Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

delaware_export · Oct 9, 2019

Even if they didn’t bring this exact rule/law back, the problem is that they’ll bring something almost the same. And top that with all the other states, cities and other .govs passing anti 2a laws, and scotus only taking 1 gun case every 5-10 years, the 2nd is gone.

I am hoping for a serious rebuke here. Especially of the court system, for all the lower courts that didn’t see the nyc nys stuff as over the top.

And hopefully Clarence will channel his 2a isn’t 2nd tier into serious guidance.

By contrast look how fast they jumped on the abortion case this term. It’s clear they understand infringement in some cases, but their hate of guns trumps all else.

Mike OTDP said:
The problem with mooting the case is the near-certainty that NYS will change the laws back the instant SCOTUS drops the case. I could see the case being mooted with an injunction against that.

Or SCOTUS could just rule. Were I a liberal, I might be inclined to take that route...mostly because this case is so egregious that any ruling will inevitably be pretty narrow.

Fedora · Oct 9, 2019

The problem I see with the Supreme Court is twofold: (a) lifetime appointments and (b) lack of consequences. Item (a) is related to item (b). Thus there is little reason to follow the law (e.g., Originalism) and much reason to make up the various penumbras and emanations as one stumbles through the years (i.e., kritarchy).

In my opinion there should never be, under any conceivable conditions, such powers laid at the feet of any person, whether Justice, Pope, or mother-in-law.

Mark75H · Oct 9, 2019

Fedora said:
The problem I see with the Supreme Court is twofold: (a) lifetime appointments and (b) lack of consequences. Item (a) is related to item (b). Thus there is little reason to follow the law (e.g., Originalism) and much reason to make up the various penumbras and emanations as one stumbles through the years (i.e., kritarchy).

In my opinion there should never be, under any conceivable conditions, such powers laid at the feet of any person, whether Justice, Pope, or mother-in-law.

That's the reason they made it hard to get on the court

Occam · Oct 9, 2019

Fedora said:
In my opinion there should never be, under any conceivable conditions, such powers laid at the feet of any person, whether Justice, Pope, or mother-in-law.

So ... instead there should be a revolving door of short-stint justices engaged in an endlessly political exercise of knocking down the rulings from the previous crew? Originalist/textualist justices who know they won't be punished for, you know, honoring the constitution, are the best recipe as a balance against an ever-changing legislature and executive.

If your problem is that you don't LIKE the constitution as written, and you like the idea of a regularly changing group of people to fix it ... good news! The original constitution, as-written, beat you to it! Just talk two-thirds of your fellow countrymen into amending the part you don't like. It's not easy, and that's a VERY good thing.

rambling_one · Oct 9, 2019

Occam said:
So ... instead there should be a revolving door of short-stint justices engaged in an endlessly political exercise of knocking down the rulings from the previous crew? Originalist/textualist justices who know they won't be punished for, you know, honoring the constitution, are the best recipe as a balance against an ever-changing legislature and executive.

If your problem is that you don't LIKE the constitution as written, and you like the idea of a regularly changing group of people to fix it ... good news! The original constitution, as-written, beat you to it! Just talk two-thirds of your fellow countrymen into amending the part you don't like. It's not easy, and that's a VERY good thing.

Yep, all we need are justices who follow the Constitution.

Blacksmith101 · Oct 9, 2019

Mark75H said:
That's the reason they made it hard to get on the court

Not hard enough or we wouldn't have Justices who do not follow the Constitution.

Fedora · Oct 9, 2019

It's a structural problem, guys. Combine lifetime appointments and lack of accountability and there is no structural incentive for SCOTUS Justices to follow an Originalist approach to the Constitution. There is nothing to dissuade the Justices from (this is a repeat) simply making things. See Roe v Wade's "penumbras and emanations". See the last decade of gun restrictions decided by the various Courts of Appeal. See Auer v Robbins and consider the consequences of deferring to a government agency's interpretation of it's own rules and regulations, in that such regulations have the force and effect of law.

We have come very far, I think, from the Founders expected from the Constitution.

Mark75H · Oct 9, 2019

Fedora said:
It's a structural problem, guys. Combine lifetime appointments and lack of accountability and there is no structural incentive for SCOTUS Justices to follow an Originalist approach to the Constitution. There is nothing to dissuade the Justices from (this is a repeat) simply making things. See Roe v Wade's "penumbras and emanations". See the last decade of gun restrictions decided by the various Courts of Appeal. See Auer v Robbins and consider the consequences of deferring to a government agency's interpretation of it's own rules and regulations, in that such regulations have the force and effect of law.

We have come very far, I think, from the Founders expected from the Constitution.

so you want to be able to remove justices that make rulings you don't like, because you don't like the rulings

Occam · Oct 9, 2019

Fedora said:
Combine lifetime appointments and lack of accountability and there is no structural incentive for SCOTUS Justices to follow an Originalist approach to the Constitution.

The incentive is baked into the right justice’s world view. Which is why the issue isn’t them, it’s the president who names them and the senate that confirms them. And we get the chance to fix that every few years. Your complaint isn’t life gigs in the court, it’s the education and media issues that have given us a creeping drift towards a culture of voters and a legislature willing to seat the wrong mindset.

whistlersmother · Oct 9, 2019

There is accountability. Justices can be impeached and removed.

And just because 5 people said you can't doesn't mean you can't do it. Really, one must follow his own conscience in all matters.

ironpony · Oct 10, 2019

The Moot card survives ....

Pope414 · Oct 11, 2019

I saw this post by a man named Gary Villa I thought I would post it here as he makes some points.

"The court's refusal to dismiss the case represents a temporary victory for proponents of gun rights, who hope the high court will go beyond the letter of the law and expand Second Amendment protections from the home to public places."

This is an oft-repeated mischaracterization of the state of the law. SCOTUS, in Heller, has already established that the 2nd Amendment extends beyond the home. They just didn't elaborate as to the extent.

Those who believe otherwise are only looking at the portion of the decision that gave Heller the relief he sought, which was to keep a gun in his home to protect himself, just as he carried one at work to protect the public.

However, one of the arguments that DC made in order to deprive Heller of this right was that the phrase "keep and bear arms" was a term of art, and, like the term "bear arms" sometimes does, means only to serve in the military. In order to answer the question of whether Heller had a right to keep a gun in his home, they first had to untangle that convoluted logic.

And they did. What they ruled was that, in the context of the Amendment, "keep arms" means to own or possess weapons, and "bear arms" means to carry them on or about your person so as to be ready to respond to a confrontation. On the latter they even quoted RBG, from a earlier decision, in which she very explicitly spelled out this specific meaning in the context of the 2nd Amendment, quite clearly discussing one carrying a gun in public for self-defense.

They further ruled that not only did the two terms have these separate and individual meanings, but that each spelled out a separate right protected under the Amendment. However, having established the existance of both rights, they then spent the rest of the decision addressing the details of the only one Heller was asking them to elaborate on. And because this was a necessary determination of a legal principle in order to answer Heller's petition, it is binding precedent, not dicta.

So they have already established, in Heller, that the 2nd Amendment protects not only a right to keep a gun in one's home, but also to carry one in public on or about one's person for self-defense. It's just that, because they weren't asked to, they haven't yet given us any guidance on the limits to that second right.

But it's pretty safe to bet that NYC's law preventing one from even transporting one's own property to their own home outside the city is likely well beyond any permissible limit. Maybe they'll just rule narrowly that such an extreme prohibition is unacceptable. But I expect that they'll circle back to their ealier pronouncement in Heller (they tend to remember what they've ruled before, even if contrary lower courts ignore it, as they done in this case), and remind everyone that they've already established that the right is to carry in public for self-defense, which will have much more far-reaching consequence

Decoy · Oct 11, 2019

Pope414 said:
I saw this post by a man named Gary Villa I thought I would post it here as he makes some points.

