Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

ironpony · Jul 15, 2019

wjackcooper said:
Yep, I am familiar with her work, but as a practical matter the Constitution means whatever five Justices say it means. Given demographic trends, my hope is that Trump appointments can, and will, fortify the Second Amendment for at least a few decades.

Regards
Jack

I was hoping for a stronger word than "hope".

DanGuy48 · Jul 15, 2019

ironpony said:
I was hoping for a stronger word than "hope".

The problem is the level of “unhingedness” of the left. If they regain power in 2020, I fully expect them to pack the court. Our only hope, IMO, is for the conservatives to hand them a really crushing defeat, otherwise they will learn absolutely nothing.

Occam · Jul 15, 2019

DanGuy48 said:
Our only hope, IMO, is for the conservatives to hand them a really crushing defeat, otherwise they will learn absolutely nothing.

That already happened in 2016. They not only didn't learn anything, they unlearned a bunch of things.

Inigoes · Jul 15, 2019

DanGuy48 said:
The problem is the level of “unhingedness” of the left. If they regain power in 2020, I fully expect them to pack the court. Our only hope, IMO, is for the conservatives to hand them a really crushing defeat, otherwise they will learn absolutely nothing.

There is a calculated thing about the left, not only do they get unhinged - they move the goal posts while they are doing in.

Pre-Heller = 2A applies to the state militias
Post-Heller = 2A applies only to the federal government
Post-McDonald = 2A applies only in the home
Pre-Caetano = 2A only applies to muskets, not modern less than lethal devices

Mark75H · Jul 15, 2019

DanGuy48 said:
The problem is the level of “unhingedness” of the left. If they regain power in 2020, I fully expect them to pack the court. Our only hope, IMO, is for the conservatives to hand them a really crushing defeat, otherwise they will learn absolutely nothing.

I'm not afraid of them packing the court in 2020, I'm afraid of them packing the court in 2024 - but by then Trump will have filled so many Federal Circuit Judgeships, it will be hard for the libs to get something to their packed bench.

DanGuy48 · Jul 16, 2019

Occam said:
That already happened in 2016. They not only didn't learn anything, they unlearned a bunch of things.

They don’t see it that way though. They always go back to having won the popular vote so they just feel cheated. They didn’t learn they need to moderate their hysteria, they only learned Orange Man Bad and they need to cheat harder this time.

lazarus · Jul 16, 2019

DanGuy48 said:
They don’t see it that way though. They always go back to having won the popular vote so they just feel cheated. They didn’t learn they need to moderate their hysteria, they only learned Orange Man Bad and they need to cheat harder this time.

I don’t see Dems with voter suppression laws and winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote doesn’t smack of cheating to me...

Occam · Jul 16, 2019

lazarus said:
I don’t see Dems with voter suppression laws

Laws that prevent us from verifying who is voting ARE voter suppression laws.

lazarus · Jul 17, 2019

Occam said:
Laws that prevent us from verifying who is voting ARE voter suppression laws.

That...doesn’t suppressor voting. It might enable fraudulent voting more easily, but studies and examples don’t show wide spread voter fraud. Heck, Hogan’s commission of Maryland voter fraud found a literal handful of examples of “bad” votes and almost all were cock-ups were the person accidentally voted in the wrong district. I think it found one instance of actual intentional fraud that impacted a couple of votes.

But it sure as heck turns away thousands of voters when you pass stringent voter ID laws or requirements like being registered a certain amount in advance, but also purge voter rolls every couple of years if you haven’t voted in the most recent election. Tends to be poorer people who can’t then get everything fixed in time to be allowed to vote.

If there was actual verifiable evidence of mass fraud I’d agree whole heartedly on voter ID laws. But there ain’t. There is lots of evidence voter ID laws disadvantage poor people from being able to vote. On the balance of thousands of poor people can’t vote, or we stop a handful of fraudulent votes I am on preserving those thousands (likely hundreds of thousands) of poor people’s right to vote.

Just like I am against restricting the right to bear arms by putting financial barriers in place.

Blacksmith101 · Jul 17, 2019

If it is OK to make people jump through hoops at a high cost and show an ID to qualify for the privilege of purchasing a handgun, and make people get a "Real ID" to be able to walk into a government building, then showing an ID to vote is not to great a burden.

Inigoes · Jul 17, 2019

Blacksmith101 said:
If it is OK to make people jump through hoops at a high cost and show an ID to qualify for the privilege of purchasing a handgun, and make people get a "Real ID" to be able to walk into a government building, then showing an ID to vote is not to great a burden.

The ID to purchase a firearm can't be any government issued ID either.

It must have a photograph, address, date of birth, and signature.

HaveBlue · Jul 17, 2019

lazarus said:
That...doesn’t suppressor voting. It might enable fraudulent voting more easily, but studies and examples don’t show wide spread voter fraud. Heck, Hogan’s commission of Maryland voter fraud found a literal handful of examples of “bad” votes and almost all were cock-ups were the person accidentally voted in the wrong district. I think it found one instance of actual intentional fraud that impacted a couple of votes.

But it sure as heck turns away thousands of voters when you pass stringent voter ID laws or requirements like being registered a certain amount in advance, but also purge voter rolls every couple of years if you haven’t voted in the most recent election. Tends to be poorer people who can’t then get everything fixed in time to be allowed to vote.

If there was actual verifiable evidence of mass fraud I’d agree whole heartedly on voter ID laws. But there ain’t. There is lots of evidence voter ID laws disadvantage poor people from being able to vote. On the balance of thousands of poor people can’t vote, or we stop a handful of fraudulent votes I am on preserving those thousands (likely hundreds of thousands) of poor people’s right to vote.

Just like I am against restricting the right to bear arms by putting financial barriers in place.

I strongly disagree.

Turns away Thousands? Where does that number come from??

VA "accidentally" caught over 1 Thousand non-citizens who successfully registered to vote. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

Most elections are decided by more votes than that but, no one is really looking at these cases either.

The Department of Labor is there in part to help people find jobs. Why not identify the tiny number (probably less than 1,000 in Virginia) of people w/o DLs and help them get a photo ID of some sort. Clearly photo ID is all but required to receive social services and participate in society.

Photo ID is required for a lot more than driving or purchasing firearms. Things that even very poor people need to do.

Purchase Internet Service
Hotel/Motel rooms
Open a bank account
Cash a check
Get a job
Buy Alcohol or Cigarettes
Apply for Food Stamps
Welfare
Rent an apartment
Fly
Get Married
Adopt a pet
Buy a cell phone
Pick up a prescription
Buy certain cold medicine

danb · Jul 19, 2019

The NY legislature bill is now showing as signed.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752

press1280 · Jul 20, 2019

So now the question is when will SCOTUS decide on whether to proceed or not?

danb · Jul 20, 2019

I dont expect any decision until the long conference of Sept. First, on Aug 5th (maybe sooner) we will get "merits" brief filled with arrogance and mootness. Then Clement has a chance to respond. Normally I'd bet that the case is mooted, however, given NYC penchant for arrogance and screw ups, there is a good chance that NYC shoot themselves in the face somehow.

Inigoes · Jul 20, 2019

danb said:
The NY legislature bill is now showing as signed.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752

Coumo had to. The SCOTUS forced NY's hand.

Sending the letter to get the case mooted before the bill was signed into law, was bad enough. If Cuomo would have let the 30 day "out of session veto rule" go into effect, NY would be as bad as NJ in Drake.

Blacksmith101 · Jul 20, 2019

No doubt a bunch of supremes are looking over all the 2A cases on hold, awaiting cert, and in the pipeline picking which one to select that will best make the point or points they were going to make if this case is mooted. They took that case for a reason, to make a point, and if it is moot they still have a reason so the point will be made with another case.

Fox123 · Jul 20, 2019

They took the case because it let them pick around the edges and send all the other cases back to lower courts.

Elliotte · Jul 22, 2019

danb said:
Normally I'd bet that the case is mooted, however, given NYC penchant for arrogance and screw ups, there is a good chance that NYC shoot themselves in the face somehow.

Inigoes said:
Coumo had to. The SCOTUS forced NY's hand.

Sending the letter to get the case mooted before the bill was signed into law, was bad enough. If Cuomo would have let the 30 day "out of session veto rule" go into effect, NY would be as bad as NJ in Drake.

A majority of the court may not be for defending/expanding 2A rights, but they don't appreciate lower courts pulling a fast one on them. NJ did it with Drake and as a result, I'd expect them to be very hesitant with any future slight of hand from lower courts/elected officials.

krucam · Jul 22, 2019

NY has submitted a suggestion of mootness AND has asked for an extension for their reply brief which is currently due August 5th...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Head'n for the hills

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Head'n for the hills

HaveBlue

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Head'n for the hills

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics