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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 3rd, 2022, 07:25 PM #211
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 6,209
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 6,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
First of all, this case has nothing to do with carrying in the subway. It has nothing to do with carrying on a college campus. It has nothing to do with carrying in sensitive places. NONE of the plaintiffs were carrying in those places, and to be clear, the court won't address, ANY, of those places as the plaintiffs have no standing to do so. So, basically, your argument is solely based on conjecture. I would guess, Alito's discussion was just to show how nonsensical NY State's position is.

I never said Robertson was an impediment. Robertson v Baldwin, decided in 1897, clearly shows that the highest court in this country, understood the 2nd Amendment as not protecting a right to carry concealed firearms. Notice that we haven't gone into the 20th-century, which according to what Alito said at orals, IS NOT the time period to understand the limits of the 2nd Amendment. Here, I'll support my position, yet again, with Alito's statement at orals. Notice the time period...From year 1791 to 1868. Do you see the 20th-century in there? I don't, and thus my position. To be clear, New York's concealed carry permitting came into effect in the 20th-century.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen
From oral arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and --and I will stop after this -- Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.

Peruta's majority agree completely with my understanding of Robertson...A MAJORITY, is far better than a, MINORITY, in decision making. Notice how I support my position(see below) with fact, not conjecture.

From Peruta v San Diego:

"Finally, and perhaps most importantly,in Robertson v.Baldwin,165 U.S. 275 (1897), the United States Supreme Court made clear that it, too, understood the Second Amendment as not protecting the right to carry a concealed weapon. The Court wrote:[T]he first 10 amendments to the constitution,commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,”were not intended to laydown any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms(article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons[.]"
You're relying on a 9th Circuit precedent from judges who are not on the SCOTUS over 2 justices' dissent of the very same case? And not to mention several of those CA9 judges would later turn around and say that OPEN CARRY isn't protected either? Relying on CA9 for 2A guidance is dubious at best.
What Alito is saying is that there's a right to carry that can't be conditioned on the government's "need" test, as it never existed in 1791 or 1868. This is not a sly way of him saying it HAS to be open carry.
As I said before the oral argument goes a lot differently if one or more of the conservatives is angling toward open carry.
press1280 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2022, 03:38 PM #212
camo556's Avatar
camo556 camo556 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 943
camo556 camo556 is offline
Member
camo556's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 943
more opinions this thursday
camo556 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2022, 04:44 PM #213
Texasgrillchef's Avatar
Texasgrillchef Texasgrillchef is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Dallas, texas
Posts: 115
Texasgrillchef Texasgrillchef is offline
Member
Texasgrillchef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Dallas, texas
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by camo556 View Post
more opinions this thursday
Don’t expect an opinion released on this case though.

More then likely the opinions issued on Thursday will be about the Vaccine Mandates
Texasgrillchef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2022, 11:32 AM #214
camo556's Avatar
camo556 camo556 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 943
camo556 camo556 is offline
Member
camo556's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 943
Trolled. Nothing interesting released today.
camo556 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2022, 03:53 PM #215
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 3,696
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 3,696
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.
ON APPLICATIONS FOR STAYS
[January 13, 2022]
PER CURIAM. The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently enacted a vaccine mandate for much of the Nation’s work force. The mandate, which employers must enforce, applies to roughly84 million workers, covering virtually all employers with at least 100 employees. It requires that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday. OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact
2 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v.
OSHA
Per Curiam
any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.
Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizationschallenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country. The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to takeeffect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from thisCourt, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

Link
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2022, 04:02 PM #216
camo556's Avatar
camo556 camo556 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 943
camo556 camo556 is offline
Member
camo556's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 943

Apparently they released this way after the normal time.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

OSHA slapped down, HHS health care mandate upheld. Not sure why either was a per curiam opinion. The HHS rule had 4 dissenters. Alito, Gorsuch, Barret, Thomas.
camo556 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2022, 09:32 PM #217
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7,999
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by camo556 View Post

Apparently they released this way after the normal time.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

OSHA slapped down, HHS health care mandate upheld. Not sure why either was a per curiam opinion. The HHS rule had 4 dissenters. Alito, Gorsuch, Barret, Thomas.
Neither were determining the merits. They were only determining if the regulations should held prior to hearing the cases. This decision allows the HHS requirement for health care providers to vaccinate to go in to effect while the case is decided, but stays the requirement that large employers require their employees to be vaccinated until the case is resolved.

De facto decision on the merits. But not actual.

I’d expect states to turn around and begin requiring employers to vaccinate their employees next now that SCOTUS has effectively said OSHA cannot require large employers to vaccinate employees, require testing or even require masks in the work place.
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2022, 10:39 PM #218
Mark75H's Avatar
Mark75H Mark75H is offline
HVAC Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Outside the Gates
Posts: 13,616
Mark75H Mark75H is offline
HVAC Expert
Mark75H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Outside the Gates
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
Neither were determining the merits. They were only determining if the regulations should held prior to hearing the cases. This decision allows the HHS requirement for health care providers to vaccinate to go in to effect while the case is decided, but stays the requirement that large employers require their employees to be vaccinated until the case is resolved.

De facto decision on the merits. But not actual.

I’d expect BLUE states to turn around and begin requiring employers to vaccinate their employees next now that SCOTUS has effectively said OSHA cannot require large employers to vaccinate employees, require testing or even require masks in the work place.
FIFY
__________________
2A ... Federal Constitutional Preemption

Thus, the only inquiry that this Court should conduct is to determine whether the firearms prohibited by the Act are protected by the Second Amendment. Because they are, the Act is simply unconstitutional.
Mark75H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2022, 05:46 PM #219
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 20,044
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 20,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
Neither were determining the merits. They were only determining if the regulations should held prior to hearing the cases. This decision allows the HHS requirement for health care providers to vaccinate to go in to effect while the case is decided, but stays the requirement that large employers require their employees to be vaccinated until the case is resolved.

De facto decision on the merits. But not actual.

I’d expect states to turn around and begin requiring employers to vaccinate their employees next now that SCOTUS has effectively said OSHA cannot require large employers to vaccinate employees, require testing or even require masks in the work place.
Now, what are the sages here projecting about the ruling that we're REALLY following? Discussion/opinions please.

I read the tea leaves as saying that the decision will be split, with the Constitutional faction winning and the Socialist faction dissenting vociferously. Other cases held may be decided individually or remanded to avoid making an overly broad decision that may affect their "legacy" as jurists.
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy." To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
“Those who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who don’t.”

‘Tis better to live in dangerous freedom than in quiet servitude.
#MorePatriotsThanHandcuffs
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2022, 05:53 PM #220
delaware_export delaware_export is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,453
delaware_export delaware_export is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,453
I too am wondering how the scotus mandate breakdown will effect the gun case.

6/3 5/4 in favor of the 2a. But what level of clarity/firmness of ruling
4/2/3 some weak knee “compromise”
4/5 2a loss because 4 wanted a very strong pro 2a ruling and overplayed and 2 go anti

About 5 months until we get the real ruling
delaware_export is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service