NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

eruby said:

Sybil the Soothsayer approves of this post



Howard Beale weeps

Click to expand...

The Dude abides....

ok

jcutonilli said:

I don't claim to "have it all". COTUS can only keep those who rule over us in line if it is correctly argued. How are those 2A cases going? Are those who rule over us really being kept in check? What should be done about it?

I choose to talk about why I think the cases have been argued incorrectly. I have begun to submit these arguments to courts. See my Amicus Briefs for :
10th Circuit Bump stock Case (Aposhian v Barr), View attachment 311715
Ninth Circuit CA MAG ban (Duncan v Becerra both the panel brief and the brief in opposition to an en banc rehearing) View attachment 311717 View attachment 311716
Ninth Circuit HI carry case (Young v HI) https://pdfhost.io/v/I5m4UGe00_YoungAmicusJohnCutonillipdf.pdf
and I am planning to submit an Amicus Brief with CATO and NCLA in the DC bump stock case.

Are these detailed enough? What else should I be doing? What are you doing?

Click to expand...

I am not as enlightened as you claim to be, Mr. Thoreau- Walden Pond, not Civil Disobedience. I have given lots of money to those I think will do what is best. Have I met you protesting in Annapolis or is that too beneath you? You act like a friggin FUDD or Glum. It'll never work, We're never gonna make it. Wowzie Woo Woo. You always answer a question with a question. You actually bore me with your Department of Redundancy Department replies. Good night.

It takes a number of different talents to work toward a successful outcome. We are not in a position where we can afford to lose allies, however much we may disagree with their actions or abilities.

Bob A said:

It takes a number of different talents to work toward a successful outcome. We are not in a position where we can afford to lose allies, however much we may disagree with their actions or abilities.

Click to expand...

There is a point in time where somebody isn't a ally, when they constantly question you and demand that you prove something to their satisfaction or they demand to see something in writing, because they want you to do all the research and leg work for them.

When somebody asks questions, that's generally not a problem, but when they constantly ask so many questions, that it feels like you're being cross examined in a court room, that crosses a thin line. Some of us are tired of being his whipping boy for whatever perverse pleasure he gains from it.

I have seen zero evidence that a specific member has ever attended a meet up, testified in Annapolis, helped run a MSI booth (I did it and I wasn't even a member of MSI), or called/ written the MGA critters. All I see is "Look at these things I've done elsewhere, but not for you guys in MD".

That doesn't sound like a ally of MD gun owners, it sounds like somebody collecting a paycheck and having MDS members do his research for free, so he doesn't have to pay a assistant to do the work.

Well, I've done all those things, and it hasn't moved the bar to any noticeable degree in our favor.

I don't have the ability to write and submit an amicus curiae brief. If this guy manages to write something that creates a breakthrough, he can work from home if he wants to. It would be nice if his briefs amounted to something, wouldn't it? Sadly, I don't have the ability to judge the quality of his work. If there's anyone out there who can provide a well-reasoned opinion about that, I'd be interested to hear of it.

Most of the lawyers hereabouts tend to be picky, wordy, argumentative SOBs; I figure that's the nature of the beast.

This is not to disparage the ones who I've stood with in Annapolis and elsewhere; they don't seem to post much these days. They are missed.

babalou said:

I am not as enlightened as you claim to be, Mr. Thoreau- Walden Pond, not Civil Disobedience. I have given lots of money to those I think will do what is best. Have I met you protesting in Annapolis or is that too beneath you? You act like a friggin FUDD or Glum. It'll never work, We're never gonna make it. Wowzie Woo Woo. You always answer a question with a question. You actually bore me with your Department of Redundancy Department replies. Good night.

Click to expand...

I was in Annapolis in 2013 and learned that it is not a numbers game. We certainly need people to go and testify, but whether I am there won't make a difference.

It is great that you have given lots of money to those that you think will do what is best. Have they really accomplished what you thought they could do?

I am frustrated at what we have been able to accomplish through the legislature and through the Courts. I believe there are better ways and try and engage people through a form of the socratic method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) to stimulate critical thinking, to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions as well as validate what I am saying. It is why I am answering questions with questions. It also has its downsides which is reflected in your perceptions of me.

I also make predictions about future events to try and demonstrate that I may have the necessary insight to accurately predict these future events. This case is an example. It may sound like a FUDD but I also try and inject what is wrong as well as what could be done to improve the situation.

I am not going to force you to listen to me. If you are happy with the current situation then ignore me. If you think I am wrong, challenge me. We may both learn something.

