Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 2nd, 2019, 07:49 PM #1071
Robertjeter Robertjeter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Eastern Shore, MD
Posts: 54
Robertjeter Robertjeter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Eastern Shore, MD
Posts: 54
Entertaining tweet on NYC argument in district court vs. today. Previously regarded trips to range as not protected under 2A. Total 180 today.


https://twitter.com/rob99711/status/...112468995?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robertjeter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 08:11 PM #1072
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,972
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Yep, and I believe it was Alito that called them out for it. It definitely would invite other states and localities to do the same thing as NYC. It also would seem to incentivise lower court defiance, as they could continue with poor opinions and know that they'll be bailed out when the government quits after a cert grant. I'm really curious how many other times this scenario has happened.

I read the transcript and am leaning toward a decision on the merits. Roberts few questions seemed to lean our way.
That's reassuring. Otherwise not only are a sizeable group of people denied a right, they need to come up with money every time to fight the state to defend the right.

Maybe Roberts' comments were also to take some heat off the court (temporarily) from the liberal press, and the other justices speaking forcefully for mootness were making an argument to him.
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 08:13 PM #1073
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,972
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertjeter View Post
Entertaining tweet on NYC argument in district court vs. today. Previously regarded trips to range as not protected under 2A. Total 180 today.


https://twitter.com/rob99711/status/...112468995?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol, so we need a national chain of gun ranges with locations in every state that we can buy a membership into.
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 08:28 PM #1074
Tungsten Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Elkridge, Maryland
Posts: 2,821
Tungsten Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Elkridge, Maryland
Posts: 2,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by fidelity View Post
If this is the case, then don't they invite other state governments to continue to play this game of "psyche, we were just kidding" with the 2A - write and pass laws that undercut a Constitutional right - and then say I'm sorry and rescind if the SC decides to weigh in?
I think we need a 2A equivalent to the Voting Rights Act where states that have shown a proclivity to pass infringing laws will be banned from passing future laws unless approved by a national committee.... actually I would just like to see them banned from passing any 2A laws for 25 years after any infringement.
__________________
18 USC 241
Tungsten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 08:53 PM #1075
aray's Avatar
aray aray is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crownsville, AA Co.
Posts: 4,303
aray aray is offline
Senior Member
aray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crownsville, AA Co.
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeoBill View Post
Of course they do. CIA was caught hacking Congress; do you think the USSC isn't secured by the lowest bidder?

ETA:
Literally everybody has something on everybody else.

The big question is whether Roberts will call their bluff.
The CIA was not caught hacking Congress, though that is clearly the way Congress painted it and the way the media spun the story. The facts are the following:
  • The computers belonged to the CIA not to the Senate (particularly the SSCI - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence).
  • Access to these CIA computers was at a special CIA site, not a Congressional site.
  • The CIA was responsible for monitoring security of these computers to ensure they were not used in an unauthorized manner that would compromise classified material not relevant to the topic under review.
  • At the time of login, a banner popped up which said "Your use of this system may be monitored and you have no expectation of privacy."
  • The people thought to be misusing the CIA computers were SSCI Staffers, not Congressional Members.
  • As a result of their security monitoring against abuse or unauthorized access of CIA material not shared with the SSCI Staffers for this specific review, the CIA's RDINet team believed classified material had in fact been improperly accessed and was stored on the SSCI Majority Staff's (Democrats) shared drive area.
  • The matter was then referred to the CIA OGC (Office of General Council), who then tasked the RDINet IT members to do a limited review of what classified material was accessed in an unauthorized fashion, based upon standard/routine security monitoring information previously collected, consistent with the login banner notification.
  • On 1/14/14 the Deputy of the CIA became aware of the situation, immediately ordered a stand-down, and briefed Senator Feinstein of the situation the next day. (In 2014 the Democrats controlled the Senate and she was Chair of the SSCI.)
  • The next day she or her staffers went shrieking to the press that Congress had been spied on by the CIA.

The CIA's Office of Inspector General's full report is here and you can read it for yourselves. Final note: Respecting Separation of Powers, the CIA OIG did NOT investigate whether or not Democrat SSCI Staffers attempted to misuse CIA computers or attempt to leak sensitive classified information; they focused only on CIA Executive Branch actions in the incident.

Now as to your main comment on whether or not someone has something on Roberts, I have no idea, I just wanted to set the record straight on your example. I think you could have found a better use-case than that one.
aray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 09:25 PM #1076
Kharn Kharn is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,725
Kharn Kharn is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2D View Post
I imagine a collective eye-roll when Sotomajor said transporting a firearm was covered under the license to carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And under the old law, only NYC could give out premesis licenses, every other county had to issue carry permits with the "hunting and target shooting" restriction. Today the replacement law allows statewide issuance of premesis licenses, so many in iffy counties are expecting to be downgraded from hunting/target-shooting to premesis on their next renewal.
Kharn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 09:31 PM #1077
Allen65 Allen65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 1,506
Allen65 Allen65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Guy View Post
Sotomayor also said that the history, text and tradition stuff was a "made up" standard. I wonder if this opens the door for clarification on this standard. I think she purposefully says this to communicate to the lower circuits that there is ambiguity in this, when there is none. I think she's trying to relitigate Heller.
All standards were "made up" at some time in the past. COTUS doesn't define levels of scrutiny; the whole concept was "made up" by SCOTUS long ago. The fact that people accept standards as standards is what makes them, er, standards.
Allen65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 09:31 PM #1078
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,972
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,972
So Ginsburg appeared to at least challenge the wisdom (if not the constitutionality) of the NYC ordinance in considering public safety ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/u...eme-court.html

Quote:
Even the court’s more liberal members indicated that the repealed law would be problematic were it properly before the court.

“One problem with the prior regulation,” Justice Ginsburg said, was that “if you wanted to have a gun in your second home, you had to buy a second gun.”

“And what public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one — and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that, therefore, more vulnerable to theft?” she continued.
But even if it's obvious to her now after New York labored mightily to walk back the transport restriction, remember ...

Quote:
Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster.
... that the lower courts were completely fine with the regulation.
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 09:33 PM #1079
danb's Avatar
danb danb is online now
i pi
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 19,505
danb danb is online now
i pi
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 19,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen65 View Post
All standards were "made up" at some time in the past. COTUS doesn't define levels of scrutiny; the whole concept was "made up" by SCOTUS long ago. The fact that people accept standards as standards is what makes them, er, standards.
I think that you made that up!
danb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2019, 09:35 PM #1080
Mike OTDP's Avatar
Mike OTDP Mike OTDP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,540
Mike OTDP Mike OTDP is offline
Senior Member
Mike OTDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten View Post
I think we need a 2A equivalent to the Voting Rights Act where states that have shown a proclivity to pass infringing laws will be banned from passing future laws unless approved by a national committee.... actually I would just like to see them banned from passing any 2A laws for 25 years after any infringement.
This. Forget the damned "my feddelism" arguments. The 2A Bad Actor states need to be under constraint - all firearms and firearms-related laws are automatically illegal until and unless the state proves them Constitutional in Federal court.
__________________
Support the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team! Learn more at www.usimlt.com
Mike OTDP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Tags
eat it nyc, nyspra, supreme court


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 11 (7 members and 4 guests)
0psi, Adam, JC92, PM51, rethin
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service