krucam
Ultimate Member
And finally, founding era restriction on transporting gunpowder...holy crap, the instant case is about the firearm....
One final Final...aren’t they supposed to put their information and prayer at the end? No mention of Mootness either...
One final Final...aren’t they supposed to put their information and prayer at the end? No mention of Mootness either...
It's worse, the appendix has nothing to do with transport, it's old ordinances addressing discharging firearms within city limits...
Why Not? N.Y. and others have gotten a pass by just pointing to some other law and the courts have bought it.
I cant find the merits brief that they submitted to the 2nd circuit. I wonder how close this is.
I read this respondents merits brief and it occurred to me that they were feigning incompetence, particularly the part about means-end scrutiny which they have to know the Supreme Court will never swallow. It did not even seem like they were going for a good dissenting opinion by 4 justices. If the Supreme Court thinks that they are incompetent They might not want NYC to argue the case, which gets NYC off the hook defending the law either way.
Or maybe I am giving them too much credit and they really are this incompetent.
I don't think that Miller would happen today. What the Roberts court would do is appoint someone to argue the case or dismiss it. Miller never really should have happened in the first place.
It should not have...but the lower court decision was against the Feds, IIRC. Nevertheless, were I a judge, I would not treat Miller with much deference for precisely the reason that it was not legitimately argued.
It should not have...but the lower court decision was against the Feds, IIRC. Nevertheless, were I a judge, I would not treat Miller with much deference for precisely the reason that it was not legitimately argued.
BUT, Miller does have the silver lining that "Assault Weapons" bans and magazine capacity limits would clearly fail.
There is a lot of derision of Miller, but I would far rather live with a strictly-enforced Miller than with what we have now.
Jcutonilli wrote: “I believe Scalia also pointed out that there is a historical prohibition on concealed carry based on historical cases. Should we accept that the right does not include the right to concealed carry?”
I wrote: Put into “historical context” open carry was the “manly” thing to do at that time, this stuff is not problematic.
Jcutonilli wrote: Are you going to answer the question?”
Seems to me, the question was answered above, but I will try again:
In “historical context” open carry” was customary . . . in the context of the “present” concealed carry (in about 40 states) is customary. The S.C. does not operate in a vacuum. One possible ultimate holding: States can regulate the method, but “may not completely forbid the carrying of handguns for self-defense.”*
Right to carry for “self – defense” (not method of carry) is the basic issue. The below link is to a dissenting opinion, but Justice Thomas comments on the critical questions.
Regards
Jack
*http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Denying-Petitiion-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf
The actual judgement rarely matters as much as the reasoning and analysis, and we got some ridiculous analysis with Miller, even taking judicial notice of things not in evidence (related to militia use of shotguns).
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.