that which the Feds give, the Feds can take away." States rights are very important on issues like this, even when it means some people lose if they choose to stay in a state that's got laws contrary to their natural and constitutionally guarenteed rights. Being able to continue to make a decision to move to a place that still honors those rights is what has kept the Second and Fourth Ammendments alive thus far.
Having this go through the supreme court is probably the only way to resolve the issues that have popped up at the state level. Even that isn't a guarentee though. Lawyers and judges are weasels. They've taken the Heller ruling out of context and used it to impose gun control within limited jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
Totally agree on states’ rights, but states should not have the right to ignore any constitutional rights, for any reason.

I would love to see the SCOTUS expand on Heller and state that your right to carry (keep and bear arms) must be recognized by all states/localities/jurisdictions without arbitrary licensing processes, ie shall issue is the standard and national reciprocity prevails. I don’t think this infringes on states rights, rather it restores citizens’ rights.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Totally agree on states’ rights, but states should not have the right to ignore any constitutional rights, for any reason.

I would love to see the SCOTUS expand on Heller and state that your right to carry (keep and bear arms) must be recognized by all states/localities/jurisdictions without arbitrary licensing processes, ie shall issue is the standard and national reciprocity prevails. I don’t think this infringes on states rights, rather it restores citizens’ rights.
Click to expand...
I don't believe states have the right to ignore the rights guarenteed by the constitution. In essence, that is what this case is really about. The media wants to make it about the 2nd, but it's really going to set precedent for more than that in the end. I'm with you in spirit, but I can't caution enough on the referring to anything that sounds a whiff like national regulation. While the constitution should be universally recoginsed on the national level as the limit of law across the land, national reciprocity should come to be as a result of state by state "shall issue" reciprocity agreements. Actual national reciprocity would require a federal law to be written, something we don't really want and something the constitution forbids. This goes right back to not allowing to it be a federal issue so that the Feds can modify or remove it on the whims of a majorty. It's an issue where jumping through hoops for permission, or denying tourism or buisness to those places that are out of step with the constitution is preferable to an outcome where the feds can "regulate" through the ATF or IRS rulemaking. I hate to say it, but our desire to be left alone, live and let live, and mind our own business will never be tenable to leftist states who are doing their best to re-define freedom and the meaning of the constitution by calling it a "living document". Depending on the consitiution alone to protect us is foolhardy as a result, so our freedoms are safest when individual states can be left to make their own rules (within the bounds of the constitution)to suit their constituancies.

This is going to be a narrow decision. It's going to allow the state(s) to continue to regulate, but it won't allow them to deny for people without criminal history.

(sorry if this comes off as rambing mental vomit, I'm a little distracted right now.)
 
Last edited:
Timfoilhat said:
While the constitution should be universally recoginsed on the national level as the limit of law across the land, national reciprocity should come to be as a result of state by state "shall issue" reciprocity agreements.
Click to expand...
I will preface this with the reminder that I am not a fan of govt., but one of Uncle's few ordained powers is regulating commerce between the states and travel is a form of commerce. In this case, the 2nd-A should also apply, making the position that Uncle has a mandated duty to uphold is that your gun should be valid in all states and as you travel among them.
 
I suspect the real result of this case will be getting strict scrutiny of 2A laws outside the home. Liberal courts have abused Heller by locking strict scrutiny inside the home and using intermediate scrutiny, often watered down to be no more than rational basis, for anything outside the home.
 
gc70 said:
I suspect the real result of this case will be getting strict scrutiny of 2A laws outside the home. Liberal courts have abused Heller by locking strict scrutiny inside the home and using intermediate scrutiny, often watered down to be no more than rational basis, for anything outside the home.
Click to expand...
Precisely. This case is 100% about transport and carry outside the home. And extension of 'home' to vehicle, hotel, etc.
 
The court like every other branch of govt is broken and compromised. Theres a good chance whoever ran Epsteins blackmail op (I know who) has HD footage of ol John R doing bad things while he was a guest there. That would explain the ACA ruling and many other "weird" rulings by a so-called conservative judge.

Therefore....I have no confidence in the gang of 9...except to further the decay we have seen in the last decade
 
Jerzsubbie said:
I don’t think this infringes on states rights, rather it restores citizens’ rights.
Click to expand...
It's almost like the decision to carry a gun for self defense is a power the framers prohibited to the fed, didn't grant to the states, and so it should be reserved for the people...
 
gc70 said:
I suspect the real result of this case will be getting strict scrutiny of 2A laws outside the home. Liberal courts have abused Heller by locking strict scrutiny inside the home and using intermediate scrutiny, often watered down to be no more than rational basis, for anything outside the home.
Click to expand...
I hope Thomas gets to write a masterpiece of shall issue constitutional carry...
He's been furious for years that Heller has been ignored.