"The court's refusal to dismiss the case represents a temporary victory for proponents of gun rights, who hope the high court will go beyond the letter of the law and expand Second Amendment protections from the home to public places."

This is an oft-repeated mischaracterization of the state of the law. SCOTUS, in Heller, has already established that the 2nd Amendment extends beyond the home. They just didn't elaborate as to the extent.

Those who believe otherwise are only looking at the portion of the decision that gave Heller the relief he sought, which was to keep a gun in his home to protect himself, just as he carried one at work to protect the public.

However, one of the arguments that DC made in order to deprive Heller of this right was that the phrase "keep and bear arms" was a term of art, and, like the term "bear arms" sometimes does, means only to serve in the military. In order to answer the question of whether Heller had a right to keep a gun in his home, they first had to untangle that convoluted logic.

And they did. What they ruled was that, in the context of the Amendment, "keep arms" means to own or possess weapons, and "bear arms" means to carry them on or about your person so as to be ready to respond to a confrontation. On the latter they even quoted RBG, from a earlier decision, in which she very explicitly spelled out this specific meaning in the context of the 2nd Amendment, quite clearly discussing one carrying a gun in public for self-defense.

They further ruled that not only did the two terms have these separate and individual meanings, but that each spelled out a separate right protected under the Amendment. However, having established the existance of both rights, they then spent the rest of the decision addressing the details of the only one Heller was asking them to elaborate on. And because this was a necessary determination of a legal principle in order to answer Heller's petition, it is binding precedent, not dicta.

So they have already established, in Heller, that the 2nd Amendment protects not only a right to keep a gun in one's home, but also to carry one in public on or about one's person for self-defense. It's just that, because they weren't asked to, they haven't yet given us any guidance on the limits to that second right.

But it's pretty safe to bet that NYC's law preventing one from even transporting one's own property to their own home outside the city is likely well beyond any permissible limit. Maybe they'll just rule narrowly that such an extreme prohibition is unacceptable. But I expect that they'll circle back to their ealier pronouncement in Heller (they tend to remember what they've ruled before, even if contrary lower courts ignore it, as they done in this case), and remind everyone that they've already established that the right is to carry in public for self-defense, which will have much more far-reaching consequence

Very interesting, thanks for posting. :thumbsup:

Boxcab · Oct 14, 2019

So the case will be heard by the SCOTUS on Dec 2nd 2019?

I know some will plan to attend. Looking forward to an early Christmas present.... even though the ruling will probably not be released until June.

.

motorcoachdoug · Oct 14, 2019

I am planing to attend the fireworks at SCOTUS on that day.

Inigoes · Oct 15, 2019

In today's order list:

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted. The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.

dgapilot · Oct 15, 2019

Inigoes said:
In today's order list:

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted. The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.

So Goldfarb is the guy that believes the 2nd only applies to the militia? I guess this is a good thing then?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Kharn · Oct 15, 2019

Yes, he's a nobody that believes "bear arms" is the militia and Heller got it wrong.

The Solicitor General being heard was a forgone conclusion upon his request, but I bet it made NYC pucker just a bit tighter this morning.

krucam · Oct 15, 2019

Here's the US request for time pdf that was granted. A short read but shows their hand:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/112023/20190812155940208_18-280 mot.pdf

Here's the US Amicus on behalf of petitioners:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99744/20190514172549610_18-280tsacUnitedStates.pdf

It will be a good 10 minutes, I'm sure...

TheBert · Oct 15, 2019

whistlersmother said:
There is accountability. Justices can be impeached and removed.

And just because 5 people said you can't doesn't mean you can't do it. Really, one must follow his own conscience in all matters.

What is to prevent them from saying impeachment of SCOTUS justices is unconstitutional?

Marbury vs. Madison -- We get to do what we want and not what the Constitution says.

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Active Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Not Even ONE Indictment

Peace through strength

Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MSI EM

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics