Hopefully the parties will read yours and gain some insight from them. Thanks!
Only the tenth. the rest recognize and codify individual rights.Federal government first, then states, then people.
If you are looking at leglsilatyure, the issue is simple: it will get tougher and tougher to defend the 2A in blue and purple state legislatures. Why? Because fundraising for gun control legislation in the form of funding in support of blue candidates is an extremely effective money laundering. The amount of 501(c)3 money raised for gun control is stunning and growing. It is an ends into itself. Gun control was once a somewhat partisan issue, now it is the most partisan aligned issue in the US, meaning you can use tax deductible funding in a partisan way, which is e holey grail of money in politics.
The same goes for money poured into academia which gets into the press and in fact where advocacy oriented academic work is now cited more and more in the cases.
In the federal courts this is also a clearly partisan issue. Federal judges are not being moved by arguments. With rare exception their positions on this issue align by party of appointing executive.
It is tougher and tougher to defend the 2A because we keep loosing court cases. The problem is that we keep using the same arguments over and over. We fail to adjust to the other sides arguments and expect SCOTUS to fix the issue. It is not SCOTUS's job to figure out how to argue the case. It is our side's job.
Judges are less partisan than you are suggesting, but you cannot completely eliminate bias. What you can do is adjust the arguments so that they do not rely on the type of judgement that leads to this partisan decision making.
One area that needs to be adjusted is how you attack the data. Presenting conflicting data leads the court away from the data to a political issue where you will lose. Attach the data directly and the court cannot claim there is a political issue.
Trying to argue that the right is a purely individual right accentuates the partisan divide. I am trying to argue that the right is really about public safety and how to best provide public safety. The Young en banc ignored what I said about the issue so I need to figure out a better way to articulate it.
The problem with the court is that we continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. What we need to do is continually improve and evolve the arguments to defeat what ever arguments they make.
Fixing the court through better arguments will help fix the legislature.
ok, I have a serious question. I am trying to figure out how and where and why Public Safety comes in. I do not see anything about that in the COTUS with respect to the 2A, even rough drafts where they clearly defined what the 2A meant. As with most things back then, they cut on the verbage to supposedly be concise. Imagine if the Federalists who did not want these written out due to them "duh, understood".....won out?
ok, so they are trying as a whole, not as a subset. hmmm.... Still do not see where safety is inferred, I see where they can possibly make it out of "security". I do not know. Like grasping to me. Protection, not safety. It is like they came up with "public safety" to limit our defense...... unless pro 2A side came up with it. Look how public safety has made the left rule over us about masks.
ok, so they are trying as a whole, not as a subset. hmmm.... Still do not see where safety is inferred, I see where they can possibly make it out of "security". I do not know. Like grasping to me. Protection, not safety. It is like they came up with "public safety" to limit our defense...... unless pro 2A side came up with it. Look how public safety has made the left rule over us about masks.
Really the latter is more regulatory power. Almost all actual mask enforcement has been about sanction via business license threat. Actual arrests, which are rare, tend to be on trespass law but the impetus for those is regulatory threat to business license or regulatory civil fine on a business.When you are talking about "public safety" limiting our defense or masks you are referring to the police power of the government.
20-843
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the State's denial of
petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for
self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
edit: I am a little disappointed that this case wasn't a "per curiam", "see Heller".
Huzzah! We see a cert. granted on a 2A case. I can't help but speculate that they might have taken up the NY case due to the underhanded moves NYC made in the last 2A case that petitioned the court. They're human.
So what is the list of cases this has the potential to affect?
Puerta?
Wollard?
...