IL Legislature passes anti everything bill

[Muleskinner]

One more step towards turn them all in boys and girls. It's coming. Don't hurt yourself tripping to get to the police station to hand them over

 

[MattFinals718]

Their “credibility”? With who? The people who oppose the right to arms are concerned only with outcomes and thus credibility is irrelevant to them. The people who support the right to arms want the right to be treated with the same respect as the rest. By doing this (treating the right to arms worse than the right to speech), the Court loses credibility with the only people who might care about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, but that's your opinion. Do you think the Court sees it that way? SCOTUS is obsessed with the appearance of impartiality, however misguided that might be. The fact that neither side will see them as such is irrelevant.

Just to be clear: Not arguing that what SCOTUS is doing is a cowardly and demonstrates that they are treating the 2A as a second-class right. That being said, it's still a massive leap to read into that as evidence that they're going to cave to the antis. They set a clear standard for constitutionality with Bruen, and I expect them to follow it. I just also expect that they're going to put off having to follow it until as late as possible.

You need to examine the history of 2A litigation and what the anti-2A courts have done. What do you think the 9th Circuit would do if it were the Supreme Court? That is what will happen with a composition change like what I describe.

Yes of course it will lead to a significant reversal. “Regulation” can always be done in such a way as to eliminate the right. The Court need only uphold that and that’ll be that for the right to arms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, what history of 2A litigation are you referring to? I assume you think I've been asleep for all of the post-Buren decisions at the circuit courts?

 

[Boxcab]

From what I can see, the speed of the SCOTUS is in line with the speed that the Civil Rights were reviewed.
The SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to review and collect all the various arguments for and against the New 2A guidance. Once the lower courts have collected a nice selection of the arguments for them, the SCOTUS will address them. There is a limited number of cases the SCOTUS can address in any one year. They will not try to address them individually. They will look for the best case to draw from and refine the previous rulings.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[MattFinals718]

From what I can see, the speed of the SCOTUS is in line with the speed that the Civil Rights were reviewed.
The SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to review and collect all the various arguments for and against the New 2A guidance. Once the lower courts have collected a nice selection of the arguments for them, the SCOTUS will address them. There is a limited number of cases the SCOTUS can address in any one year. They will not try to address them individually. They will look for the best case to draw from and refine the previous rulings.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

What's also important is that SCOTUS wants to see enough incorrect/contradictory rulings from the lower courts that they have a pretext to step in. This has been discussed to death by 2A constitutional scholars - they won't step in on an interlocutory basis. Would it be nice if they were braver and more assertive about protecting 2A rights, not just for those of us in MD, but also for the IL residents who are now being oppressed? Yes. Do I expect them to? Nope.

 

[kcbrown]

Right, but that's your opinion. Do you think the Court sees it that way? SCOTUS is obsessed with the appearance of impartiality, however misguided that might be. The fact that neither side will see them as such is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how the Court sees it. I'm not talking about how SCOTUS views this, I'm talking about how it'll actually play out. How it actually plays out is, given SCOTUS' refusal to intervene, independent of how the Court currently sees it, because the Court's composition changes over time.

With respect to their refusal to intervene in an interlocutory manner, like I said, the Court is treating the 2nd Amendment worse than they have treated other Constitutional rights-protecting Amendments under similar circumstances. That the Court with its current composition would eventually issue a decision upholding the 2nd Amendment doesn't matter if the Supreme Court under its current composition doesn't get that opportunity in the first place. By refusing to intervene here where it would under similar circumstances for a 1st Amendment case, the Court is guaranteeing that the lower courts will get their way because the lower courts need only wait long enough.

That being said, it's still a massive leap to read into that as evidence that they're going to cave to the antis.

They'll cave to the antis once their composition changes to a liberal majority.

Sure, what history of 2A litigation are you referring to? I assume you think I've been asleep for all of the post-Buren decisions at the circuit courts?

See Duncan v Bonta as but one example out of many of what the lower courts are doing. The history of 2A litigation proves that the lower courts are capable of sitting on these cases for years, and it also proves that the anti-2A side will throw out all the rules (e.g., the appellate rules for assigning cases that have come back from the district courts) in order to get their way. In all of these cases at this point, the anti-2A lower courts have a game theoretical incentive to sit on them for as long as it takes for the composition of the Supreme Court to change to a liberal majority. Once that happens, the anti-2A lower courts will issue their decisions with lightning speed, we'll appeal, SCOTUS will grant cert and will uphold the anti-2A lower court decisions. And then that'll be that.

And all because the Supreme Court was too stupid to see what is actually happening, predict what the lower courts would do, and properly counteract it.