5/11 scotus briefs

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!
  • Defense Rifle

    Active Member
    Jul 1, 2016
    238
    NC
    People really should stop making excuses for SCOTUS. They absolutely failed to protect the 2A for the past decade since the Heller Decision. Since Heller, one by one we have seen blue states impose infringements and restrictions on their citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

    There is no excuse for this, these 10 cases are very good cases and are pressing matters that have huge impact on tens of millions of citizens.

    Yet this SCOTUS thought it was more important to make a decision on homosexual employment.

    This is pathetic and I pin the blame on John Roberts, he appears to be the potential flake that concerns the other 4 conservative justices.


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...g-failure-to-protect-the-second-amendment.amp


    The only recourse we have next is Trump appoints another conservative to SCOTUS in his next term. More risk, but more rewarding.
     

    RepublicOfFranklin

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 16, 2018
    1,137
    The ‘Dena - DPRM
    The opinion of the SCOTUS Blog (which is quasi middle of the road) is that both the 4 Anti2A judges and 4 Pro2A judges don’t trust Roberts. Basically he’s viewed as unreliable by both sides and no one was willing to grant cert for fear of losing.

    I’m in agreement with the above stated opinion that the anti2A wing are less concerned bc the lower courts are ignoring Heller without consequence so no point in them risking anything.

    Truth About Guns was advising the SAF to judge shop in the 5th District to try and get a judge there to legislate from the bench in our favor and see if Roberts is still wobbly then.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The progressive wing does not need to vote to take a case. The interest balancing dissent in Heller has become the norm in lower courts, the lower courts are doing most of the heavy lifting. They can wait a while, decades even, then simply say Heller was a bad decision don't rely on it. That is how other precedents have been unwound.


    By progressive wing, I am coming around to the view Roberts is simply wobbly. He seems much more concerned with the public image of the court than the actual law. Lots of old school 1980s/90s Republicans thought that the assault weapons ban was ok and that public carry was bad, esp if blacks were doing the public carrying.

    I would agree with this.
    But I think it’s time to think outside the box with new lawsuits. There are laws in conservative states that can be filed and with a wink and a nod they can fight all the way instead of buckling the way NYC did. Find friendly state courts where you know you can win.
    Maybe instead of the little guys filing for cert let the government be the one to file
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I would agree with this.
    But I think it’s time to think outside the box with new lawsuits. There are laws in conservative states that can be filed and with a wink and a nod they can fight all the way instead of buckling the way NYC did. Find friendly state courts where you know you can win.
    Maybe instead of the little guys filing for cert let the government be the one to file


    Governments filing cert always have a better chance.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    It's too bad Mance was 8-7 the wrong way. Maybe with Trump filling all the vacancies, there wel finally be an en banc decision that goes our way.
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    We would have all liked to see more protection of 2A rights or at least guidance from the court on how 2A cases should be handled. We didn't get those things and we are not happy with the status quo.

    However, the liberal wing of SCOTUS just passed on 10 opportunities to curtail the bold and expansive Heller and McDonald decisions! Our press releases should read like this:
    "10 years later SCOTUS reaffirms their precedents in Heller and McDonald!".
    "Once again SCOTUS refuses to overrule Freedom".
    "SCOTUS stands their ground on the individual definition of militia".
    "In denying challenges, the liberal wing of the SCOTUS confirms that the 2a is an individual right".
    "The Notorious RBG's anti 2A coalition crumbles when given the opportunity to fix racist Heller ruling."
    "Mom's fail to bring home the bacon with stunning lack of support from SCOTUS."

    We all considered those 10 cases as sure winners for our side as long as they received a fair hearing. The opposite is also true and they know it. If they didn't believe SCOTUS would reign in the 2A on these cases, they would have worked out a way to ensure these 10 never made it this far. I'm pretty sure I know how (with a complicit judiciary) they could have stopped them but I prefer not to share those arm chair QB strategies here.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The progressive wing does not need to vote to take a case. The interest balancing dissent in Heller has become the norm in lower courts, the lower courts are doing most of the heavy lifting. They can wait a while, decades even, then simply say Heller was a bad decision don't rely on it. That is how other precedents have been unwound.


    By progressive wing, I am coming around to the view Roberts is simply wobbly. He seems much more concerned with the public image of the court than the actual law. Lots of old school 1980s/90s Republicans thought that the assault weapons ban was ok and that public carry was bad, esp if blacks were doing the public carrying.

    Would you all stop blaming Roberts.

    The lower courts have not adopted Breyer's interest balancing dissent in Heller. They all claim to use intermediate scrutiny, which was a standard Heller itself stated could not be met in that case. The court does not need to undo Heller, the current interpretation suits them just fine.

    Neither you nor any of the cert petitions support this baseless statement that the lower courts have adopted Breyer's interest balancing dissent. Maybe that is the problem and not Roberts.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Would you all stop blaming Roberts.

    The lower courts have not adopted Breyer's interest balancing dissent in Heller. They all claim to use intermediate scrutiny, which was a standard Heller itself stated could not be met in that case. The court does not need to undo Heller, the current interpretation suits them just fine.

    Neither you nor any of the cert petitions support this baseless statement that the lower courts have adopted Breyer's interest balancing dissent. Maybe that is the problem and not Roberts.


    Adam Winkler, is that you?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    We all considered those 10 cases as sure winners for our side as long as they received a fair hearing. The opposite is also true and they know it. If they didn't believe SCOTUS would reign in the 2A on these cases, they would have worked out a way to ensure these 10 never made it this far. I'm pretty sure I know how (with a complicit judiciary) they could have stopped them but I prefer not to share those arm chair QB strategies here.

    Why were the hearings that these 10 cases already had not fair? I get you don't like the outcome, but why were they not fair? When I read the cert petitions I don't see that explained there either.
     

    Defense Rifle

    Active Member
    Jul 1, 2016
    238
    NC
    The fact that we can't get a 9-0 ruling on not a single of these 10 cases is all you need to know about the failures of SCOTUS and the plague of liberalism infecting our courts. So the people who are saying "Don't blame Roberts" they are correct blame the other 4 liberals that stand in the way as well.

    Most of these cases should not be 5-4 decisions.

    There is no clear support for 2A as there are for other rights.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The fact that we can't get a 9-0 ruling on not a single of these 10 cases is all you need to know about the failures of SCOTUS and the plague of liberalism infecting our courts. So the people who are saying "Don't blame Roberts" they are correct blame the other 4 liberals that stand in the way as well.

    Most of these cases should not be 5-4 decisions.

    There is no clear support for 2A as there are for other rights.

    What you don't understand is that SCOTUS gets about 100 times more petitions than they can take. They cannot correct individual errors in any of them. They are looking for cases that help them resolve systematic errors. These 10 cases certainly illustrate individual errors, but they don't help to resolve the systematic error. They don't explain why the errors are occurring or how to correct them.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Why were the hearings that these 10 cases already had not fair? I get you don't like the outcome, but why were they not fair? When I read the cert petitions I don't see that explained there either.

    I would point you toward the Culp v Raoul case. They didn’t even use intermediate scrutiny.
    The earlier preliminary injunction case of 2016 cited only “reasonable” as the standard. That’s what we’re up against.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    What you don't understand is that SCOTUS gets about 100 times more petitions than they can take. They cannot correct individual errors in any of them. They are looking for cases that help them resolve systematic errors. These 10 cases certainly illustrate individual errors, but they don't help to resolve the systematic error. They don't explain why the errors are occurring or how to correct them.

    Well I think they have if you look at Thomas’ dissent when he talks about the two-step inquiry
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I would point you toward the Culp v Raoul case. They didn’t even use intermediate scrutiny.
    The earlier preliminary injunction case of 2016 cited only “reasonable” as the standard. That’s what we’re up against.

    Why do you need to use intermediate scrutiny? Text history and tradition seem to demonstrate that CCW is not part of the right. Heller seems to acknowledge this. I do not see anywhere in their cert petition that acknowledges why this historical prohibition occurred or why things have changed.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Well I think they have if you look at Thomas’ dissent when he talks about the two-step inquiry

    He certainly identifies a problem, but where is the error with the intermediate scrutiny standard the court applied? All he can say is that it appears to be made up, there is no "core" vs peripheral distinction, and it is “a tripartite binary test with a sliding scale and a reasonable fit.”. I get he disagrees with the result, but what exactly is wrong with the lower court's analysis.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Why do you need to use intermediate scrutiny? Text history and tradition seem to demonstrate that CCW is not part of the right. Heller seems to acknowledge this. I do not see anywhere in their cert petition that acknowledges why this historical prohibition occurred or why things have changed.

    There was absolutely no distinction from CA7 as far as concealed not being part of the right when open carry is banned. If that was all it took then they could have said that and called it a day.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,258,963
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom