Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

HaveBlue · Sep 5, 2019

Mike OTDP said:
Performance-based pay. Vote for too many laws that get overturned, and you are no longer eligible to run for elective office. For judges, get overruled too many times, and you either lose your job or at least are ineligible for pay raises.

I think you're on the right track. You got me thinking. Off the top of my head..

Broaden recovery of legal fees for successful challenges based on civil rights in general. We're still paying for both sides but at least the pain is spread out and will hopefully become more visible. 1%'ers shouldn't be the only ones who can afford to fight for their civil rights. To put a leftist spin on it.

If a law does or doesn't implicate a constitutional right, the legislators voting for it and the Governor should add that claim to the end of a law before they sign it. This would make the legislative intent more clear to everyone and simplify / accelerate judicial review. I'm sure this is clarity they don't want as ambiguity == flexibility. Which legislator would stand up and say "I know so little about the COTUS and the effect/s of this legislation, that being forced to make this statement would hinder my abilities to perform my elected duties."

Require states or municipalities to put a surety bond when passing laws that implicates a civil right. Those funds should be used by individuals or groups wishing to fight them. In the most positive light, this would ultimately produce laws/legislation that value respect for human rights over laziness.

BeoBill · Sep 5, 2019

But your dreams omit the fact that we live in Maryland, The Formerly Free State. The home of Frosh, whose mantra is "It won't cost anything", and the General ASSembly, whose constant mantra to anything enhancing their clique's power is "Here! Have more money!"

These ideas will be passed right after term limits. :lol2:

Bob Lee $wagger · Sep 13, 2019

Arguments for this case (#18-280) are scheduled for 10a.m. On Monday, December 2nd.

________________________________________
I’m just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns.

krucam · Sep 13, 2019

Bob Lee $wagger said:
Arguments for this case (#18-280) are scheduled for 10a.m. On Monday, December 2nd.

________________________________________
I’m just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns.

If not mooted in the October Conference...

danb · Sep 13, 2019

I am not sure that they would schedule arguments if they thought the case would be mooted two weeks later.

krucam · Sep 13, 2019

danb said:
I am not sure that they would schedule arguments if they thought the case would be mooted two weeks later.

Isn’t it the Clerks job to fill out the Argument calendar while the Justices are on their break? Believe they would do this automatically as they don’t make the Mootness determination. Dunno and just thinking out loud...

jcutonilli · Sep 13, 2019

danb said:
I am not sure that they would schedule arguments if they thought the case would be mooted two weeks later.

krucam said:
Isn’t it the Clerks job to fill out the Argument calendar while the Justices are on their break? Believe they would do this automatically as they don’t make the Mootness determination. Dunno and just thinking out loud...

The Clerk's job is to schedule the calendar with cases ready for argument (see rule 27). The fact that the Justices are on break has no relevance. As of now, the case is ready for argument and the Clerk just filled out the calendar for December.

There is a suggestion of mootness that will be discussed in during the 1 Oct conference that may affect this case, but that is something that will happen in the future.

motorcoachdoug · Sep 13, 2019

That is indeed good news, and I am hoping they do not decide to moot the case as well..

Ellegon · Sep 13, 2019

Scheduled for Dec. 2 nd

Kharn · Sep 13, 2019

At least getting seats for Georgia vs Public Resource Org will be easy.

motorcoachdoug · Sep 14, 2019

Since they have listed it for arguments then I am guessing it is not moot in the eyes of SCOTUS then? If that is indeed the case then I wonder what the top brass are thinking now as well mabe cursing a few choice words and wishing they did not play this ah game with SCOTUS in the past?

Kharn · Sep 14, 2019

motorcoachdoug said:
Since they have listed it for arguments then I am guessing it is not moot in the eyes of SCOTUS then? If that is indeed the case then I wonder what the top brass are thinking now as well mabe cursing a few choice words and wishing they did not play this ah game with SCOTUS in the past?

No, the case will be removed from the argument calendar if it is determined moot.

esqappellate · Sep 16, 2019

Kharn said:
No, the case will be removed from the argument calendar if it is determined moot.

That's right. The Court sits for its Big Conference on Oct. 1. The NYSRPA mootness issue is before that Conference. Look for orders as soon as Oct. 2.

DanGuy48 · Sep 27, 2019

Apologies if this has been posted in this thread; I haven’t read it all. I thought this article might be informative to some here, me for example, who have questions about “the tiers of scrutiny”. I still find the whole thing a bit confusing.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/against-the-tiers-of-constitutional-scrutiny

delaware_export · Sep 27, 2019

I still come bAck to the fact that every court along the progression of this case thought it was solid.

And once scotus says... we’ll hear it. The .gov backs down. But have the courts below learned their lesson? Would they rule the same way again on a similar case? Someone needs a serious slapping! Hope scotus does it.

Defense Rifle · Sep 27, 2019

What are the possible outcomes if SCOTUS rules in our favor?

I doubt that will make all states shall issue.

Kharn · Sep 27, 2019

Defense Rifle said:
What are the possible outcomes if SCOTUS rules in our favor?

I doubt that will make all states shall issue.

1) Ruling constitutional carry is required, incredible long shot, depends how pissed the five votes are about NYC's "government permission slip to go to the gunsmith" and similar shenanigans.

2) "Text, history and tradition" test, making jurisdictions justify their conduct vs founding documents and how long they've been doing it. Supported by the text of Heller and Kavanaugh agreed with it in Heller II; MD was an OC state until 1972.

3) Strict scrutiny, cutting out the 2A two-step and requiring any infringement be narrowly tailored.

My bet is on #2.

Occam · Sep 27, 2019

Kharn said:
MD was an OC state until 1972

LIBERALS: "Well, that was FOREVER ago, and nothing that happened that long ago should have any bearing on the over four decades of gun-grabbing infringement we've been practicing since then. Only four decades matters!"

ME: "Except for those reparations, right?"

LIBERAL: "Right, except for that."

Bob A · Sep 27, 2019

DanGuy48 said:
Apologies if this has been posted in this thread; I haven’t read it all. I thought this article might be informative to some here, me for example, who have questions about “the tiers of scrutiny”. I still find the whole thing a bit confusing.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/against-the-tiers-of-constitutional-scrutiny

An interesting, if a little lengthy, article on the three tiers of scrutiny, how they developed, and why they are essentially the antithesis of constitutionality, and how they might be replaced.

I confess to skimming after a while, but it was on the whole very informative. Yet another example of .gov confusing the issues in order to mollify/pander to the progressive movement.

Get rid of tiers, and remove unelected and untouchable Administrative Law Judges, whose job is essentially to define regulations that lawmakers lack the spine to put into the laws they write. That would take us a long way toward returning the reins of govt to the People, under the COTUS.

PowPow · Sep 27, 2019

DanGuy48 said:
Apologies if this has been posted in this thread; I haven’t read it all. I thought this article might be informative to some here, me for example, who have questions about “the tiers of scrutiny”. I still find the whole thing a bit confusing.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/against-the-tiers-of-constitutional-scrutiny

Excellent article and well worth the read. Thanks for posting!

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

HaveBlue

Crank in the Third Row

Roll Tide

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

όυ φροντισ

Where's the beef?

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics