owldo
Ultimate Member
My Mistake !
NY ordered to answer to SCOTUS
- Thread starter Billyb
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
wb3jma
Active Member
This is an interesting case she might just surprise you because of the left makes a habit of thumbing it's nose at SCOTUS at the state level then the smarter part of the right will do the same eventually effectively undermining SCOTUS and her authority.
cap6888
Ultimate Member
Anyone know a timeline for Sotamayors response?
I have to say they didn't pull any punches from what i see. I love:
Moreover, it is worth noting that “percolation” of Second Amendment jurisprudence both prior to Heller (with most courts concluding the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right) and after Heller (with most courts applying prohibited judicial interest-balancing) did not advance jurisprudence in this area, but instead created mountains of unprincipled and atextual precedents that this Court was required to cast aside.
Moreover, it is worth noting that “percolation” of Second Amendment jurisprudence both prior to Heller (with most courts concluding the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right) and after Heller (with most courts applying prohibited judicial interest-balancing) did not advance jurisprudence in this area, but instead created mountains of unprincipled and atextual precedents that this Court was required to cast aside.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
The Justices meet in conference tomorrow, so I bet they figure out their path forward.
If it will be a one paragraph docket entry vs multiple pages of order with concurring and dissenting opinions changes the timeline.
Muleskinner
Ultimate Member
When you bar anyone from owning a firearm you're setting precedent...wording that is not found in the amendment. As long as there is one precedent for violating someone's rights the gun grabbers will always exploit it. that's why there should be no exceptions. Instead of banning people from owning because they are criminals, you put those who use guns to commit crimes in prison for LONG time.
SCOTUS has plenty of "authority" but no way to enforce it. If the states or the federal government decided not to abide by their ruling there isn't much the court could do, especially right now when the AG is a far left lunatic. It would be up to the people to revolt against any government that defies the rule of law...and that will never happen...
smokey
2A TEACHER
- Jan 31, 2008
- 31,524
Reading it now. It's got to feel good having this obvious of a win to argue from.
1) They bring up that the CCIA is retaliation by the state for the bruen decision. They quote the antigunners a few times saying this is to fight against the bruen decision and to defy the SC. They say the state misrepresents the purpose of the CCIA in their argument and that its not something necessary to comply with bruen.
2) These shatter the state's interlocutory argument. They say the interlocutory posture of the case is BECAUSE the state appealed it up. Basically asking how the state can say its wrong for a higher court to take this, when THEY bumped it up to a higher court on their appeal. They also say the CCIA is so damned unconstitutional that it's a proper application of the SC to remedy.
3) It's time for the percolator. They say that the state is full of sh!t when they say the SC needs to let lower courts figure this out for a while before revisiting it. They argue that bruen isn't new jurisprudence, but just restating old jurisprudence like heller and mcdonald. They also argue that they're not asking the SC to make a ruling, only to scrap the stay and allow the lower court's ruling to go in to effect. They close with examples of the SC revisiting cases shortly after ruling on them in the past.
4) status quo argument. They argue that the status quo is what the courts corrected law to be prior to the CCIA taking effect. They say even after passing, the court challenged have stayed different aspects of the CCIA so its changed too much to even become status quo since passed. They reiterate that lower courts already found the CCIA unconstitutional, so status quo is before what's currently argued...or before the CCIA.
5)
If Sotomayor did bring this before the whole court before making a ruling, Oh boy to be a fly on the wall when Thomas gets hold of it or has a say and could Thomas write the ah "order" while Sotymayor just signs off on it or "help" Sotomayor write it for if so ,I am willing to think that it would be a very ah major smack down to 2CA for failing to do their jobs as required by SCOTUS and thus not happy at being smacked down and so would not look very kindly upon NY even tho its their own fault they caused said smack down in the first place.
Hi All, I'm not a lawyer, so I have a naive question. If SCOTUS decides to reinstate the restraining order (not sure if this the correct legal terminology) of the lower court judge who wrote the 180 page restraining order, what impact does that have on Montgomery County MD's new law that restricts concealed carry almost everywhere in the county? Will MD's law have to be challenged individually or will the SCOTUS precedent apply to MD and all other states/counties that have similar laws. Thanks for educating a non-lawyer!
Cal68
Cal68
No direct impact on us.
This, EXCEPT:
No one should be prohibited from owning a gun. If you're free to walk the streets, you're free to own, (and carry), a gun.
Same as a Snickers bar, or packet of tissues.
Last edited:
Your never going to get promoted to overseer.
If everything is in-house at the 2nd Cir, it has nothing to do with us. I thought if the SC gets its toes in the water, it covers the nation. That's why anyone with a weak case fear having the SC have a say in a particular matter.
The rest of the nation is looking at how the SCOTUS is going to smack down the 2CA. That's about it.
Bruen used md as an example of an unconstitutional scheme. And then md courts used that to overturn g&s.
To answer your question, it depends. If the potential future order mentions md or other jurisdictions.
This case lifts the 2CA stay if it happens. The actual law still needs arguing.
Just for clarification, it’s a stay not a RO
Just for clarification, it’s a stay not a RO
Thanks for the reply. I was hoping there would be a precedent there but "oh well".
Cal68
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (2 Viewers)- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
The Economic Impact of the Firearm and Ammunition Industry (1 Viewer)- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 0