Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

Glaron · Dec 4, 2019

JPG said:
I don't think they have ever got that far in any court arguments. They seem to focus on "Militia". I would think that those 4 words mean a alot, but I am not a Lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer either. Im an engineer. My layman's interpretation comes from the Heller decision which it seems they are dancing around. Sure lawyer guys correct me.

I saw the decision broke down as to the reading of it. The COMMA makes a difference. Separating the lead into subordinate to the operative; The second part of the amendment.

Corrector read:
"Awell regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Correct me if I am wrong. The militia arguments are irrelevant. People are.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Dec 4, 2019

I'm not a lawyer and a lawyer may take a different opinion but a retired professor from USC was an acknowledged expert on English language usage was asked in the early 1990s to interpret the Second Amendment. Trying to distill down his analysis to basics...he stated the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was the main clause of the amendment and that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for maintaining militia. In other words...if there's no right to keep and bear arms...then there can be no militia.

As historically accepted...the Second Amendment assumes a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms...it's not granted by the Constitution...it's simply affirms it in writing.

Of course...this makes Liberal heads explode.

BeoBill · Dec 4, 2019

aray said:
The CIA was not caught hacking Congress, though that is clearly the way Congress painted it and the way the media spun the story. The facts are the following:..
The CIA's Office of Inspector General's full report is here and you can read it for yourselves. Final note: Respecting Separation of Powers, the CIA OIG did NOT investigate whether or not Democrat SSCI Staffers attempted to misuse CIA computers or attempt to leak sensitive classified information; they focused only on CIA Executive Branch actions in the incident.

Now as to your main comment on whether or not someone has something on Roberts, I have no idea, I just wanted to set the record straight on your example. I think you could have found a better use-case than that one.

That little gem was on a non-public network at the time, regardless of the press coverage and the claims of the CIA OIG. I'm still not at liberty to discuss the specifics, but the source WAS a security official in Congress. It struck me as troubling at the time; we had a mountain of Predeisional Deliberative material on our networks, and a Leftist moron as CIO... :innocent0

rockstarr · Dec 4, 2019

so this turned out to be a big nothing burger ?

danb · Dec 4, 2019

Well, no Dismissal as Improvidently Granted (DIG). I would have expected it by now, if that's what we were getting.

Mark75H · Dec 4, 2019

Hasn't turned into anything either way yet, its proceeding at the normal pace of the court.

If you expected something different, you didn't understand

danb · Dec 4, 2019

The next day for Big News potential is Friday, then Monday.

Inigoes · Dec 4, 2019

danb said:
Well, no Dismissal as Improvidently Granted (DIG). I would have expected it by now, if that's what we were getting.

Patience...

There have been prior cases DIG'd in the May/June time frame, because the court was deadlocked.

danb · Dec 4, 2019

Inigoes said:
Patience...

There have been prior cases DIG'd in the May/June time frame, because the court was deadlocked.

Well it's not going to be 4-4 as we have no recusals. If it's a DIG or the case is decided moot, they are going to move on the other petitions one way or the other.

delaware_export · Dec 4, 2019

If they find this moot, would that be something announced sooner vs ?maybe as late as June? If not moot?

Or are we stuck waiting until ?june? Either way? Moot or not?

They glacial speed of movement here sucks. Delay is victory for the anti 2a places.

press1280 · Dec 4, 2019

Mark75H said:
Hasn't turned into anything either way yet, its proceeding at the normal pace of the court.

If you expected something different, you didn't understand

Yea, the court rarely moves quickly on anything. I do hope if it is mooted that it's done by a quick per curiam or simply as an order of the court. We really don't need a dissent on this slowing things down.
Let's move on and pick one of the cases in SCOTUS purgatory.

danb · Dec 4, 2019

If it if its moot we might not find out officially until June because I suspect Alito and some others will write a blistering dissent.

But they wont hold the half dozen cases which they are now holding, unless an opinion is coming (from a non-moot case).

So either we hear nothing, which means case is not moot, or we hear something after this Friday's conference, which means the case is moot.

krucam · Dec 4, 2019

danb said:
If it if its moot we might not find out officially until June because I suspect Alito and some others will write a blistering dissent.

But they wont hold the half dozen cases which they are now holding, unless an opinion is coming (from a non-moot case).

So either we hear nothing, which means case is not moot, or we hear something after this Friday's conference, which means the case is moot.

Agree, but the 1st tea leave could be Monday, if they grant Cert on one the 6 held cases. They’d do that if NYSRPA was dying...at least I hope so...

danb · Dec 4, 2019

Could be monday, but they now have a penchant of granting cert on fridays, then posting essentially denials and dissents on Monday. They have been doing this since they started relisting cases.

PowPow · Dec 4, 2019

3% and two weeks need to fit into this formula somehow!

lazarus · Dec 4, 2019

CrazySanMan said:
I found this very interesting (From the article Stoveman posted)

It was an interesting question from her. I think she’ll vote to moot, but yeah, it is an excellent question and point. Beyond that is the burden. “Go buy 2 guns if you actually want to protect yourself in your homes”. Granted, if you own two homes, a 2nd gun is probably within your means, but that really is beyond the point.

Kharn · Dec 4, 2019

PowPow said:
3% and two weeks need to fit into this formula somehow!

There's a 3% chance of a cert grant within the next two weeks.

PowPow · Dec 4, 2019

My faith in the wisdom on MDS is preserved. :party29:

jcutonilli · Dec 6, 2019

Audio is posted

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/18-280

Oyez should also have a linked version to the transcript by the end of the day.

danb · Dec 6, 2019

you can find a link to the transcript on scotusblog.

There have been no orders related to this case. For sure, the justices voted by now.

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Camp pureblood 13R

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Major Deplorable

dont be a dumbass

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

dont be a dumbass

Head'n for the hills

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics