NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

knownalien · Apr 20, 2021

I think SCOTUS feels finally being ignored by either Repub or Dem states. The idea that they would be ignored, delegitamized, and exposed as heroes or villains prevents them from challenging the status quo. After all, many states have turned into 2A sanctuary states and by implication the are saying "fu, SCOTUS." The dems feel they can win through the courts and are using/dangling "packing the courts" as a threat .. . . but not a real one because all of SCOTUS id part of the Federalist Society who might as well be globalists.

Brings new meaning when you consider how many judges have adopted foreign nationals.

Nobody · Apr 20, 2021

Kharn said:
He's not a fan of the NRA.

Neither am I, they do not want to solve a problem.

More money in the fight than the cure

Nobody

jcutonilli · Apr 20, 2021

Muleskinner said:
If the court actually believed the 2A means no infringement then there wouldn't need to be any compelling arguments by pro 2A lawyers. The very fact that pro gun groups have to basically prove infringement shows that SCOTUS has little intention of every upholding our rights to the level the Constitution requires.

The court has said that "like most rights, the 2A right is not unlimited". Technically it is not the same thing, but it essentially does mean certain infringements are acceptable.

I think the Young case finally brought out the real issue which is when is public safety allowed to overcome our rights and when can public safety not overcome our rights. Currently the courts have been siding with public safety through the use of intermediate scrutiny. This issue has been a problem since Korematsu and the court has said nothing about the issue. It was left unresolved in Heller and McDonald. It continues to be unresolved because we choose to bring cases that don't resolve the issue any more than Heller/McDonald. Nobody bothers to explain why intermediate scrutiny is being misapplied. They baselessly claim that the court really used rational basis. Without a detailed explanation of what is wrong how is the court supposed to fix the problem.

fred55 · Apr 20, 2021

That public safety position goes two ways. Why should innocent citizens be at risk of illegally armed criminals? Who is really at risk in public? fred55

jcutonilli · Apr 20, 2021

rambling_one said:
Say what?

Kharn said:
He's not a fan of the NRA.

It is not about the NRA in particular. There are a lot of organizations that have funded lawsuits.

They all seem to want to fight, but it is how they go about it that is the problem. They run around trying to fight laws but don't bother to understand why they are loosing. They don't do a lessons learned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lessons_learned

Instead they move from law to law trying to fight a fight that has already been shown to loose. It is a sign of an ineffective organization when you do not bother to understand why things are failing or how to make the next fight better.

jcutonilli · Apr 20, 2021

fred55 said:
That public safety position goes two ways. Why should innocent citizens be at risk of illegally armed criminals? Who is really at risk in public? fred55

That is not how any of the 2A cases have been argued. The argument presented is about an individual right and apparently this right has nothing to do with public safety.

Inigoes · Apr 20, 2021

fred55 said:
That public safety position goes two ways. Why should innocent citizens be at risk of illegally armed criminals? Who is really at risk in public? fred55

jcutonilli said:
That is not how any of the 2A cases have been argued. The argument presented is about an individual right and apparently this right has nothing to do with public safety.

The government always makes that argument, because the federal/state/local government has no responsibility to protect the individual.

Guess who said that?

fred55 · Apr 20, 2021

jcutonilli said:
That is not how any of the 2A cases have been argued. The argument presented is about an individual right and apparently this right has nothing to do with public safety.

Every anti-2A law (infringement) on the books is passed to "provide public safety from firearms" is it not? fred55

jcutonilli · Apr 20, 2021

fred55 said:
That public safety position goes two ways. Why should innocent citizens be at risk of illegally armed criminals? Who is really at risk in public? fred55

jcutonilli said:
That is not how any of the 2A cases have been argued. The argument presented is about an individual right and apparently this right has nothing to do with public safety.

Inigoes said:
The government always makes that argument, because the federal/state/local government has no responsibility to protect the individual.

Guess who said that?

fred55 said:
Every anti-2A law (infringement) on the books is passed to "provide public safety from firearms" is it not? fred55

I agree that the public safety position goes two ways and the reason that these laws are passed are to "provide public safety from firearms".

The problem is that our side focuses in on the individual right and make almost no effort to describe the public benefits of an individual right.

I don't believe the government makes the argument that it has no responsibility to protect the individual because that would undermine the government's argument.

What the government does is blame the gun rather than the person committing the crime, which why they can develop scary sounding correlations, but are unable to demonstrate that the gun is the underlying cause.

fred55 · Apr 20, 2021

It’s a catch 22. If the “public” doesn’t have standing how will the case be heard? The “individual” that has standing is the reason to be heard? I’m not trying to be difficult, just pointing out the issue of not ruling on the “intent” of the 2A. Even if it’s not convenient for the politicians and their court appointments. They did take that “Oath.” fred55

Muleskinner · Apr 20, 2021

fred55 said:
That public safety position goes two ways. Why should innocent citizens be at risk of illegally armed criminals? Who is really at risk in public? fred55

Gun control has nothing to do with public safety. There are scores of examples of how guns save lives. If it were about public safety 2 things would happen

1) Everyone would be encouraged to carry

2) Criminals who use guns to commit their crimes would actually go to jail for a LONG time...

Nope...gun control is about the left fulfilling their agenda... To control the population from cradle to grave...like China does...

Until pro gun advocates use the empirical evidence available to show citizens the true nature of gun control gun owners will always be playing defense...One day (relatively soon) the left will be successful and we will have lost our rights completely.,.

Bob A · Apr 20, 2021

jcutonilli said:
I don't believe the government makes the argument that it has no responsibility to protect the individual because that would undermine the government's argument.

If I recall correctly, the government already made that argument, and it was confirmed by SCOTUS.

MJD438 · Apr 20, 2021

Bob A said:
If I recall correctly, the government already made that argument, and it was confirmed by SCOTUS.

Warren v DC

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Mark75H · Apr 20, 2021

Muleskinner said:
Until pro gun advocates use the empirical evidence available to show citizens the true nature of gun control gun owners will always be playing defense...One day (relatively soon) the left will be successful and we will have lost our rights completely.,.

It doesn't matter in the emotional argument. Facts are irrelevant

jcutonilli · Apr 20, 2021

Bob A said:
If I recall correctly, the government already made that argument, and it was confirmed by SCOTUS.

MJD438 said:
Warren v DC

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I should clarify my statements to 2A cases where the government wants to restrict your rights. To my knowledge the government has not used the limitations on protecting individuals in those 2A cases. They certainly do use that argument anytime someone tries to sue them for failure to provide police services.

babalou · Apr 20, 2021

riddle me this

jcutonilli said:
That is not how any of the 2A cases have been argued. The argument presented is about an individual right and apparently this right has nothing to do with public safety.

Ok, ad nauseum you have stated how others have incorrectly argued cases. Instead of telling others how they are doing it wrong, can you come up with a correct argument to litigate? As you know, COTUS is to keep those who rule over us in line, not used by said rulers to rule over us. You talk in ambiguity, much like horoscopes and fortune cookies.

I do not know you nor really care to but your replies are always the same. You can quote laws but you have nothing to bring to bear. Even quoting, you appear- by others' responses to you- to not have it all....

Any amendment can be argued for the children, for safety, for whatever bogus reason. Does not make it right. Too much feelings and not true reading of the law

Asking for a friend.

DaemonAssassin · Apr 20, 2021

babalou said:
Ok, ad nauseum you have stated how others have incorrectly argued cases. Instead of telling others how they are doing it wrong, can you come up with a correct argument to litigate? As you know, COTUS is to keep those who rule over us in line, not used by said rulers to rule over us. You talk in ambiguity, much like horoscopes and fortune cookies.

I do not know you nor really care to but your replies are always the same. You can quote laws but you have nothing to bring to bear. Even quoting, you appear- by others' responses to you- to not have it all....

Any amendment can be argued for the children, for safety, for whatever bogus reason. Does not make it right. Too much feelings and not true reading of the law

Asking for a friend.

eruby · Apr 20, 2021

babalou said:
Ok, ad nauseum you have stated how others have incorrectly argued cases. Instead of telling others how they are doing it wrong, can you come up with a correct argument to litigate? As you know, COTUS is to keep those who rule over us in line, not used by said rulers to rule over us. You talk in ambiguity, much like horoscopes and fortune cookies.

I do not know you nor really care to but your replies are always the same. You can quote laws but you have nothing to bring to bear. Even quoting, you appear- by others' responses to you- to not have it all....

Any amendment can be argued for the children, for safety, for whatever bogus reason. Does not make it right. Too much feelings and not true reading of the law

Asking for a friend.

Sybil the Soothsayer approves of this post

Howard Beale weeps

babalou · Apr 20, 2021

damn

eruby said:
Sybil the Soothsayer approves of this post

Howard Beale weeps

Howard Beale? Network 1970's? hahahahaha

jcutonilli · Apr 20, 2021

babalou said:
Ok, ad nauseum you have stated how others have incorrectly argued cases. Instead of telling others how they are doing it wrong, can you come up with a correct argument to litigate? As you know, COTUS is to keep those who rule over us in line, not used by said rulers to rule over us. You talk in ambiguity, much like horoscopes and fortune cookies.

I do not know you nor really care to but your replies are always the same. You can quote laws but you have nothing to bring to bear. Even quoting, you appear- by others' responses to you- to not have it all....

Any amendment can be argued for the children, for safety, for whatever bogus reason. Does not make it right. Too much feelings and not true reading of the law

Asking for a friend.

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 JAC amicus Apohian v Barr - final.pdf
Ninth Circuit CA MAG ban (Duncan v Becerra both the panel brief and the brief in opposition to an en banc rehearing) View attachment JAC amicus duncan v becerra Final.pdf View attachment JAC amicus duncan BIO.pdf
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?

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Senior

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Senior

Ultimate Member

Senior

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Why should we Free BSD?

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics