Old February 23rd, 2021, 10:48 PM #111
rob's Avatar
rob rob is offline
DINO Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Augusta, GA
Posts: 2,631
Images: 1
rob rob is offline
DINO Extraordinaire
rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Augusta, GA
Posts: 2,631
Images: 1
What also needs to be recognized is that the Bill of Rights is not supposed to be a statement of rights granted by a benevolent government. It is a recognition of certain God given Rights that should not be compromised.

Rob.
__________________
A Smart Man knows what he knows,
A Wise Man knows what he doesn't know,
A Fool knows neither.

If the government fears the people, there is freedom.
If the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not hunting, not sport, not self defense, but freedom from tyranny.

Second Amendment Foundation -- Maryland Shall Issue -- NRA Life Member
rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2021, 05:32 AM #112
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 35,528
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 35,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob View Post
What also needs to be recognized is that the Bill of Rights is not supposed to be a statement of rights granted by a benevolent government. It is a recognition of certain God given Rights that should not be compromised.

Rob.
Amen.
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2021, 01:34 PM #113
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,309
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,309
NYSRPA Reply Brief is up, also 1st Conference is set for 3/26/2021.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2021, 02:43 PM #114
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,482
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
NYSRPA Reply Brief is up, also 1st Conference is set for 3/26/2021.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html
I am predicting a denial because they never really address how this case will resolve the split. The real issue that none of these cases address is why the other courts were wrong deciding the case under intermediate scrutiny.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2021, 12:16 PM #115
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,249
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I am predicting a denial because they never really address how this case will resolve the split. The real issue that none of these cases address is why the other courts were wrong deciding the case under intermediate scrutiny.
I think itís pretty well summed up in the first few paragraphs of the reply. They obviously want Scotus to follow The DC Circuitís reasoning and aptly point out that the split is clearly acknowledged even though NYC is doing there best to claim that DCs form of may issue was somehow light years apart from theirs.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2021, 01:20 AM #116
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,482
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I think itís pretty well summed up in the first few paragraphs of the reply. They obviously want Scotus to follow The DC Circuitís reasoning and aptly point out that the split is clearly acknowledged even though NYC is doing there best to claim that DCs form of may issue was somehow light years apart from theirs.
The first few paragraphs simply demonstrate that there is a split. Splits can be resolved by picking one side or the other. This petition does not help the court to explain why the other side is wrong. SCOTUS not only has to pick a side, but they have to provide a well reasoned explanation as to why. There is still not enough explanation for a majority of them to write a well reasoned explanation and they are apparently waiting patiently for the first case that does.

How is this case any different than Rogers? They cited the DC Circuit as well.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2021, 08:56 AM #117
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,249
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
The first few paragraphs simply demonstrate that there is a split. Splits can be resolved by picking one side or the other. This petition does not help the court to explain why the other side is wrong. SCOTUS not only has to pick a side, but they have to provide a well reasoned explanation as to why. There is still not enough explanation for a majority of them to write a well reasoned explanation and they are apparently waiting patiently for the first case that does.

How is this case any different than Rogers? They cited the DC Circuit as well.
The cases are similar, yes, but Rogers had a court with Ginsburg, now ACB takes that seat. Your portrayal seems to be that once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes. We've seen 3 members of the court write dissents for public carry cases (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). That leaves only 1 vote needed for a grant, 2 if they're wanting to secure a winning vote. I'm also leaving aside an outside possibility that Roberts or Alito may have also voted to hear the case but for one reason or another did not join the dissents.

I believe that none of the liberals (including Ginsburg on the court) would ever vote to hear a public carry case. That leaves the other 6.....
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2021, 03:01 PM #118
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,482
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The cases are similar, yes, but Rogers had a court with Ginsburg, now ACB takes that seat. Your portrayal seems to be that once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes. We've seen 3 members of the court write dissents for public carry cases (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). That leaves only 1 vote needed for a grant, 2 if they're wanting to secure a winning vote. I'm also leaving aside an outside possibility that Roberts or Alito may have also voted to hear the case but for one reason or another did not join the dissents.

I believe that none of the liberals (including Ginsburg on the court) would ever vote to hear a public carry case. That leaves the other 6.....
While I can understand why you might think I am saying that "once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes". The issue is more nuanced than that. Composition changes certainly can lead the Court to take up a similar issue they previously denied. It really depends on the two competing issues.

In this case there are two competing views on how to decide 2A cases. One is a more categorical approach that the DC circuit took with CCW, while the other is an intermediate scrutiny approach. Both sides claim that intermediate scrutiny should give the correct ruling but almost every Court determines that just about any law survives intermediate scrutiny, yet no real explanation is given as to why the Court keeps getting it wrong.

Intermediate scrutiny is used much more often in constitutional cases compared to a categorical approach. Why should the Court reject the more frequently used intermediate scrutiny approach that both sides agree is appropriate and that neither side can identify as being missapplied? All that can be really said is that you don't like the result and that you agree that a categorical approach gives an answer you think is appropriate. It seems like a weak response given how prevalent scrutiny is used to decide cases.

As for how the justices will rule, we know that Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Scalia voted for Heller and McDonald. Yet everyone was claiming that Kennedy was the problem as to why no other 2A case was accepted (except the per curiam Caetano case that at least one of the liberal side of the court joined). When Kennedy was replaced with Kavanaugh everyone is blaming Roberts. Yet Roberts apparently agreed to take the NYSRPA case, where no real data substantiated the intermediate scrutiny ruling. Maybe the problem is with the arguments and not the justices.

When you actually count the votes for the individual case you only get two known votes. While there are three known justices that have dissented in 2A cert petitions, only two have joined any particular dissent. Gorsuch did not join the Rogers dissent.

My arguments do not depend on which justices vote on the issue. How to properly evaluate 2A cases have been an open issue since Heller and McDonald were decided. The problem is that they never really dealt with the issue and have yet to really understand how to address it. They are waiting on a case that will allow them to reach a consensus on the issue.

Have you picked out your next reason why they will not take up another 2A case?
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2021, 03:18 PM #119
Steel Hunter Steel Hunter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 448
Steel Hunter Steel Hunter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 448
Still no further updates on this case until at least 3/26/21.
Steel Hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2021, 05:05 PM #120
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,249
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,249
[QUOTE=jcutonilli;6259525]While I can understand why you might think I am saying that "once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes". The issue is more nuanced than that. Composition changes certainly can lead the Court to take up a similar issue they previously denied. It really depends on the two competing issues.

In this case there are two competing views on how to decide 2A cases. One is a more categorical approach that the DC circuit took with CCW, while the other is an intermediate scrutiny approach. Both sides claim that intermediate scrutiny should give the correct ruling but almost every Court determines that just about any law survives intermediate scrutiny, yet no real explanation is given as to why the Court keeps getting it wrong.

Intermediate scrutiny is used much more often in constitutional cases compared to a categorical approach. Why should the Court reject the more frequently used intermediate scrutiny approach that both sides agree is appropriate and that neither side can identify as being missapplied? All that can be really said is that you don't like the result and that you agree that a categorical approach gives an answer you think is appropriate. It seems like a weak response given how prevalent scrutiny is used to decide cases.

As for how the justices will rule, we know that Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Scalia voted for Heller and McDonald. Yet everyone was claiming that Kennedy was the problem as to why no other 2A case was accepted (except the per curiam Caetano case that at least one of the liberal side of the court joined). When Kennedy was replaced with Kavanaugh everyone is blaming Roberts. Yet Roberts apparently agreed to take the NYSRPA case, where no real data substantiated the intermediate scrutiny ruling. Maybe the problem is with the arguments and not the justices.

When you actually count the votes for the individual case you only get two known votes. While there are three known justices that have dissented in 2A cert petitions, only two have joined any particular dissent. Gorsuch did not join the Rogers dissent.

My arguments do not depend on which justices vote on the issue. How to properly evaluate 2A cases have been an open issue since Heller and McDonald were decided. The problem is that they never really dealt with the issue and have yet to really understand how to address it. They are waiting on a case that will allow them to reach a consensus on the issue.

Have you picked out your next reason why they will not take up another 2A case?[/QUOTE]

How do you know Roberts voted to hear NYSRPA?

If they don't take this case then I don't know. I don't know enough about the inner workings of SCOTUS to say for sure. For example, would the justices (or clerks) be aware of the lawsuits coming up from NJ, and perhaps try to steer the court away from this case in hopes of taking that case since NJ doesn't differentiate between open and concealed carry? NYC hasn't tried to steer them away or make any big deal over CC/OC, which they could have done.

Maybe you can answer what magic phrases were written in NYSRPA that got the court to bite in that case?
press1280 is offline   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 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service