Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    Not to throw a hand grenade into the mix but you could imagine if the “right” to an abortion ended at your front door? Or your First Amendment rights? Why do us lucky gun types have those limits on our Rights?

    Minor, your post is MAJOR.

    Hats off to a fellow 13er! Slow your roll though! You’ve rocketed past 20 posts!

    Actually, keep ‘em coming...
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,142
    (i am not a lawyer)
    i don't think you idea is any kind of hand grenade! i hate the term common sense, as the term has been perverted by a2a people, but what you propose is common sense.

    i would liketo hear this point made very firmly in oral arguments. firmly, loudly (but not TOO), clearly, and maybe with a hint of sarcasm, for all to hear. maybe it would be a good end to an oral argument.

    "you can be gay, publish a newspaper, vote, get an abortion, practice religion, etc. BUT only in your house. AND you must first get permission/ a license, get training, and be certified before you may do so."

    and for NYC residents, because NYC.GOV is so nice! "we will grant you the privilege to do these things in one of 7 authorized places on the entire planet. and all 7 places happen to be near your home! damn, ain't we nice!"
    :sarcasm:

    just as scalia, gorsuch and thomas have said, it has become 2a=2nd class.

    when you hear the talking head types go at it, the talk about "what did they mean" by some specific phrase. i would like to hear/read a clear ruling calling out the failure many of the cases.

    maybe scotus has agreed to hear this case strictly because the limits are SOOO crazy and obviously bad, even the conservative justices will go along. maybe this will generate a clear majority ruling, with the opportunity to CLEARLY address things like levels of scrutiny and all those subtle things a non lawyer like me is learning about.

    Not to throw a hand grenade into the mix but you could imagine if the “right” to an abortion ended at your front door? Or your First Amendment rights? Why do us lucky gun types have those limits on our Rights?
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,588
    Glen Burnie
    Something to consider, we don't want to rush this one to decision. RBG is 85 years old, and she has fought cancer 3 times at this point. She may not even be here when it comes down to a vote. I don't wish death on anyone, I truly don't, but at 85 years old and having been diagnosed with cancer and treated 3 separate times, there is no guarantee that she'll make it to 2020.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    If I understand Heller correctly, the court already decided that. What hasn't happened since is the appropriate spanking of tons of local laws that run up against that reality. Maybe this is one of them, maybe not.

    Heller does not specifically address the issue outside the home. It talks about self defense and that it is at it maximum inside the home. While most courts seem to concede that there is some right outside the home, the extent of the right appears to be very limited. All most all restrictions are upheld. This case is yet another example.
     

    foxtrapper

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 11, 2007
    4,533
    Havre de Grace
    An editor at the Sun thinks this is a shall-issue issue and is going out of their mind! lol the usual BS about wild west shootouts and OMG open carry!
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    The Sun and a similar piece in The Atlantic (by an academic in Baltimore) make a lot of hysterical noise about expanding a right. That's spin. What might happen is arbitrary restrictions on that right are removed, and the ability to make arbitrary restrictions on it is curtailed.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    SCV/SAR Patriot

    UNRECONSTRUCTED
    I’ve been trying for years to get my 85 year old father to cancel his subscription. He constantly bitches about what they print and on top of that the person who delivers throws it in the road in all types of weather and never once puts it in the shoot. You can’t change an old dogs ways it seems. SMH.
     

    Xshot

    Ultimate Member
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 14, 2013
    1,645
    Pasadena, MD
    Not to throw a hand grenade into the mix but you could imagine if the “right” to an abortion ended at your front door? Or your First Amendment rights? Why do us lucky gun types have those limits on our Rights?



    Note to self: remember this, so you can crush some dumb liberals argument in mere seconds.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    The Sun and a similar piece in The Atlantic (by an academic in Baltimore) make a lot of hysterical noise about expanding a right. That's spin. What might happen is arbitrary restrictions on that right are removed, and the ability to make arbitrary restrictions on it is curtailed.

    yeah the sun and especially the Atlantic piece are literally crazy if you know anything about the actual case.

    but that dissonance in an educated person like yourself reading those articles and wondering WTF Atlantic and sun are talking about disappears when you consider they could not give a 5hit about the particulars, the logic, the potential breadth or narrowness or the constitutional issues.

    What they are doing with their messaging is what the gun control groups they support are doing: using this to drive fundraising to gun control/ban lobby; and putting hysteria about scouts nominations and decisions into the general election which we will be in the middle of in a under a year and half.

    if you read the Atlantic and Sun piece considering their motive instead of the facts of the case, the appeals, the cert filings, and the Constitution, you will understand them as fully rational. Then gun banners ARE being rational in using this case to whip up hysteria
     

    ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,666
    If I understand correctly, a permit is required in NYC to own a firearm, and the only freely available permit is that restricted to possession in the home or traveling to a firing range in the jurisdiction to practice. Correct?

    What has NYC offered as the public safety benefit of prohibiting transport of a firearm outside their jurisdiction ? Is there any precedent outside federal borders to limit "import" and " export" of personal property within the country? Sounds like it runs afoul of the commerce clause. The Federal Government regulates interstate commerce. Not states or cities.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    If I understand correctly, a permit is required in NYC to own a firearm, and the only freely available permit is that restricted to possession in the home or traveling to a firing range in the jurisdiction to practice. Correct?

    What has NYC offered as the public safety benefit of prohibiting transport of a firearm outside their jurisdiction ? Is there any precedent outside federal borders to limit "import" and " export" of personal property within the country? Sounds like it runs afoul of the commerce clause. The Federal Government regulates interstate commerce. Not states or cities.

    You just identified both questions encompassed by the petition for cert.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    What has NYC offered as the public safety benefit of prohibiting transport of a firearm outside their jurisdiction ?

    NY and th gun control lobby are arguing the current law also reduces amount of transport (guns on the streets) within their jurisdiction, which is probably true. If their transport law was overturned it almost certainly would mean more gun owners transporting guns inside of NYC as they go to places with them on trips which they would not have occurred if illegal. if any number of NYC's gun owners have cousins or friends with a farm upstate or over in Pa., and they want to there hunting or target shooting you are more likely to go, and therefor some number more than today will be transporting a gun though Manhattan that would not otherwise be in your car. Same if you want to go to an outdoor range a few miles north of NYC.

    But this is also a rights rationing theory that is highly problematic. That is the interesting thing to me: although I think Roberts does not support expanding to a general strict scrutiny, NYC rights rationing is as uniquely arrogant as DC's "may issue" rational, in implying that the rational is toper se make what should be a protected exercise of a right negatable based on public interest in lowering legal use (rights rationing).

    I'd be interested in Alan Gura's take on this because he correctly identified DC unique (compared to Md, NJ, etc) assertion of a rational for "may isssue" that was rights rationing based as a fatal weakness in DC's assertions against Grace/Wrenn.

    If the NYC law is upheld than any law that makes owning, transporting a gun more difficult -- with the purpose of simply making it more difficult or rare -- is constitutional, since allegedly, more legal guns and benign exercise of rights = more odds of public safety reduction and therefor justifies more gun control.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    ...
    If the NYC law is upheld than any law that makes owning, transporting a gun more difficult -- with the purpose of simply making it more difficult or rare -- is constitutional, since allegedly, more legal guns and benign exercise of rights = more odds of public safety reduction and therefor justifies more gun control.

    That would be quite a legacy for the Roberts SC as it would permanently undermine the 2A, making states and lower courts the ultimate arbitrators. John Paul Stevens would be ecstatic (and Clarence Thomas, and many of the rest of us, apoplectic).

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    Look for a highly covered mass violence event with a firearm shortly before or after oral arguments...

    The Hearing Protection Act was done in by Las Vegas. We'll see what event influences this decision.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,527
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom