Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

Kharn · Feb 23, 2020

delaware_export said:
I’m not a lawyer... as a layman trying to learn, it seems that Scalia was too gentle, or tried to be too cleaver, in his wording. As folks here seemed to explain, it was to keep support.

I think the worst phrasing in my non legal opinion was the part where he said something like “people should not be allowed to carry firearms in any manner whatsoever.”

My original thought was that this translates to walking down the street, waiving it around, pointing it at people, threatening them, shooting them, and in general, being stupid.

Now in several states, this seems to be translated to... you CAN NOT carry a gun. In any manor!!! Whatsoever.

Whoever writes the pro gun opinion, majority or dissent, needs to be direct, blunt, and not try to “cleaver” in their wording. I think that’s the issue with heller. The cleaver wording is twisted in something not intended.

Also the part about not invalidating long standing laws... seems to be aimed at the NFA. Much like slavery, long standing laws don’t make them good or lawful.

Lawyer speak.

They need to smack whichever respondent has the pleasure that an unloaded gun going to the range or to the deer stand is not in a pocket, ready in case of conflict with another person.

lazarus · Feb 23, 2020

delaware_export said:
I’m not a lawyer... as a layman trying to learn, it seems that Scalia was too gentle, or tried to be too cleaver, in his wording. As folks here seemed to explain, it was to keep support.

I think the worst phrasing in my non legal opinion was the part where he said something like “people should not be allowed to carry firearms in any manner whatsoever.”

My original thought was that this translates to walking down the street, waiving it around, pointing it at people, threatening them, shooting them, and in general, being stupid.

Now in several states, this seems to be translated to... you CAN NOT carry a gun. In any manor!!! Whatsoever.

Whoever writes the pro gun opinion, majority or dissent, needs to be direct, blunt, and not try to “cleaver” in their wording. I think that’s the issue with heller. The cleaver wording is twisted in something not intended.

Also the part about not invalidating long standing laws... seems to be aimed at the NFA. Much like slavery, long standing laws don’t make them good or lawful.

Lawyer speak.

I would translate that more as a state can ban OC or CC, but one needs to be permitted. Not that he was implying brandishing of firearms is the line.

IMHO, there are times and places open carry is a disturbance. Now that is largely because of how we’ve allowed society to go. But the majority of urban America, you are going to make people nervous OC’ing a long gun. Maybe most of suburban American too.

Even OC’ing a handgun would make a lot of people nervous in more urban settings. So to me I see no issue with a state or city/county having restrictions on OC so long as CC is legal. And to a degree vice versa. There might be circumstances or places where it isn’t appropriate to concealed carry, but open carry would be fine.

I’d also argue that in some settings carrying a firearm of any sort is not appropriate unless it is your job. Such as in a court house, prison, etc.

CrueChief · Feb 23, 2020

lazarus said:
I would translate that more as a state can ban OC or CC, but one needs to be permitted. Not that he was implying brandishing of firearms is the line.

IMHO, there are times and places open carry is a disturbance. Now that is largely because of how we’ve allowed society to go. But the majority of urban America, you are going to make people nervous OC’ing a long gun. Maybe most of suburban American too.

Even OC’ing a handgun would make a lot of people nervous in more urban settings. So to me I see no issue with a state or city/county having restrictions on OC so long as CC is legal. And to a degree vice versa. There might be circumstances or places where it isn’t appropriate to concealed carry, but open carry would be fine.

I’d also argue that in some settings carrying a firearm of any sort is not appropriate unless it is your job. Such as in a court house, prison, etc.

So I should carry my gun in a manner that won't make the snowflakes nervous? Them being nervous is a them problem and they should deal with their problem and not force me too. I should be able to carry my gun with me wherever I go just like my wallet and keys. The only exception is inside a secure place where trained armed people provide top notch security for me.

welder516 · Feb 23, 2020

Are pages missing here or is my phone messed up

BeoBill · Feb 23, 2020

CrueChief said:
So I should carry my gun in a manner that won't make the snowflakes nervous? Them being nervous is a them problem and they should deal with their problem and not force me too. I should be able to carry my gun with me wherever I go just like my wallet and keys. The only exception is inside a secure place where trained armed people provide top notch security for me.

As long as they are more vocal (as in Media support) than we are, it's your and our problem. That's the reality. Explain it to the cops who show up after a hysterical snowflake calls you in... :sad20:

Magnumst · Feb 23, 2020

CrueChief said:
So I should carry my gun in a manner that won't make the snowflakes nervous? Them being nervous is a them problem and they should deal with their problem and not force me too. I should be able to carry my gun with me wherever I go just like my wallet and keys. The only exception is inside a secure place where trained armed people provide top notch security for me.

This is why I use a OWB holster and somewhat cavalier with concealing. I will often wear a cover garment when out but don't mind taking it off when preparing to sit down at a restaurant. I have yet to be confronted, not that I am looking for it but I am always prepared.

Nobody · Feb 23, 2020

I believe CC is Ok to bge regulated in public spaces ( government buildings are public), so long as there is a means to prevent anyone from carrying there. I am ok with gun free school zines as long as there are metal detectors and police to stop everyone from getting in. Right now i can walk in without anyone checking me.

Public areas of government buildings should be ok.

Nobody

Nobody · Feb 23, 2020

I believe CC is Ok to bge regulated in public spaces ( government buildings are public), so long as there is a means to prevent anyone from carrying there. I am ok with gun free school zines as long as there are metal detectors and police to stop everyone from getting in. Right now i can walk in without anyone checking me.

Public areas of government buildings should be ok.

Nobody

Bob A · Feb 23, 2020

CrueChief said:
So I should carry my gun in a manner that won't make the snowflakes nervous? Them being nervous is a them problem and they should deal with their problem and not force me to.

What's the phrase . . "My rights don't end where your feelings begin"?

Applehd · Feb 23, 2020

Magnumst said:
This is why I use a OWB holster and somewhat cavalier with concealing. I will often wear a cover garment when out but don't mind taking it off when preparing to sit down at a restaurant. I have yet to be confronted, not that I am looking for it but I am always prepared.

+1

RoadDawg · Feb 23, 2020

Bob A said:
What's the phrase . . "My rights don't end where your feelings begin"?

Bingo...

The ONLY reason that open carry makes anyone nervous... is because it has been out of vogue for so long that many folks are simply not used to seeing it. Bring it back here... and wait a while. It can become the norm again. That is to all except the snowflakes, haters, and anti gunners who will NEVER let it alone in their relentless war against it.

Nobody · Feb 23, 2020

I believe CC is Ok to be regulated in public spaces
( government buildings are public), so long as there is a means to prevent anyone from carrying there. I am ok with gun free school zones as long as there are metal detectors and police to stop everyone from getting in. Right now i can walk in without anyone checking me.

Public areas of government buildings should be ok.

Nobody

Applehd · Feb 23, 2020

Nobody said:
I believe CC is Ok to be regulated in public spaces...
Nobody

NO! You either trust me with a gun or you don't. If not, why am I not incarcerated? Period.

Inigoes · Feb 24, 2020

No movement since 1/8/2020

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html

RoadDawg · Feb 24, 2020

Nobody said:
I believe CC is Ok to be regulated in public spaces
( government buildings are public), so long as there is a means to prevent anyone from carrying there. I am ok with gun free school zones as long as there are metal detectors and police to stop everyone from getting in. Right now i can walk in without anyone checking me.

Public areas of government buildings should be ok.

Nobody

I respectfully disagree.

Gun free zones cannot be protected with absolute physical efficiency. They are all open to violations. There are far too many non firearm weapons which can get past detectors. Weapons which can be used to kill and or maim multiple victims with horrific results when in the hands of a determined person. The only thing that a gun free zone protects is the feelings of those who errantly believe that they make sense.

There is no perfect solution. Freedom is a risk. We either agree to the risks involved... or we cede control to those who will use what ever means at their disposal to take it.

Accepting the risks... dictates that we embrace the notion that an armed population is a polite and secure population. Further... That those who would do violence to others in a disarmed society... would be otherwise deterred from such action when that society has the means to quickly stop them and do so with dire consequences to them.

Disarming the honest law abiding people in any area... simply means that any arms carried there... will likely be in the possession of the very people who should not be armed.

Like a shepherd who sees a lamb chewed up by a coyote... and responds by removing all of the teeth from the sheep so that teeth can’t be used to kill. It simply leaves the flock defenseless against attack from all coyotes.

jcutonilli · Feb 24, 2020

Inigoes said:
No movement since 1/8/2020

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html

As stated previously, the case is being held and that is what a held case looks like on the docket

Rodgers v Grewal is another case being held https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

It has not seen any updates since May 2019.

There are a number of 2A cases being held. I would not expect to see any movement on these cases until the current NYSRPA is decided.

krucam · Feb 24, 2020

11 total held 2A cases.
https://comm2a.org/ot2019/

jcutonilli · Feb 24, 2020

krucam said:
11 total held 2A cases.
https://comm2a.org/ot2019/

Technically there are 9 held cases, 1 case that is continuing to get relisted (bump stock case), and 1 case that is first scheduled for the 6 March conference.

PowPow · Feb 24, 2020

krucam said:
11 total held 2A cases.
https://comm2a.org/ot2019/

What do these various states mean?

Distributed for Conference of MM/DD/YYYY - Not relisted
Distributed for Conference of MM/DD/YYYY - Relisted
Distributed for Conference of MM/DD/YYYY

What is a good resource to learn how this process works? I've done a few searches and haven't found anything good yet.

Decoy · Feb 24, 2020

PowPow said:
What do these various states mean?

Distributed for Conference of MM/DD/YYYY - Not relisted

Distributed for Conference of MM/DD/YYYY - Relisted

Distributed for Conference of MM/DD/YYYY

What is a good resource to learn how this process works? I've done a few searches and haven't found anything good yet.

I was looking for the same thing, I found this on scotusblog

When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference. Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket. A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

I still don't know why some are held but Not relisted

Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Deplorable Welder

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Throbbing Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Ultimate Member

Throbbing Member

Head'n for the hills

Nos nostraque Deo

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics