Second Circuit NYC transport law upheld

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!
  • AssMan

    Meh...
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 27, 2011
    16,218
    Somewhere on the James River, VA
    I'm convinced that gun control = racism and that's all it's really about. It's just a way to stick it to the privileged white male clingers that elected Trump. The laws need not enhance public safety, or even make sense - as long as they frustrate and injure the people they hate.
     

    Master_P

    Member
    May 27, 2015
    77
    It's the difference between a cert petition and a merits brief. My guess is that the merits brief will focus on this standard of review much more than the cert petition did -- it is fully preserved by the petition. We shall see. My guess is that Clement will ask for text, history and tradition as the standard, not tiers of scrutiny ala Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II and that holding would be profoundly important. I don't think decision will be limited to this NYC law. That would make it pretty senseless to grant cert. As for the prior cases, we have new a new majority on the Court and that means that the 4 to grant have figured out that they have 5 to a majority. In any event, any win would be better than what we have now.

    Roberts has given indications of his thinking. Take another listen to these segments from the Heller oral arguments in 2008:

    First there was this comment to Paul Clement at 45:57:

    John G. Roberts, Jr.

    Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, "compelling interest", "significant interest", "narrowly tailored", none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard.

    Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these... how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

    I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard.

    I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up.

    But I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?

    Then, Roberts had this exchange with Alan Gura and several other Justices later on at 1:22:22

    John Paul Stevens
    So we can... consistent with your view, we can simply read this:

    "It shall not be unreasonably infringed? "

    Alan Gura
    Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word "unreasonable" is the one that troubles us because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like.

    Antonin Scalia
    You wouldn't put it that way.

    You would just say it is not being infringed if reasonable limitations are placed upon it.

    Alan Gura
    That's another way to look at it, Your Honor.

    Certainly--

    John G. Roberts, Jr.
    --you would define "reasonable" in light of the restrictions that existed at the time the amendment was adopted.

    Alan Gura
    --Those restrictions--

    John G. Roberts, Jr.
    You know, you can't take it into the marketplace was one restriction.

    So that would be... we are talking about lineal descendents of the arms but presumably there are lineal descendents of the restrictions as well.

    Sounds to me like Roberts is talking about text, history, and tradition. It also seems that he's resistant to using tiered levels of scrutiny when starting "afresh".

    His last comment signals that lineal descendants of arms receive 2A protection, thus MSR's are covered - although it's unclear to me why MG's aren't. A MG is an advancement of a semi-auto firearm.

    The point to ponder is what 2A restrictions were in place in 1791, and how grabbers would concoct equivalent lineal restrictions today. You couldn't take a gun to the marketplace in 1791. Would that mean we couldn't carry into a Safeway, or a farmers market today?
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,144
    Maybe justice Roberts and the rest, need to be reminded that according to their esteemed body, SCOTUS, slavery was perfectly ok, legal. And for quite a long time. Tradition, law, and all. Ditto depriving big chunks of the population the right to vote, speak, or marry.

    at some point, the mistakes were realized, and so the mistakes of 2a infringements should be realized. And they should be corrected.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Maybe justice Roberts and the rest, need to be reminded that according to their esteemed body, SCOTUS, slavery was perfectly ok, legal. And for quite a long time. Tradition, law, and all. Ditto depriving big chunks of the population the right to vote, speak, or marry.

    at some point, the mistakes were realized, and so the mistakes of 2a infringements should be realized. And they should be corrected.

    Gorsuch and Kavanaugh already say as much about some key doctrinal issues like Chevron Deference and Auer Deference. Timbs vs Indiana is currently in front of the Court which could go a long way towards the 30-some year detour taken from 4th & 5th Amendment property ownership and due process protections in the form of civil seizures.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,144
    Apologies for a tangent but... remember the scotus decision about eminent domain, taxes and property rights back in the 2k’s.

    From CT, if i recall correctly. .gov can take your land if they can make a claim that different PRIVATE owners will use it to increase the tax base.

    They may try that BS approach with the indi case, using the tax/public interest logic.

    ***edit for proper state and spelling.

    Gorsuch and Kavanaugh already say as much about some key doctrinal issues like Chevron Deference and Auer Deference. Timbs vs Indiana is currently in front of the Court which could go a long way towards the 30-some year detour taken from 4th & 5th Amendment property ownership and due process protections in the form of civil seizures.
     
    Last edited:

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Apologies for a tangent but... remember the scotus decision amour eminent domain, taxes and properly rights back in the 2k’s.

    From RI, if i recall correctly. .gov can take your land if they can make a claim that different PRIVATE owners will use it to increase the tax base.

    They may try that BS approach with the indi case, using the tax/public interest logic.

    The case you are talking about was in New London, CT

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,367
    SoMD / West PA
    His last comment signals that lineal descendants of arms receive 2A protection, thus MSR's are covered - although it's unclear to me why MG's aren't. A MG is an advancement of a semi-auto firearm.

    Not quite

    Maxim created the first machine gun in 1884.

    Mannlicher created the first successful semi auto design in 1885.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253

    Great work, but the Sun isn't really arguing the case. They could not give a 5hit about the particulars, the logic, the potential breadth or narrowness or the constitutional issues.

    What they are doing 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.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    SCOTUSBlog harvested up numerous sources discussing this case.
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/01/monday-round-up-425/#more-279120

    In an op-ed for Los Angeles Times, James Phillips and John Yoo argue that “[t]o ensure the equal treatment of constitutional rights, the court should establish a test fully rooted in the original understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-phillips-yoo-guns-court-20190127-story.html
    From the LA Times with a Stanford and Berkeley writer, but kicks ass...

    Amy Davidson Sorkin of The New Yorker suggests that in this case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh may “begin building what promises to be a disastrous pro-gun legacy.”
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...-york-city-regulation-to-strike-down-gun-laws

    In an episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and John-Michael Seibler talk about the Second Amendment grant and “chat with appellate litigator extraordinaire John Bursch about the future of religious liberty and abortion at SCOTUS.”
    https://soundcloud.com/user-418926557/312-john-michaels-irish-goodbye
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    That Sorkin New Yorker piece is advocacy tripe. When she discusses gun control, she describes such legislation as "saner". But damn that Constitution and those brave enough to uphold it ...

    To begin with, this will be the first time the Court seriously considers the Second Amendment since it adopted a radical view of gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, which overturned a near-ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, in 2010, which did away with similar restrictions in that city.

    ...

    It will also be the first opportunity for the Court’s newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, to begin building what promises to be a disastrous pro-gun legacy.

    ... gun-rights advocates have been waiting for Kavanaugh, or someone like him. Their brief was submitted on the day his confirmation hearings began. [mmm, I doubt that they waited to time the filing on the date of the confirmation hearings ... but kudos for coming up with a sophomoric way to close your bar stool analysis]

    I see two other prior anti Kavanaugh columns by her as well.





    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    That Sorkin New Yorker piece is advocacy tripe. When she discusses gun control, she describes such legislation as "saner". But damn that Constitution and those brave enough to uphold it ...



    I see two other prior anti Kavanaugh columns by her as well.





    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

    Her view of a "radical" 2A is being able to own a gun :sad20:
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,164
    ....and in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, in 2010, which did away with similar restrictions in that city.

    Don't tell her that McDonald insured that Heller applies to the whole country not just Chicago, her head will explode.:D
     

    Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    Has "Rogers" not been conferenced? I seem to remember that something was scheduled on 22 Feb 2019, but can find no reportage.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Has "Rogers" not been conferenced? I seem to remember that something was scheduled on 22 Feb 2019, but can find no reportage.

    Well we're on the old NYSRPA thread, but Rogers will be delayed longer because NJ didn't think the case was worth a response.
    SCOTUS said otherwise and ordered a response from NJ. That's in another thread too
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Don't tell her that McDonald insured that Heller applies to the whole country not just Chicago, her head will explode.:D
    nothing is insured. That can be reversed , or whittled to virtually nothing, by any subsequent court. We have just replaced two Republican appointed justices with two other Republican appointed Justices.

    If RBG lives 20 months, and chances are she will, than we may be looking at a Democrat President replacing THOMAS or any of the five GOP justices and Heller and McDonald can be refined or adjusted to almost nothing, or totally overturned.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,942
    Messages
    7,259,729
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom