Alito, Breyer, Gorsuch, Kagan, Roberts, and Sotomayor for the win.
Please submit a sample for toxicology testing.
Alito, Breyer, Gorsuch, Kagan, Roberts, and Sotomayor for the win.
They have already said the oral arguments would be live. There is a link to the live audio on the supremecourt.gov main page in the quick links section. They also seem to be archiving the recordings the same day so you can hear it relatively soon afterward if you miss the live recording.
This is a link for the audio, from John Josselyn's email:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
.
All i want to say is Thank You! There is at least one person in this thread that understands how to use the Gorram Multi-Quote function!
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Alito, Breyer, Gorsuch, Kagan, Roberts, and Sotomayor for the win.
Please submit a sample for toxicology testing.
Simple - pointing out how this decision could go wrong and be decided against the 2A.What are you talking about?
Simple - pointing out how this decision could go wrong and be decided against the 2A.
The best outcome for gun rights, is for the state to win. This case will be decided on the specific question of a denied application, for a LICENSE, to carry CONCEALED FIREARMS for self defense.
But if you think otherwise, please explain how needing to pay a fee for a license (contract), which binds one to all future regulations passed by the legislature, ie, carry insurance, safe requirements, mental stability testing and so on, just to name a few, is somehow a win for gun rights.
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
The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.
This is a link for the audio, from John Josselyn's email:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
You should go back and check the accuracy of what you just posted.
Watch for the supreme court to not delve into the technicalities of concealed carry.
They will explore the "bear" portion of the 2A and the state's oversight of the fundamental right.
Young is the mirror case of this one for open carry. Young will get GVR'd after a positive opinion, to account for both open and concealed carry.
(except its actually 10am lol)
We have 3 new conservatives on the court since Heller, so it hard to say if they will follow what Scalia INDICATED in Heller on a majority of 19th-century courts and their conclusion that concealed carry can be prohibited. The jurisprudence in this time period should be followed more so than any other, and no doubt why Scalia mentions that fact. This case should go the way of Peruta.
Watch for the supreme court to not delve into the technicalities of concealed carry.
They will explore the "bear" portion of the 2A and the state's oversight of the fundamental right.
Young is the mirror case of this one for open carry. Young will get GVR'd after a positive opinion, to account for both open and concealed carry.
This op-ed by a former clerk suggests they might stick to the revised question.
https://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-did-supreme-court-100058728.html
I don't believe Young is just open carry. It was about carry. The 9CA opinion focused on open carry because the precedent in Peruta foreclosed concealed carry and that was the only option left.
Aaron Tang is a law professor at UC Davis and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The best outcome for gun rights, is for the state to win. This case will be decided on the specific question of a denied application, for a LICENSE, to carry CONCEALED FIREARMS for self defense.
But if you think otherwise, please explain how needing to pay a fee for a license (contract), which binds one to all future regulations passed by the legislature, ie, carry insurance, safe requirements, mental stability testing and so on, just to name a few, is somehow a win for gun rights.
Smoking pot and owning guns is still a federal crime.
Good thing you dont own any guns.
How does who a clerk clerked for impact the observation that the SCOTUS rarely changes the question? How does that change the observation that it tends to stick to the question when they change the question presented?