Gentleman
This is a time when we need to stand together not have a cat fight between each other. The point is each and everyone of us come together and contribute what they can to help us TOGETHER achieve our goal. Ok I am done and getting off my soapbox now..

I get it with frustration with recent developments .
I get it that in ( whichever Civil Rights struggle ) there are a multitude of strategies .

I have always included the larger societal benefits among my talking points in multiple venues .

I have even been in the same building , if not the same room with Socratic Method .

But it seems probable that those arguments are both better suited for , and more likely to be deployed with a possibility of efficacy in other contexts. Ie Educating the public at large , and Lobbying .

But hey , there is no Stone Tablet if Legal Strategy that says Alan Gura is always Right , and you're always wrong , nor the reverse .

If you've got an Additional legal strategy that plausibly could yield positive results , by all means persue it .

Biggfoot44 said:

I get it with frustration with recent developments ....

Click to expand...

What "recent" developments?

Not targeting you, but using your concept as an example.

This stuff has been going on for so long that one really has to be delusional to think we will ever see a different outcome. Every day that goes by puts this "freedom" crap deeper in the hole. Every day gone by makes this supposed 'right' less of a reality and puts it more into our hazy past.

If the court actually wanted to affirm this purported right, they could have done so at EVERY turn. ANY case argued on behalf of the 2A could have been quite quickly decided by simply reading the amendment aloud and stating "clearly, this law/these charges violate the constitutional limits on infringement". Instead, double talk and evasion; "interest balancing", "scrutiny", "status quo", "public safety"...

I'd LOVE to keep drinking the Kool-Aid, to enjoy the blind faith that others here show, and convince myself that justice will prevail "one day", but this ongoing fantasy has been unproductive for many years now. I saw GCA '68 enacted and people immediately talked about getting this cast out in court, how there was no way it would stand. That was over 50 years ago and we're still (not) going strong.

The pattern remains the same: Bad laws are passed, people use their resources to fight the government, who uses the peoples' resources to fight them back. Time goes by, nothing changes. Another bad law and another bad law... Fight, lose, appeal, fight, lose, appeal...get to the USSC and they decide not to hear the case because...why? It would force them to make a decision and take an actual stand. The big problem is that 'the people' are not going to like the stand the USSC finally does take.

How is this NOT clear by now? With all of the in-depth analysis we have on tap, one would think it would be pretty plain.

Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that these elusive constitutional protections are only mythology from a time gone by. You know, just recognize reality for what it is and understand that we are watching our government seize control in every possible way. Not just the 2A, even though that's most often our focus here.

^^^hard to refute^^^

E.Shell said:

Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that these elusive constitutional protections are only mythology from a time gone by. You know, just recognize reality for what it is and understand that we are watching our government seize control in every possible way. Not just the 2A, even though that's most often our focus here.

Click to expand...

You really ought to watch the Barricade Garage video from the thread of the same name. Feel free to skip the first two minutes to get the meat.

Seriously. It will open your eyes.

Bob A said:

You really ought to watch the Barricade Garage video from the thread of the same name. Feel free to skip the first two minutes to get the meat.

Seriously. It will open your eyes.

Click to expand...

Thank you Bob, I did see that. He raises some very solid points and I agree with most of what be said, especially about us being played against one another. None of it is actually new though, the non-MSM sources have been all though those angles. I think a lot of us knew Chauvin would be sacrificed.

I do have a hard time bringing any of his points to this situation, unless his discussion of the politics of the Floyd verdict is taken to reinforce that the USSC procrastinates a 2A verdict because they are afraid of public outrage.

It is a very simple call: Either the 2A is an individual right, like all the others, or it is not...but we just can't seem to get a commitment because WE constantly fail somehow. The wrong person asks the right question, the right person asks the wrong question, the right person asks the right question, but the wrong way...for YEARS...no, wait...for DECADES, hell, another 13 years will be a century since the government started overstepping its bounds on just this one subject. As long as we can sit here and TRY to believe, they can perpetuate the facade of legitimacy, a constitutional government and a citizenship with rights and not permissions.

It's not just the 2A, look at how the election challenges were handled. Our USSC has very serious problems.

E.Shell said:

What "recent" developments?

Not targeting you, but using your concept as an example.

This stuff has been going on for so long that one really has to be delusional to think we will ever see a different outcome. Every day that goes by puts this "freedom" crap deeper in the hole. Every day gone by makes this supposed 'right' less of a reality and puts it more into our hazy past.

If the court actually wanted to affirm this purported right, they could have done so at EVERY turn. ANY case argued on behalf of the 2A could have been quite quickly decided by simply reading the amendment aloud and stating "clearly, this law/these charges violate the constitutional limits on infringement". Instead, double talk and evasion; "interest balancing", "scrutiny", "status quo", "public safety"...

I'd LOVE to keep drinking the Kool-Aid, to enjoy the blind faith that others here show, and convince myself that justice will prevail "one day", but this ongoing fantasy has been unproductive for many years now. I saw GCA '68 enacted and people immediately talked about getting this cast out in court, how there was no way it would stand. That was over 50 years ago and we're still (not) going strong.

The pattern remains the same: Bad laws are passed, people use their resources to fight the government, who uses the peoples' resources to fight them back. Time goes by, nothing changes. Another bad law and another bad law... Fight, lose, appeal, fight, lose, appeal...get to the USSC and they decide not to hear the case because...why? It would force them to make a decision and take an actual stand. The big problem is that 'the people' are not going to like the stand the USSC finally does take.

How is this NOT clear by now? With all of the in-depth analysis we have on tap, one would think it would be pretty plain.

Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that these elusive constitutional protections are only mythology from a time gone by. You know, just recognize reality for what it is and understand that we are watching our government seize control in every possible way. Not just the 2A, even though that's most often our focus here.

Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is the misunderstanding of what SCOTUS is looking for. They do not typically take cases where the law is misapplied in that particular case. They get way too many cases to correct individual errors. They are looking for systematic issues such as different circuits deciding the same case in different ways.

One of the things that Heller/McDonald said was that the right was not unlimited. The big issue that Heller/McDonald left unresolved is where the right stops and the government interest in public safety begins. It took certain policy decisions of the table, but it did not elaborate as to which ones.

One of the more common ways the court uses to resolve this is through a process referred to as scrutiny. There are various levels that are selected depending on how easy it should be for the government interest to overcome the right. Heller never resolved whether this process should be used or what level of the process should be used.

All most every court has settled on intermediate scrutiny as the process to use and has used that process to uphold all most every law.

The plaintiffs in all of these cases want the case decided based on strict scrutiny, which makes it more difficult for the government interest to overcome the right. They also acknowledge that they should win under intermediate scrutiny, but they do not provide much of an explanation as to why.

I believe what the court is waiting for is an explanation as to why the lower courts are systematically getting the intermediate scrutiny process wrong. All of the cases to date except one have not provided an explanation. The one case was NYSRPA vs NYC. I do not think SCOTUS really understands why the courts are getting this wrong and the current cases have not illuminated the reasons why.

I believe they will take 2A cases, you just need to provide the appropriate arguments.

jcutonilli said:

I believe what the court is waiting for is an explanation as to why the lower courts are systematically getting the intermediate scrutiny process wrong. All of the cases to date except one have not provided an explanation. The one case was NYSRPA vs NYC. I do not think SCOTUS really understands why the courts are getting this wrong and the current cases have not illuminated the reasons why.

I believe they will take 2A cases, you just need to provide the appropriate arguments.

Click to expand...

Why do you think the lower courts are getting the scrutiny process wrong, and what argument(s) do you think would bring the issue to a satisfactory resolution?

Are there any cases in the pipeline that might fill the bill?

Bob A said:

Why do you think the lower courts are getting the scrutiny process wrong, and what argument(s) do you think would bring the issue to a satisfactory resolution?

Are there any cases in the pipeline that might fill the bill?

Click to expand...

We can look at the Duncan V Becerra case (CA "large capacity" mag ban) that I have written 2 amicus briefs for. The case is somewhat unique because the District Court judge is Judge Benitez and he knows how to properly evaluate the data. He ultimately found the CA mag ban law unconstitutional. The 3 judge panel in the Ninth Circuit also found the mag ban unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit recently decided to vacate the 3 judge panel decision and rehear the case en banc (11 judge panel in the Ninth) One of the likely reasons for the en banc is that every other court has decided similar laws were constitutional using essentially the same data.

The has a lot to do with how the plaintiffs (pro 2A side) challenge the data. Both sides introduce data to demonstrate their conclusions are based on empirical data.

The government data demonstrates that the “use of large-capacity magazines results in more gunshots fired, results in more gunshot wounds per victim, and increases the lethality of gunshot injuries.” They also say that that LCMs are “disproportionately used in mass shootings as well as crimes against law enforcement” and that a “reduction in the number of large-capacity magazines
in circulation may decrease the use of such magazines in gun crimes.”

The problem is that the plaintiffs introduce different data to dispute. They introduce a 1994 DOJ report concluding that concluded that there was no discernible reduction in lethality or injury. They cite a number of people that explain the benefits of having more round available.

What most judges/Courts do in this situation is perceive the situation as a version of a he said she said case. The Courts conclude the issue as political in nature, a role best suited to the legislature. The Courts defer to the legislature's judgement on the weighing of the evidence. This guarantees a win for the government.

What I believe needs to be done is to rip apart the governments data so that the court cannot rely on it to support intermediate scrutiny.

You can read my Duncan BIO amicus brief for my latest version of how to rip their data apart. I can be found in this previous post https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=6295465&postcount=200

Not in today's miscellaneous order.

E.Shell said:

Thank you Bob, I did see that. He raises some very solid points and I agree with most of what be said, especially about us being played against one another. None of it is actually new though, the non-MSM sources have been all though those angles. I think a lot of us knew Chauvin would be sacrificed.

I do have a hard time bringing any of his points to this situation, unless his discussion of the politics of the Floyd verdict is taken to reinforce that the USSC procrastinates a 2A verdict because they are afraid of public outrage.

It is a very simple call: Either the 2A is an individual right, like all the others, or it is not...but we just can't seem to get a commitment because WE constantly fail somehow. The wrong person asks the right question, the right person asks the wrong question, the right person asks the right question, but the wrong way...for YEARS...no, wait...for DECADES, hell, another 13 years will be a century since the government started overstepping its bounds on just this one subject. As long as we can sit here and TRY to believe, they can perpetuate the facade of legitimacy, a constitutional government and a citizenship with rights and not permissions.

It's not just the 2A, look at how the election challenges were handled. Our USSC has very serious problems.

Click to expand...

Uhh, they are not all individual rights.

Even in the original bill of rights, the 10th was about powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution or by the federal government devolve to the states or the people. That certainly isn't an individual right it is discussing. Individuals are mentioned, but even the plain reading is

Federal government first, then states, then people.

jcutonilli said:

We can look at the Duncan V Becerra case (CA "large capacity" mag ban) that I have written 2 amicus briefs for. The case is somewhat unique because the District Court judge is Judge Benitez and he knows how to properly evaluate the data. He ultimately found the CA mag ban law unconstitutional. The 3 judge panel in the Ninth Circuit also found the mag ban unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit recently decided to vacate the 3 judge panel decision and rehear the case en banc (11 judge panel in the Ninth) One of the likely reasons for the en banc is that every other court has decided similar laws were constitutional using essentially the same data.

The has a lot to do with how the plaintiffs (pro 2A side) challenge the data. Both sides introduce data to demonstrate their conclusions are based on empirical data.

The government data demonstrates that the “use of large-capacity magazines results in more gunshots fired, results in more gunshot wounds per victim, and increases the lethality of gunshot injuries.” They also say that that LCMs are “disproportionately used in mass shootings as well as crimes against law enforcement” and that a “reduction in the number of large-capacity magazines
in circulation may decrease the use of such magazines in gun crimes.”

The problem is that the plaintiffs introduce different data to dispute. They introduce a 1994 DOJ report concluding that concluded that there was no discernible reduction in lethality or injury. They cite a number of people that explain the benefits of having more round available.

What most judges/Courts do in this situation is perceive the situation as a version of a he said she said case. The Courts conclude the issue as political in nature, a role best suited to the legislature. The Courts defer to the legislature's judgement on the weighing of the evidence. This guarantees a win for the government.

What I believe needs to be done is to rip apart the governments data so that the court cannot rely on it to support intermediate scrutiny.

You can read my Duncan BIO amicus brief for my latest version of how to rip their data apart. I can be found in this previous post https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=6295465&postcount=200

Click to expand...

Amici briefs are available to the court and plaintiffs, right? Do they have much sway in the outcome?

The “document” states “We the people” not “The government” fred55

rambling_one said:

Amici briefs are available to the court and plaintiffs, right? Do they have much sway in the outcome?

Click to expand...

Amicus Curiae literally means friend of the court. They typically come after the party they are supporting so they generally don't get referenced in the parties briefs. You occasionally hear them referenced in oral arguments or in the opinion.

Typically they have little sway, but occasionally they do. The 3 judge panel referenced the Pink Pistol amicus brief in their opinion about a particular point. Most 2A amicus briefs all say very similar things and are unlikely to sway the opinion much. We will need to wait for the parties briefs and the oral argument to see what impact my brief had.