HoCoShooter
Ultimate Member
Thanks Dan. Hopefully it won’t be some redacted / summarized bs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York
- Thread starter Bigfoot21075
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Thanks Dan. Hopefully it won’t be some redacted / summarized bs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,252
Another brief has shown up on the docket, and it looks like a good one:
Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ef of National Sheriffs Association et al.pdf
It is dated the 14th but wasn't showing so now 22 briefs were filed that day.
Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ef of National Sheriffs Association et al.pdf
It is dated the 14th but wasn't showing so now 22 briefs were filed that day.
That was a good read. Many familiar arguments, but some more in the way of put-this-all-in-context stats to shut down the entire notion that shall-issue will result in some sort of bloodbath, and indeed quite to the contrary.
This is very well written and really kills all of NYC arguments as well. I hope Herr Frosh reads it also for he might learn something new but alas i fear he will not..
It will just give him more points to argue against.
Indeed. That was an excellent read. Very logical and makes it easy to spot the gaping holes in NYC case.
On some of these briefs and in various rulings linked here they reference the presumably lawful "ban on machine guns and short barreled shotguns"
What i dont get and maybe im seeing things wrong is no ban exists? why do briefs keep acknowledging a ban?
the NFA created a mechanism for registry of full auto firearms and a tax stamp for ownership. but they are still in circulation, they were still produced and legally sold in new form even the GCA of 1968 still functioned around not banning them.... and it wasnt until 1986 that the government ceased issuing new tax stamps. But they still didnt ban anything select fire they are still sold every day, they just ceased operations of the regulatory tax stamp issuing mechanism?
so im just curious what that comment is always referenced and a constantly quoted response for allowing any other ban or regulation to stand yet it seems as though the courts and some briefs are not being honest about it? Nor are they being honest about it being long standing?
What i dont get and maybe im seeing things wrong is no ban exists? why do briefs keep acknowledging a ban?
the NFA created a mechanism for registry of full auto firearms and a tax stamp for ownership. but they are still in circulation, they were still produced and legally sold in new form even the GCA of 1968 still functioned around not banning them.... and it wasnt until 1986 that the government ceased issuing new tax stamps. But they still didnt ban anything select fire they are still sold every day, they just ceased operations of the regulatory tax stamp issuing mechanism?
so im just curious what that comment is always referenced and a constantly quoted response for allowing any other ban or regulation to stand yet it seems as though the courts and some briefs are not being honest about it? Nor are they being honest about it being long standing?
danb
dont be a dumbass
My guess is "presumptively lawful" and "longstanding" were some things inserted to get Kennedy's vote for Heller.
The Robert's court is going to look at text, history, and tradition.
I think a lot of ink has been wasted on a lot of things like machine guns which are at best only peripherally related, and analysis which will have no bearing on how the court will review this case.
The Robert's court is going to look at text, history, and tradition.
I think a lot of ink has been wasted on a lot of things like machine guns which are at best only peripherally related, and analysis which will have no bearing on how the court will review this case.
DaemonAssassin
Why should we Free BSD?
FOPA 1986 only closed the machine gun registry. The registry is still open to new SBR's, SBS's, DD's, AOW's, and supressors.
We want to take small bites of the elephant. Worry about the long game. Set up standards of review and then make them review eveything under the new standards. If it helps the review by misquoting about the "most evilist and dangerous" guns, so be it.
.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
krucam
Ultimate Member
NY Times article on the rule change shenanigans...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-control.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-control.html
danb
dont be a dumbass
The fact that NY can easily change the regulation means they can easily change it back too.
They continue to defend the rule ("public safety") and only attempted to moot the case after cert was granted. I am not foreseeing the Supreme Court agreeing to dismiss. It was a risky gamble I think will backfire on NYC.
They continue to defend the rule ("public safety") and only attempted to moot the case after cert was granted. I am not foreseeing the Supreme Court agreeing to dismiss. It was a risky gamble I think will backfire on NYC.
krucam
Ultimate Member
We all hope so...crossing my finger that SCOTUS ignores all of this BS...
I think it's important to note the regulation is not changing, only the NYPD's interpretation of the regulation.
https://council.nyc.gov/legislation/
Last edited:
I appreciated the quote they ended the article with. It might be pointed to to have shown the cards about the author's/editor's opinion on the matter.
- Mar 26, 2019
- 9
The problem is with our court system. Constitutional reviews should not need an actual controversy. The Supreme Court should be allowed to analyze laws in the abstract and lay out standards of review without a particular rule that can be changed.
danb
dont be a dumbass
No that is the legislatures job to make laws.
Once you get justices involved in abstract constitutional review it becomes intellectual masturbation. This is what academia is for. There are plenty of professors of Law that do this. Some even do it well and honestly.
And there are plenty of -0--appointed activist judges in the circuits that are quite happy to do this now.
But they can't initiate review/ruling just because they feel like it. Somebody with standing has to bring an issue before them. How they rule is a separate (and frequently maddening) issue.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Awareness/Mindset/Q&A get together with Bob "Ninja" Porras. Delta/CIA guy. Thursday April 18,2024 (1 Viewer)- Latest: ironpony
-
