Gould v. O'Leary 1st Circuit(Mass. CCW challenge)

jcutonilli · Nov 6, 2018

Occam said:
But the constitution is what we go on. And the 2A, which (yes) exists to prevent government from infringing on the right to self defense, does indeed provide some guidance on the matter. It uses words like "keep" (possess), and "bear" (like, walk around with), "arms" (a broad term that can get picked at, but we it's safe to say it doesn't apply to nukes and isn't limited to butter knives), and - because the 2A was written to include a mention of WHY it's there (making sure that nobody in government thinks that the inevitable need for a standing military is an excuse to infringe on individual RKB), it also conveniently provides some context: we're talking about militia-grade arms.

We can dance around the fringes of all of that to split hairs (full auto .50 mounted on your car? hmm), but it doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room where a reasonable person could argue that bearing an arm isn't covered by an amendment that explicitly says the right to do so cannot be infringed.

The constitution (Article III Section 1) vests SCOTUS with the judical power of the US. Using this granted power they determined that the 2A does not define the right. The keep and bear part defines which right we we shall not infringe. The 2A does not apply to other rights like free speech.

Why does the 2A not apply to nukes? The 2A certainly talks about the militia and nukes are a type of weapon used by the military. Where is the line if nuke arms are not part of the 2A and where is this defined in the 2A?

SCOTUS has indicated that history is important, which is why older laws are potentially helpful in determining what the history was like.

Blacksmith101 · Nov 7, 2018

jcutonilli said:
The constitution (Article III Section 1) vests SCOTUS with the judical power of the US. Using this granted power they determined that the 2A does not define the right. The keep and bear part defines which right we we shall not infringe. The 2A does not apply to other rights like free speech.

Why does the 2A not apply to nukes? The 2A certainly talks about the militia and nukes are a type of weapon used by the military. Where is the line if nuke arms are not part of the 2A and where is this defined in the 2A?

SCOTUS has indicated that history is important, which is why older laws are potentially helpful in determining what the history was like.

When the 2A was written private ownership of cannons and warships, the most powerful weapons of the time, was permissible.

jcutonilli · Nov 7, 2018

Blacksmith101 said:
When the 2A was written private ownership of cannons and warships, the most powerful weapons of the time, was permissible.

And you needed a permit (Letter of Marque) in order to use it.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/lmr.htm

Allen65 · Nov 7, 2018

jcutonilli said:
And you needed a permit (Letter of Marque) in order to use it.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/lmr.htm

That permit was needed for offensive action against foreign and stateless actors outside the US for profit, not self defense. Merchantmen needed no such permit to arm and defend themselves against pirates and foreign raiders.

A Letter of Marque is a permit for a private entity to commit theft under color of law. It's not that far removed from the concept of civil seizures today, except generally contractors aren't conducting the seizures.

Knuckle Dragger · Dec 2, 2018

The Institute for Justice did a nice review of CA1's Gould decision in there latest Short Circuit podcast: https://soundcloud.com/institute-for-justice/short-circuit-103 It's well worth yoru time.

wolfwood · Dec 3, 2018

Knuckle Dragger said:
The Institute for Justice did a nice review of CA1's Gould decision in there latest Short Circuit podcast: https://soundcloud.com/institute-for-justice/short-circuit-103 It's well worth yoru time.

When is the cert petition due in Gould

krucam · Dec 3, 2018

wolfwood said:
When is the cert petition due in Gould

Opinion was 11/2, the Mandate issued 11/26. So 90 days puts it into February...

Blacksmith101 · Dec 3, 2018

jcutonilli said:
And you needed a permit (Letter of Marque) in order to use it.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/lmr.htm

I read that the last Letter of Marque was issued to the Good Year Blimp in 1942 because they, a civilian craft, was carrying a rifle while on submarine patrol.

BeoBill · Dec 3, 2018

Blacksmith101 said:
When the 2A was written private ownership of cannons and warships, the most powerful weapons of the time, was permissible.

Their private ownership was not only permitted, it was ENCOURAGED by the state governments. See: Privateer.

danb · Jun 5, 2019

bump for tomorrows conference, although we wont know until monday

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\18-1272.html

Rogers v Grewal got put on hold.

There are now three cases on hold ... Will Gould be the 4th, or will we get a grant of Rogers and Gould? Tune in Monday...

press1280 · Jun 5, 2019

danb said:
bump for tomorrows conference, although we wont know until monday

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\18-1272.html

Rogers v Grewal got put on hold.

There are now three cases on hold ... Will Gould be the 4th, or will we get a grant of Rogers and Gould? Tune in Monday...

I'd be shocked if it wasn't held like the others.

Pope414 · Jun 8, 2019

just a premonition i don't know why it came to me out of nowhere ...Monday Rogers will be combined with Gould and granted cert..

Blacksmith101 · Jun 9, 2019

Pope414 said:
just a premonition i don't know why it came to me out of nowhere ...Monday Rogers will be combined with Gould and granted cert..

I had a similar thought. That Rogers and Gould would be combined so the court would have a backup in case New York got mooted.

press1280 · Jun 10, 2019

Nothing on today's orders. Will be held pending NYSRPA.

Pope414 · Jun 10, 2019

press1280 said:
Nothing on today's orders. Will be held pending NYSRPA.

IMHO that seems like a good thing. looks like the court is ready to" take care of all family business" with NYSRPA. reading the tea leaves so far points to "Strict Scrutiny" .....We shall see.....to be continued.....

danb · Jun 10, 2019

Putting all ones eggs in one's basket is not a good thing.

This will give NY a massive incentive to try and moot the case.

press1280 · Jun 10, 2019

Pope414 said:
IMHO that seems like a good thing. looks like the court is ready to" take care of all family business" with NYSRPA. reading the tea leaves so far points to "Strict Scrutiny" .....We shall see.....to be continued.....

I think this is really the only possible outcome at this point. Scotus won't hear 2 2A cases in one term and all other cases get sent back to be analyzed under a new framework.
Now if NYSRPA gets mooted then all bets are off what they do.

press1280 · Jun 10, 2019

danb said:
Putting all ones eggs in one's basket is not a good thing.

This will give NY a massive incentive to try and moot the case.

They also have a CCW case at the 2nd circuit right now. It will directly affect them.

mrbob1000 · Jun 10, 2019

danb said:
Putting all ones eggs in one's basket is not a good thing.

This will give NY a massive incentive to try and moot the case.

NY tried to moot the case by backing down on the transport law weeks ago. SCOTUS still is moving forward with litigating it since there's no promise NY wouldn't revert the law back in the future, re-igniting the need for this case.

Pope414 · Jun 10, 2019

if the NY case is mooted being cert was not denied in Rogers or Gould does the court still have the option of granting cert to them?

Gould v. O'Leary 1st Circuit(Mass. CCW challenge)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Crank in the Third Row

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics