Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

Occam · Jan 31, 2019

Decoy said:
Do you guys think this is going to be broad judicial decision or a very narrow ruling?

The antis seem concerned that it will be broader than merely a smack-down of some specific aspect of the absurd NY law in question. Since I live in Maryland, I am an expertly trained Master Pessimist, and will expect absolutely nothing good - the better to be pleasantly surprised if we get something like a Heller moment out of this. But even if it IS narrow, anything that rubs NY gun grabbers the wrong way is a good thing.

Blacksmith101 · Jan 31, 2019

Decoy said:
Do you guys think this is going to be broad judicial decision or a very narrow ruling?

My guess is they will use this case to implement strict scrutiny for 2nd Amendment cases which will kick all the cases where various circuits have applied "creative scrutiny" back down the judicial ladder for rehearing. Then SCOTUS will watch and see which cases make it back to them before taking another case. True strict scrutiny will kill most anti gun legislation because it sets a high bar for any law to reach.

TheBert · Jan 31, 2019

4.5 conservative leaning and 3.5 liberal/crazy/progressive leaning is not bad odds

RepublicOfFranklin · Jan 31, 2019

Ideally the conservatives go full Taney and just make a broad proclamation against all 2A infringements and just use this case as an excuse to do it. Realistically a narrow decision that makes no one happy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CrabcakesAndFootball · Jan 31, 2019

Blacksmith101 said:
My guess is they will use this case to implement strict scrutiny for 2nd Amendment cases which will kick all the cases where various circuits have applied "creative scrutiny" back down the judicial ladder for rehearing. Then SCOTUS will watch and see which cases make it back to them before taking another case. True strict scrutiny will kill most anti gun legislation because it sets a high bar for any law to reach.

Nailed it. This is the best possible outcome of this particular case.

As Occam noted, the libs are claiming the sky will fall when they lose this case. Best case scenario - this case will set the stage for their sky to fall slowly in many cases over time.

ETA: this seems to be what esqappellate has been saying up thread, and I think we can all agree that he knows what he’s talking about

JohnnyE · Jan 31, 2019

JohnnyE said:
While the specifics of the NY case (the draconian transportation laws) do not impact MD, or really anyone else, if the SCOTUS overturns the NY law by applying strict scrutiny, THAT is a meaningful impact. The SCOTUS may up the protection of 2A rights to the elevated status as a right that 1A enjoys.

Occam said:
The antis seem concerned that it will be broader than merely a smack-down of some specific aspect of the absurd NY law in question. Since I live in Maryland, I am an expertly trained Master Pessimist, and will expect absolutely nothing good - the better to be pleasantly surprised if we get something like a Heller moment out of this. But even if it IS narrow, anything that rubs NY gun grabbers the wrong way is a good thing.

Blacksmith101 said:
My guess is they will use this case to implement strict scrutiny for 2nd Amendment cases which will kick all the cases where various circuits have applied "creative scrutiny" back down the judicial ladder for rehearing. Then SCOTUS will watch and see which cases make it back to them before taking another case. True strict scrutiny will kill most anti gun legislation because it sets a high bar for any law to reach.

CrabcakesAndFootball said:
Nailed it. This is the best possible outcome of this particular case.

As Occam noted, the libs are claiming the sky will fall when they lose this case. Best case scenario - this case will set the stage for their sky to fall slowly in many cases over time.

ETA: this seems to be what esqappellate has been saying up thread, and I think we can all agree that he knows what he’s talking about

If this comes to pass, its impact is difficult to overstate...though it will still take time and more cases as infringements are pulled down brick by brick...the same way they were built up.

Decoy · Feb 8, 2019

With Roberts siding with the liberal justices more and more I don't think this is a slam-dunk for us.

Allen65 · Feb 8, 2019

Decoy said:
With Roberts siding with the liberal justices more and more I don't think this is a slam-dunk for us.

Maybe. But justices, like the rest of us, don' t really fall into simple, caricaturish, categories. I know "conservatives" who hate firearms, and "liberals" who have enjoyed time at the range and understand that not everyone who owns a gun is evil or crazy.

And, sometimes, on occasion, a justice actually makes a decision on a basis of rational interpretation of law, rather than his or her feelings about the issue.

jrumann59 · Feb 8, 2019

Decoy said:
With Roberts siding with the liberal justices more and more I don't think this is a slam-dunk for us.

With Roberts I feel when in doubt he tends to lean granting more freedom than less. I have no issue with that, it is easier to limit later on down the road than it is to return freedom.

Bigfoot21075 · Feb 8, 2019

I have to say, I REALLY hope RGB decides to enjoy her hard earned retirement VERY SOON.

pilot25 · Feb 8, 2019

The word on Cam and Company, a couple days ago, is the gun control groups are trying to get the legislature to change the law enough that it would have to go back through the entire process again. Enough changes that the supreme court couldn't take the case until it starts over through the appeals process.

Can anyone smarter than I explain this.

Amigo109 · Feb 8, 2019

call me naive but I don't understand how any judge could not rule the NY law unconstitutional. I don't understand how things have gotten to the state they are other than corrupt judges who care nothing for their oath or the constitution and instead wish to issue in a new age of rules and regulation.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear. You cannot trade freedom for safety (perceived/debatable safety at that). The argument that a gun, or type of gun is not needed now (debatable) does not impact whether one will be needed in the future. Need should not enter the equation.

pilot25 · Feb 8, 2019

Amigo109 said:
call me naive but I don't understand how any judge could not rule the NY law unconstitutional. I don't understand how things have gotten to the state they are other than corrupt judges who care nothing for their oath or the constitution and instead wish to issue in a new age of rules and regulation.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear. You cannot trade freedom for safety (perceived/debatable safety at that). The argument that a gun, or type of gun is not needed now (debatable) does not impact whether one will be needed in the future. Need should not enter the equation.

Right, that is why the gun control groups are pushing hard to get the legislature to act. They have a super majority which they didn't have previous. The groups know the law is unconstitutional but they also know they have activists judges helping them. The supreme court they don't think is in their favor so they are changing the rules.

Congress needs to start impeaching federal judges but that will never happen. It is a real travesty how the left treats our country. Its disgusting and shameful. I used to think they just had different beliefs and to each is own but as time goes on they are proving themselves to be immoral and disgustingly evil.

rambling_one · Feb 8, 2019

Allen65 said:
Maybe. But justices, like the rest of us, don' t really fall into simple, caricaturish, categories. I know "conservatives" who hate firearms, and "liberals" who have enjoyed time at the range and understand that not everyone who owns a gun is evil or crazy.

And, sometimes, on occasion, a justice actually makes a decision on a basis of rational interpretation of law, rather than his or her feelings about the issue.

Yea, cases shouldn’t have a D or R attached to them.

JPG · Feb 8, 2019

This law is what the New Green Deal will look like. You can own a car but you can’t leave your driveway. :sad20:

jcutonilli · Feb 8, 2019

Amigo109 said:
call me naive but I don't understand how any judge could not rule the NY law unconstitutional. I don't understand how things have gotten to the state they are other than corrupt judges who care nothing for their oath or the constitution and instead wish to issue in a new age of rules and regulation.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear. You cannot trade freedom for safety (perceived/debatable safety at that). The argument that a gun, or type of gun is not needed now (debatable) does not impact whether one will be needed in the future. Need should not enter the equation.

Whether something is infringed depends on what the right actually refers to. SCOTUS has never affirmed an unlimited right and has explicitly stated so in Heller. While it stated that the DC law would not meet any standard of scrutiny and that the 2A takes certain policy decisions off the table, they failed to articulate any reasons.

Without any additional guidance the lower courts have filled in the missing reasoning with 1A guidance. SCOTUS has failed to intervene.

Amigo109 · Feb 8, 2019

jcutonilli said:
Whether something is infringed depends on what the right actually refers to. SCOTUS has never affirmed an unlimited right and has explicitly stated so in Heller. While it stated that the DC law would not meet any standard of scrutiny and that the 2A takes certain policy decisions off the table, they failed to articulate any reasons.

Without any additional guidance the lower courts have filled in the missing reasoning with 1A guidance. SCOTUS has failed to intervene.

I'm no legal scholar, but I recall hearing a pretty compelling argument that the right to bear arms was not limited to a well organized militia. So in my layman's opinion, the 2A pretty clearly spells out what right it protects.

But even the most clearly stated language is not enough to keep people that don't agree with the policy from turning it on it's heels.

jcutonilli · Feb 8, 2019

Amigo109 said:
I'm no legal scholar, but I recall hearing a pretty compelling argument that the right to bear arms was not limited to a well organized militia. So in my layman's opinion, the 2A pretty clearly spells out what right it protects.

But even the most clearly stated language is not enough to keep people that don't agree with the policy from turning it on it's heels.

According to Heller it is a preexisting right so the 2A does not define anything new. Repealing it would not change anything either because the right exists outside of the amendment.

The judges are not claiming that they disagree with the policy. They are claiming that they are following the law and SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct this claim until this case.

teratos · Feb 8, 2019

jcutonilli said:
According to Heller it is a preexisting right so the 2A does not define anything new. Repealing it would not change anything either because the right exists outside of the amendment.

The judges are not claiming that they disagree with the policy. They are claiming that they are following the law and SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct this claim until this case.

Congress can repeal an amendment. They cannot repeal a Right. The Right existed before the amendment, the Right will exist after its' repeal.

press1280 · Feb 8, 2019

teratos said:
Congress can repeal an amendment. They cannot repeal a Right. The Right existed before the amendment, the Right will exist after its' repeal.

Not everywhere.

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Not Even ONE Indictment

Grumpy Old Man

The Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

DILLIGAF

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics