Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

press1280 · Aug 16, 2019

rascal said:
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.

Roberts suggested text/history in Heller orals.

Allen65 · Aug 16, 2019

press1280 said:
I do not see them hearing 2 2A cases in the same term.

They could address more than one "2A" case if they addressed different constitutional questions. Say, for example one case was ultimately about scope of the Commerce Clause and another about the 14th Amendment, even if they both involved firearms.

danb · Aug 16, 2019

rascal said:
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.

Go back and read the briefs. You are partially correct in that Roberts will rule narrowly, because that is his style. Esp pay attention to the US Solicitor General brief, that is about a narrow a win as it gets. We will get something to the right of that. However, Roberts and the conservatives do not support "struct scrutiny" because the new conservative (originalist) mantra (ala Scalia) is the history, text, and tradition standard.

rascal · Aug 16, 2019

RepublicOfFranklin said:
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?

The GOP fudds are the only reason why we control the Senate. The moment the Dems take a couple of seats from GOP Fudds in the Senate there will be massive changes in the courts and profound federal gun control.

I have a problem with the idea that no polls show any trends. They do. I mentioned Fox not because it is the only poll but because in fact it is in line with all of them. Fox's methodology and scope in that poll is a very low margin of error.

Yes we are in a peak of support for assault rifle ban due to the two recent mass shootings. But that does not equal a a "juiced" or push poll.

The fact is ALL Democrats and GOP reps in purple or trending blue districts and states will need to take notice.

As far as the public in free states, places like Virginia have been turning blue and more gun laws are coming. I have friends in the VCDL and they know exactly what will happen.

rascal · Aug 16, 2019

danb said:
Go back and read the briefs. You are partially correct in that Roberts will rule narrowly, because that is his style. Esp pay attention to the US Solicitor General brief, that is about a narrow a win as it gets. We will get something to the right of that. However, Roberts and the conservatives do not support "struct scrutiny" because the new conservative (originalist) mantra (ala Scalia) is the history, text, and tradition standard.

That standard allows any majority on the courts to rule any way they want based on what history they cite. And don't you think it also empowers the lower courts were we are at ratio disadvantage, since it is less of a tangible precedent than strict?

danb · Aug 16, 2019

rascal said:
That standard allows any majority on the courts to rule any way they want based on what history they cite. And don't you think it also empowers the lower courts were we are at ratio disadvantage, since it is less of a tangible precedent than strict?

Again, go back and read the briefs. I used to think that. Kopel also has some interesting posts. Strict Scrutiny, or interest balancing allows judges a lot more room to interpret how "strict" the interest balancing actually is. The final nail in the coffin (for me) was the fact that in a few of the anti-2A briefs, they pretty much asked for it. If they want it, it cant be that good.

DanGuy48 · Aug 16, 2019

press1280 said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic-senators-threaten-supreme-court/

More blowback from Dem senators threat brief.

IANAL but why can’t they be charged with extortion? It sure seems like it fits the definition to me.

Mike OTDP · Aug 16, 2019

Polls may show trends, but they are also biased. And just about any firearms-related poll runs into the problem that people don't know the laws or the technology. Jane Q. Non-Owner has no idea what the difference is between a garden-variety AR and an honest-to-goodness select-fire M-16. Nor does she understand that every sale from a dealer must, by Federal law, have a background check.

press1280 · Aug 16, 2019

Mike OTDP said:
Polls may show trends, but they are also biased. And just about any firearms-related poll runs into the problem that people don't know the laws or the technology. Jane Q. Non-Owner has no idea what the difference is between a garden-variety AR and an honest-to-goodness select-fire M-16. Nor does she understand that every sale from a dealer must, by Federal law, have a background check.

Exactly. For example, people probably think someone can buy an AK online and have it shipped straight to their door, no background check.
The problem is the lazy media and politicians won't explain that there are very few legal guns bought and sold without a background check.

fidelity · Aug 17, 2019

DanGuy48 said:
IANAL but why can’t they be charged with extortion? It sure seems like it fits the definition to me.

I can't imagine a liberal clique of Senators sending such an incendiary brief to a Chief Justice Rehnquist court. They basically think that Roberts is a pvssy.

press1280 · Aug 17, 2019

fidelity said:
I can't imagine a liberal clique of Senators sending such an incendiary brief to a Chief Justice Rehnquist court. They basically think that Roberts is a pvssy.

SCOTUS isn't supposed to be an institution swayed by public opinion otherwise the founders would have them be elected and not appointed for life. However, I think you're right in Roberts case. He's too invested in the court's "legitimacy" which is in his mind is what the leftist news media thinks of the court.

teratos · Aug 17, 2019

press1280 said:
Exactly. For example, people probably think someone can buy an AK online and have it shipped straight to their door, no background check.
The problem is the lazy media and politicians won't explain that there are very few legal guns bought and sold without a background check.

The media and politicians WANT people to believe you can have an AK shipped to your door in 2 days via Amazon Prime. They aren’t lazy, they have an agenda.

jbrown50 · Aug 17, 2019

teratos said:
The media and politicians WANT people to believe you can have an AK shipped to your door in 2 days via Amazon Prime. They aren’t lazy, they have an agenda.

Right.
AWB, magazine capacity limit and UBCs is their goal....for now.

danb · Aug 17, 2019

teratos said:
The media and politicians WANT people to believe you can have an AK shipped to your door in 2 days via Amazon Prime. They aren’t lazy, they have an agenda.

I want to belive this also. When can we make this happen?

DanGuy48 · Aug 17, 2019

fidelity said:
I can't imagine a liberal clique of Senators sending such an incendiary brief to a Chief Justice Rehnquist court. They basically think that Roberts is a pvssy.

Yeah. I just reread it and realized they actually stated that the court might be restructured because the public would demand it, so they’re not really making a direct threat. Still, it’s their way or the highway, nothing between.

Kharn · Aug 17, 2019

press1280 said:
Roberts suggested text/history in Heller orals.

And Kavanaugh agreed with it in Heller II.

teratos · Aug 17, 2019

danb said:
I want to belive this also. When can we make this happen?

Hopefully soon. I’ll write a firmly worded letter.

Bob A · Aug 19, 2019

Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Supreme Court, claiming Whitehouse was not authorised to present an amicus brief with SCOTUS on the NYC case. He is not authorised to practice law in RI, nor in DC.

Link:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/uncategorized/judicial-watch-files-complaint-with-rhode-island-supreme-court-against-u-s-senator-sheldon-whitehouse-for-unauthorized-practice-of-law/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190819213836

Addditionally, there is an ethics issue: Senator Whitehouse also violated the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct by attacking the federal judiciary and openly threatening the U.S. Supreme Court.

GTOGUNNER · Aug 19, 2019

Bob A said:
Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Supreme Court, claiming Whitehouse was not authorised to present an amicus brief with SCOTUS on the NYC case. He is not authorised to practice law in RI, nor in DC.

Link:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/uncat...t&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190819213836

Addditionally, there is an ethics issue: Senator Whitehouse also violated the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct by attacking the federal judiciary and openly threatening the U.S. Supreme Court.

Good catch!

Fedora · Aug 19, 2019

Bob A said:
Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Supreme Court, claiming Whitehouse was not authorized to present an amicus brief with SCOTUS on the NYC case. He is not authorized to practice law in RI, nor in DC.

Additionally, there is an ethics issue: Senator Whitehouse also violated the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct by attacking the federal judiciary and openly threatening the U.S. Supreme Court.

I know you're worried, Bob, but rest easy. Nothing will happen to him.

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

όυ φροντισ

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics