danb
dont be a dumbass
DIG= Dismissed as Improvidently Granted.
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:
Maybe someone has mentioned this already: I think voting to moot it out would give Roberts some political good will with the libs if he is to become the new Kennedy. He could be seeking that before going with Alito/Kav/Gorsuch/Thomas in a larger "text, history, and tradition" opinion in another case pending cert (God willing).
There is so much speculation here though, so what the hell do I know.
In terms of hand-wringing, this is going to be worse (and longer) than the Kavanaugh confirmation. Woof.
There is so much speculation here though, so what the hell do I know.
In terms of hand-wringing, this is going to be worse (and longer) than the Kavanaugh confirmation. Woof.
Speaking of Kavanaugh, he didn't speak. I'm assuming his Thomas-like reticence is because he knows how this is going to play out, continues to want to stay on Roberts good side, and is saving his powder for a different 2A fight.
Someone on Dave Hardy's blog brought up a good point about the Firearm Owners Protection Act and how NYC/NJ regularly arrest law abiding people delayed at the airport who claim and later try to recheck their baggage with a firearm. People have been arrested for it. NYC has no respect for that federal law so why believe their promises now regarding state law or the unconstitutional permitting process. I really hope SCOTUS takes this case even though the conventional wisdom believes its moot.
krucam
Ultimate Member
I caught also the question of someone going to NJ to a range, stopping at Mom’s on the way. The FOPA loopholes in NJ came to mind.
The question presented is:
Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Is the case still moot considering the question presented and NYC's historical treatment of people travelling through the local airports?
Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Is the case still moot considering the question presented and NYC's historical treatment of people travelling through the local airports?
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
FOPA is not at issue in the case. It would take an arrest of someone in disregard of FOPA to bring that issue before the courts. The 2d Cir. (NY) already has bad precedent on that point. See Torraco v. Port Authority of New York, 6125 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010).
LKB, who witnessed the oral arguments, offers his opinions here:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/d...te-rifle-pistol-assn-supreme-court-arguments/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/d...te-rifle-pistol-assn-supreme-court-arguments/
He's pretty much spot on IMO. The MSM is trying to spin this as "The justices are leaning toward dropping the case," but I could have told you before orals that the 4 lefties would try and moot the case. Just because they asked most questions and took up most of the time still only is 4 votes.
As far as Roberts goes if he's worried about the MSM and the beltway, it's going to be far worse for him siding for public carry than it is for ruling against the NYC transportation ban. This way they can make a ruling that possibly sends those other cases back to the appeals courts and they knock down the may-issue statutes.
Very Very Interesting reading Stoveman.
Rogers v. Grewal? I may well be missing something regarding focus and/or scope with the present case, but it seems that Rogers casts a much larger and more encompassing net.
CrazySanMan
2013'er
I found this very interesting (From the article Stoveman posted)
Thanks for posting.
Difficult to fathom the amount of money that has gone into deciphering what exactly "Shall not be infringed" means. We have an entire branch of .gov to figure this out (if and when they want to) and now what is the number .... 20K laws in relation to bearing arms in this country? I overheard someone saying there is a method to keeping the cash cow alive and the inaction will continue and I just thought I would mention that. Sorry for the abstract thinking.
If your post was in response to me RambingOne, I meant no digs.
If your post was in response to me RambingOne, I meant no digs.
You got it. People only vote/support politicians to solve problems. If they actually solve a problem they’ll have to identify new ones. Apparently that is too difficult and risky for them.
When RBG assumes room temperature Roberts is going to become an administrator and not a focal vote on the court.
Nope, was trying to get an explanation of what the legal term DIG means. All’s well.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
JPG
Ultimate Member
I don't think they have ever got that far in any court arguments. They seem to focus on "Militia". I would think that those 4 words mean a alot, but I am not a Lawyer.
Definitely was and shows the old law was absolutely, positively DOA if even RBG doesn't support it.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Just want to thank the extremely awesome folks at Tyler Firearms (1 Viewer)- Started by GenoBluzGtr
- Replies: 4
-
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-