As for Roberts... well, 5-4 is still a win. I don't have a lot of faith though.

edit: still on my first cup of coffee
 
Last edited:
DrScaryGuy said:
I hope Thomas gets to write a masterpiece of shall issue constitutional carry...
He's been furious for years that Heller has been ignored.

As for Roberts... well, 5-4 is still a win. I don't have a lot of faith though.

edit: still on my first cup of coffee
Click to expand...
But that’s the thing right there! I am not saying the decision does not matter but libs just ignore or twist federal laws that they don’t like. Think sanctuary city‘s and that’s when Republicans had control. With Dems in control any decision by the SC will only matter in places we already have those freedoms.
NY and California will never let us carry in their states. I would put money on that!
 
Amps 13 said:
But that’s the thing right there! I am not saying the decision does not matter but libs just ignore or twist federal laws that they don’t like. Think sanctuary city‘s and that’s when Republicans had control. With Dems in control any decision by the SC will only matter in places we already have those freedoms.
NY and California will never let us carry in their states. I would put money on that!
Click to expand...
Think about how Illinois was last to have a carry law. They were forced by the 7th circuit to drop their stance on No carry of any type. So they caved and wrote a carry law that prevented carry pretty much everywhere in the City of Chicago. School property, city owned property, govt buildings, parks, parades, sporting events, restaurants with over 50% alcohol receipts, any business or residential place that wanted to post, taxis, busses, trains...the only places you could carry were in your car and on the sidewalk.
This is the approach the banners will adopt in non-permissive states when forced. You're going to be able to visit, but there won't be anywhere to go.
 
Thomas has been really itching to positively assert that 2nd amendment cases need to be settled using strict scrutiny. I don't see a punt. They've been punting for years now because they know they don't have Roberts, but the numbers changed so they don't need him.
 
Ikarus1 said:
Theres a good chance whoever ran Epsteins blackmail op (I know who) has HD footage of ol John R doing bad things while he was a guest there. That would explain the ACA ruling and many other "weird" rulings by a so-called conservative judge.
Click to expand...
Timfoilhat said:
Thomas has been really itching to positively assert that 2nd amendment cases need to be settled using strict scrutiny. I don't see a punt. They've been punting for years now because they know they don't have Roberts, but the numbers changed so they don't need him.
Click to expand...

Roberts seems like previous Chief Justices interested in avoiding broad or contentious rulings. Associate Justices are remembered for the rulings they write. Chief Justices are remembered for the tone or direction of the court during their term.

What will be really interesting to watch about the New York case is not just how Roberts votes, but how his vote relates to assigning who writes the majority and minority opinions. If Roberts votes with the majority, he can control the majority opinion to some extent by who he assigns to write the opinion. If Roberts votes with the minority, look out because Thomas would assign who writes the opinion and I bet he would write it himself).
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
Roberts seems like previous Chief Justices interested in avoiding broad or contentious rulings. Associate Justices are remembered for the rulings they write. Chief Justices are remembered for the tone or direction of the court during their term.

What will be really interesting to watch about the New York case is not just how Roberts votes, but how his vote relates to assigning who writes the majority and minority opinions. If Roberts votes with the majority, he can control the majority opinion to some extent by who he assigns to write the opinion. If Roberts votes with the minority, look out because Thomas would assign who writes the opinion and I bet he would write it himself).
Click to expand...
Huh. So, ironically, it might be better if he votes against it?
 
Timfoilhat said:
So they caved and wrote a carry law that prevented carry pretty much everywhere in the City of Chicago. School property, city owned property, govt buildings, parks, parades, sporting events, restaurants with over 50% alcohol receipts, any business or residential place that wanted to post, taxis, busses, trains...the only places you could carry were in your car and on the sidewalk.
Click to expand...
People need to wake up and stop pretending that the tyrants have any legitimacy or right to do such things. The answer needs to simply be NO, because eff you, that’s why. Any tyrant that’s is willing to violently enforce such things is the enemy and should be treated as such,.

I get that, in theory, the argument about resolving things like this in “courts”, but the ”courts” haven’t stopped the encroaching communism, because they can’t.
 
pinkbunny said:
Huh. So, ironically, it might be better if he votes against it?
Click to expand...

IMO, that's a big yes.

Assuming a 2A win in the New York case, the decision could be written as anything from a bare-bones "you got a base hit" opinion with a bunch of caveats and exceptions and minimal guidance to lower courts to a full-throated and unreserved "you smashed a home run" opinion with explicit instructions to lower courts about issues like the level of scrutiny. I would expect Thomas to at least swing for a home run while Roberts would probably be more inclined to try for nothing more than a base hit.

Roberts generally diligently avoids going any further than absolutely necessary to decide the question(s) in a case. At times, Thomas sounds inclined to go further -much further- in ruling on a case. Remember that Thomas wrote a radical concurring opinion in McDonald. In that opinion, Thomas wanted to scrap the entire 14th Amendment Due Process structure for incorporating the Bill of Rights. Instead, Thomas proposed overturning the Slaughter-House Cases precedent and directly applying the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause.

ADDED: Note that the court changed the "question" when certiorari was granted.
Original Question: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Modified Question: Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
It would be a lot easier to write a limited decision on concealed-carry licensing than to write a limited decision on carrying outside the home for self-defense.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
People need to wake up and stop pretending that the tyrants have any legitimacy or right to do such things. The answer needs to simply be NO, because eff you, that’s why. Any tyrant that’s is willing to violently enforce such things is the enemy and should be treated as such,.

I get that, in theory, the argument about resolving things like this in “courts”, but the ”courts” haven’t stopped the encroaching communism, because they can’t.
Click to expand...
Because the lower courts and appeals courts in these jurisdictions have been infiltrated by judicial activists that support the same ideology.

I don't think that's ever been more clear than when a local Illinois assault weapon ban was upheld because of "feelings". Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for that court that in spite of the AR15 being in common use there is a "substantial benefit" to the Highland Park ordinance if it makes the public feel less at risk from a mass shooting. The Supreme Court punted because they didn't have Roberts and knew when the case failed the AWB would spill out everywhere that Ds are majority.
 
Timfoilhat said:
Because the lower courts and appeals courts in these jurisdictions have been infiltrated by judicial activists that support the same ideology.
Click to expand...
I read a comment on another blog site that reminded me of your post. It said, "Suffice it to say Liberty and Tyranny don’t coexist, compromise, or cohabitate the same country."
 
During the two-year period of 2018 and 2019, at least 65 percent of applicants in New York were approved for an “unrestricted” license, according to a state analysis of records submitted to the court.
Click to expand...

I saw this quote in a Washington post article and found it interesting. From the horror stories I’ve heard you would’ve thought the approval rate was more like 6%
 
Last edited:
vp9c said:
I saw this quote in a Washington post article and found it interesting. From the horror stories I’ve heard you would’ve thought the approval rate was more like 6%
Click to expand...
probably a misleading number…I found another source that said out of the 54,000 permits that were approved 37,000 of them were unrestricted carinI found another source that said out of the 54,000 permits that were approved 37,000 of them were unrestricted carry… no mention of what percentage of applicants were rejected
 
I believe Biden's Justice Department was granted leave to participate in the oral arguments in this case.

Also, on a related subject, LGB's Supreme Court Commission is still pursuing attempts to change the Supreme Court setup by methods such as increasing the number of justices and imposing term limits.

Tactics straight out of The Great Socialist King's (FDR) book.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I believe Biden's Justice Department was granted leave to participate in the oral arguments in this case.

Also, on a related subject, LGB's Supreme Court Commission is still pursuing attempts to change the Supreme Court setup by methods such as increasing the number of justices and imposing term limits.

Tactics straight out of The Great Socialist King's (FDR) book.
Click to expand...
and every one of the justices should see the conflict in the fed executive branch sending people to try to tell them what to do and intervene in matters regarding a state pushing legislation that they have demonstrated they know are unconstitutional.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
and every one of the justices should see the conflict in the fed executive branch sending people to try to tell them what to do and intervene in matters regarding a state pushing legislation that they have demonstrated they know are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You'd think.

But this isn't a rare thing apparently.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I believe Biden's Justice Department was granted leave to participate in the oral arguments in this case.
Click to expand...

Yes, New York State gets 20 minutes and the Justice Department gets 15 minutes versus 35 minutes for our side for oral arguments.

Just to show how fair the Justice department actually is, the DOJ Motion to Participate in Oral Argument asked for the time to be split between New York and the DOJ and for the anti-2A side to get extra time. SCOTUS gave the other side extra time, but gave the same amount of extra time to our side.
 
gc70 said:
Yes, New York State gets 20 minutes and the Justice Department gets 15 minutes versus 35 minutes for our side for oral arguments.

Just to show how fair the Justice department actually is, the DOJ Motion to Participate in Oral Argument asked for the time to be split between New York and the DOJ and for the anti-2A side to get extra time. SCOTUS gave the other side extra time, but gave the same amount of extra time to our side.
Click to expand...

I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
 
vp9c said:
I wonder it’s actually the entire state
Click to expand...
remember, as with every other state, the city IS the state. everybody else is an uneducated backwater redneck. unless it's the people from the city buying a rural vacation home, then that's okay, and you have to do whatever they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom