Perhaps I'm missing sarcasm....but everywhere.
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:
Perhaps I'm missing sarcasm....but everywhere.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,288
The Right exists everywhere but you may get a trip to the grey bar hotel if you try to exercise it in some places.
While there may be overwhelming opposition to the right in some areas, maybe to the degree where you are egregiously oppressed, the right exists.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Technically congress cannot repeal an amendment. They can vote (2/3 majority) to amend the constitution, but 3/4 of the states need to approve.
And I'd like to think that we're still a long way from 37 states being willing to remove the 2A from the Bill of Rights. It would only take 14 out the 28 contenders below to say no:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
danb
dont be a dumbass
3 easy* to get non-resident carry permits are valid in 42 states, last I checked. If anything, it would be easier to get 37 states to bolster the protections of the 2nd amendment. Can you say the strictest scrutiny?
We should regulate carry permits like drivers licenses. Every resident over 18 can get one, and once one gets one its good in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and other territories. If my marriage license from another state is valid, even if I am married to a partner of the same sex, so should my carry permit.
* easy meaning not being prohibited and taking 4 hours of instruction.
We should regulate carry permits like drivers licenses. Every resident over 18 can get one, and once one gets one its good in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and other territories. If my marriage license from another state is valid, even if I am married to a partner of the same sex, so should my carry permit.
* easy meaning not being prohibited and taking 4 hours of instruction.
That is not at all true when you look at the record and facts. The left justices vote fairly consistently left, the right fairly consistently right, and one playing the middle is the only wild card.
you can occasionally find a Republican who has gone off the rails and gone center or left in the court cases, but Democrat appointed federal judges and supreme court justices don't support even Heller
As far as the rest of us, that is not true either. The surveys and polling show Democrats, and self describe liberals and progressives, support additional wide and deep reduction in Second amendment rights, and people on the right support keeping or expanding second amendment rights .
That divide has become even more pronounced in the past generation, not less.
platoonDaddy
Ultimate Member
What he said!Only those states with real RKBA protections
Kharn
Ultimate Member
Parties have requested an extension of time to file, with petitioners filing on 7 May and the respondents on 5 August so the case can be argued in the October sitting.
This case will most likely be settled on the grounds of ones constitutional right to travel with lawfully owned property and limited to previous Heller findings concerning firearms in the home. Because the law is limited to intrastate travel, the commerce clause doesn't apply here.
Don't get your hopes up for any novel 2nd Amendment decision.
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.
Don't get your hopes up for any novel 2nd Amendment decision.
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.
Thomas has a hard on for more 2A cases. We’ll see. I think the 2A trumps the commerce clause. The Bill of Rights vs the commerce clause.
Thomas wont be deciding anything, Roberts will.
Roberts will decide if it is strict or not, commerce or not and upheld or not.
Just as all that mattered for Heller: is what Kennedy would let Scalia do.
The laws states it is intrastate but the effect is also patently interstate. There is no denying it is also an interstate issue. A lot of NYC residents would be shooting at ranges NJ.
And there are other compelling arguments:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/66119/20181009105152662_18-280 Amici Brief.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...estern States Sheriffs Association et al.pdf
Groups outside of NY have certainly have amicus briefs in.
Again i think all that matters is Roberts political opinion. He is a political animal and will consider public opinion much more than he should.
I think he will overturn NY law but do so extremely narrowly and not support strict scrutiny, despite this case having clear interstate implications and despite the pattern of NY laws and federal splits arguing strong for strict
No petitioner in the case wanted to take their firearm outside the state. If the federal government can't regulate the possession of a firearm, under their commerce powers, outside of a school as in US v Lopez. What makes you think they can here?
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,229
From your keyboard to .fed court ears, I hope.
Specifically as pertains to case related to Kansas. It’s posted in another thread here. State removed all regulation of a number of atf regulated items, like FA and suppressors, when made and used in state only. The guys were arrested and charged severely. The case is pending appeal on the fact that it was NOT interstate commerce and therefore not illegal. So I do hope you’re right.
On the ny case, I recall the interstate part from reading brief, but don’t recall if it was specifically a petitioner or support brief, but inter state was mentioned. Either way, I think the point was to show the NYC law is stupid in multiple ways. Limiting the owners both at inter and intra state levels. So trying both a 2a spin and commerce clause as well and hoping for a win on either OR both grounds.
I am not a lawyer, just a laymen trying to understand an issue that effect me.
Specifically as pertains to case related to Kansas. It’s posted in another thread here. State removed all regulation of a number of atf regulated items, like FA and suppressors, when made and used in state only. The guys were arrested and charged severely. The case is pending appeal on the fact that it was NOT interstate commerce and therefore not illegal. So I do hope you’re right.
On the ny case, I recall the interstate part from reading brief, but don’t recall if it was specifically a petitioner or support brief, but inter state was mentioned. Either way, I think the point was to show the NYC law is stupid in multiple ways. Limiting the owners both at inter and intra state levels. So trying both a 2a spin and commerce clause as well and hoping for a win on either OR both grounds.
I am not a lawyer, just a laymen trying to understand an issue that effect me.
So of course Young is put on hold in 9CA until this is finished before SCOTUS next year....
Using the Commerce Clause raises the probability of overturning the NY law. But it has the risk of allowing SCOTUS to overrule NY strictly on Commerce Clause grounds without touching on any 2A issues. And that leaves us no better off nationally, and NY can continue to pass other infringing laws that don't affect interstate transport.
I think your optics are wrong. I think there is a reason the justices haven’t taken 2A cases. It’s not about Roberts deciding, it’s about Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh knowing how Roberts will vote.
It wasn’t about what Kennedy would LET Scalia do, it was about Scalia knowing what Kennedy would do.
That is the same thing in effect and in any case there is no doubt it was about what Kennedy would allow with his signaling how much he would accept. Scalia was not simply writing in the dark. Former SCOTUS clerks have written about this -- justices signal each other all the time. It is also one of the reasons for listing to questions during oral arguments. They are not really questions to convince a judge otherwise, but there so those in the middle can signal where they will draw lines.
NYC is in a unique situation geographically. Travel a short distance (i.e., five miles) from midtown Manhattan on the "subway" and you're out of NYC but still in NY State (Westchester); travel the same distance West and you're in NJ.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
The Clock's Tickin': Be READY for Tomorrow!- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 42