esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Yup..... The question is which case? My money is on Rogers, cuz of the circuit conflict with Wrenn. Then the antis could *really* regret* the BS they pulled in the NYC case.
Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York
- Thread starter Bigfoot21075
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yup..... The question is which case? My money is on Rogers, cuz of the circuit conflict with Wrenn. Then the antis could *really* regret* the BS they pulled in the NYC case.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Here is hoping!!
I don't know, the issue is not what a few Dems will do, but what more will do, and to what effect.
Nothing is more partisan than 2A. Regardless of their other goals, nothing is more effective and useful than attacking the second.
This is a warning to Roberts. And he may well care. Threats often do work.
The only actual meaningful win in this would be full on strict scrutiny.
As a layman, it seems "Rogers" (ready for immediate use) reaches further than "NYSR&PA" ((unloaded, locked container). Is this fancy on my part?
Pope414
Active Member
Esq. i agree 100% also I don't think they SCOTUS has forgotten the scam NJ pulled on them with Drake. Using Pantalano at the NJ Supreme Court to get Drake Cert. denied claiming an identical case was pending at the state level only to claim it was "improvendently granted" and dismissing it after Drake was denied. It would be poetic justice if Rogers (Drake 2.0) is the case that comes back and bites them in the ass.
2nd=Good+Substantial
Ultimate Member
FDR made the same threat when the Supremes ruled against some of his New Deal. While there was blowback and Republicans benefited in the subsequent election, at least some on the Court (two justices I believe) were intimidated enough that the prior decisions were reversed. I certainly see Roberts willing to bow to this tactic.
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
The left have dirt on Roberts. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,210
NYC wants exemptions from the rights the constitution protects, and THE IL AG supports that.
It’s my assumption it’s related to the NYC.NYCRPC Case, i May be mistake
http://wlds.com/news/raoul-joins-coalition-asking-for-nyc-sovereignty-on-gun-rights/
It’s my assumption it’s related to the NYC.NYCRPC Case, i May be mistake
http://wlds.com/news/raoul-joins-coalition-asking-for-nyc-sovereignty-on-gun-rights/
Wouldn't their have to be a vote in Congress in order to grant NYC that? If they want to be granted sovereignty, then they would have to pay for everything like health, signed MOU with NY State about law enforcement powers, their own state flag... and the people of NYC would end up having to pay for that as well.Talk about a city that would be even more corrupt if that happened...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic-senators-threaten-supreme-court/
More blowback from Dem senators threat brief.
More blowback from Dem senators threat brief.
daNattyFatty
Ultimate Member
Oh to be a fly on the wall in the SCOTUS chamber.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah, even RBG was quoted as saying the "problems" on the court were vastly overblown and took exception to the dems amicus brief.
If the Dems actually wanted some of the liberal judges to consider voting in the majority smacking down NYC this is how they get it (just don't want them sign on to the majority opinion).
Abortion issue is less partisan aligned than gun control. From all three perspectives: a) views of voters; b) votes of legislators c) rulings of federal judges sorted by appointing executive's party.
I agree it is all about Roberts. Four would support strict scrutiny and four will oppose it. I very much doubt the left has "dirt" on Roberts. He has made a number of rulings that has gotten the left red hot angry and Roberts came in as a moderate conservative and stayed one. And 80% of his decisions go that way.
Even Thomas and Alito vote with RBG sometimes and visa versa.
I think Roberts history shows he rule against NYC, but that it also highly doubtful he would apply strict scrutiny to regulations limiting the Second Amendment. I don't see anything he has written or said that shows he would apply strict scrutiny.
The assertion of power is an element that builds power. I believe the Democrats in that letter know Roberts will NOT apply strict scrutiny and are intelligently set this up to declare a victory.
The Democrats are emboldened by the POLLING. There is not much downside for them.
Red flag laws are polling at 80-90% support.
"Assault rifle" ban is polling, even in the latest Fox poll, at 67% in favor.
Now sure with the two shootings so close together, those represent peaks. My guess is if you were to average support on a five year running average those would be more like 65-70% support for red flag and 45-55% support for "assault rifle" ban.
But that doesn't change the fact that the only place to block red flag is in pure red states, and the fact that the Dems are positioning assault rifle ban, which has very worrisome support among center and independent voters, and a too many Republican voters, and the Democrats are embolden by those amazing and very bad (for us) polling numbers. Democrats are going to blocking of assault rifle ban by the senate in the upcoming elections and it will help the Dems more than hurt them.
Anything is possible. For all we know they could rule in favor of NY and we would see a mountain of NY laws in every blue state. That is doubtful but also possible
I see zero evidence Roberts would change the status quo and apply strict scrutiny.
This is all about Roberts we know how the other eight will go
danb
dont be a dumbass
The fact that the gun controllers amicus brief are asking for the 2a two step and interest balancing is why the conservatives won't go for it.
Say it with me: history, text, tradition....that is the standard that will be adopted.
I think the four strong conservatives would not be going for this and would support strict anyway. Roberts will strike down as little as possible of the NYC laws and not support strict scrutiny.
and I think the left four have their mind made up before any aspect of this case was ever considered. The four on the left will vote to reverse Heller totally the moment they get five. if we lose a single one of the five conservative to moderate justices, just one, they NYC will be able to ban muskets on a 50.1% vote o their council and every blue jurisdiction will be able to do whatever they want.
RepublicOfFranklin
Ultimate Member
With how much even Fox is carrying water for Fudds in the GOP and Democrats, I can’t believe those poll numbers aren’t juiced.
Why would the public in the truly free states want to become Maryland?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why would the public in the truly free states want to become Maryland?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do not see them hearing 2 2A cases in the same term. To my knowledge they will always choose to hear one case and remand the others based on the outcome of the other.
The only exception may be if the law at issue is so similar like may issue (which appears we may have numerous cases to choose from come fall), it's possible they get consolidated.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Awareness/Mindset/Q&A get together with Bob "Ninja" Porras. Delta/CIA guy. Thursday April 18,2024 (4 Viewers)- Latest: Bertfish
-
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline" (5 Viewers)- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school (3 Viewers)- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
-