NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[Texasgrillchef]

So what happens if say Robert's writes intermediate scrutiny is ok, while others say it has to be strict? Or some other part of this case that can be vaguely interpreted like they try to argue against Heller?

We don’t need his vote for a majority. He can sign on or not with the other 5. Who happen to be confessed gun owners.

what will probably happen is we get a majority 5, with Roberts concurring in part, and dissenting in part.

 

[Dave]

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[DC-W]

Read the dissents in Heller. Also go listen to oral argument. So many of the new restrictions we’ve had since were directly inspired by those in the minority. In many ways, the dissents have been more influential on the lower courts than the majority opinion. This Court is likely fully aware of this reality.

 

[ddestruel]

I like this guys shot in the dark analysis

NYSRPA v. Bruen: An Analysis

What to expect from SCOTUS in June

slagfa.substack.com

 

[delaware_export]

I ain’t no lawyer or expert, but that sounds like what I’ve got from some reading here and other places. thanks For the link. (Hope it’s not just reenforcing my confirmation bias)

I like this guys shot in the dark analysis

NYSRPA v. Bruen: An Analysis

What to expect from SCOTUS in June

slagfa.substack.com

 

[JPG]

I like this guys shot in the dark analysis

NYSRPA v. Bruen: An Analysis

What to expect from SCOTUS in June

slagfa.substack.com

I like his thought process and how he gets to this.....


I would suggest that the Court issue an opinion that holds:

So long as a citizen is able to pass a background check (the same as if they were purchasing a firearm), then all federal, state, and local firearm restrictions that the government imposes on the citizen, but imposes no such restriction on itself are immediately unconstitutional. This is an elegant way to accomplish five things at once:

1. Stop the abuse of the citizen by their government
2. Provide a needed and immediate restoration of rights to the citizen while achieving the public safety interest of keeping weapons out of the wrong hands
3. Exert power over the federal and state governments as a consequence for defiance of the Court’s orders, because this opinion would empower the citizen to exercise their Second Amendment freedom (that the government currently enjoys) and provide a shield against malicious prosecution by the government
4. Provide crystal clear direction to lower courts, and free up needed docket space across the entire court system because the challenges to gun control laws across all nine circuits would be instantaneously moot
5. This is a safe and reasonable way to resolve this issue because this opinion only touches conduct that is legal for the government, but is considered criminal conduct for the citizen.

 

[hodgepodge]

From SLAG's keyboard to God's ears. Or at least SCOTUS' opinion.

 

[eruby]

Single or double patty, with or without cheese?

Patty Melt

Patty Melt

PATTY = singular

MELT = cheese.

 

[Decoy]

I ain’t no lawyer or expert, but that sounds like what I’ve got from some reading here and other places. thanks For the link. (Hope it’s not just reenforcing my confirmation bias)

I'm sorry but if Roberts writes the opinion we are boned. He will write the most narrow opinion he can get away with while staying in the majority.

 

[DC-W]

It’s not impossible that he’s the author, but he had already written for November.

I’m still thinking it’s Barrett.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

It’s not impossible that he’s the author, but he had already written for November.

I’m still thinking it’s Barrett.

If the 6 conservative Justices are all in the Majority, then Roberts gets to write the opinion himself, or choose who gets to write it. This would be the only way Barrett would get to write the opinion. Even then Roberts kind of owes Thomas this one to write.

If Roberts isn’t part of the majority, then it goes to Thomas who is the most senior of Justices To either write it or choose who gets to write the opinion. Thomas has been itching to write a 2A opinion for. A decade now. Just look at the number of dissents he has written on denials of Certs for 2A cases in the last 10 years.

I also think Barrett would out of respect let Thomas write this one as well. Barrett is still a ”rookie” as. Supreme Court Justice and I highly doubt Roberts or Thomas would want her to write such an important or major case such as this one.

Look at the fact that Alito got to write Dobbs, considering that Roberts wanted to find. Way to keep Roe, yet uphold Mississippi‘s law. Which means Roberts isn’t in the majority, thus giving the decision to who writes the opinion to Thomas.

Keep in mind, that Roberts doesn’t have to be in the Majority anymore for us to have a Majority in our favor. If the other 5 have a different Majority opinion, it will overrule to some degree Roberts opinion.

This is where and why we get dissents, as well as concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I fully believe, Roberts is writing an opinion for which he will concur in part and dissent in part to Thomas’s Opinion.

The only way Roberts could gain control and write the Opinion himself, is if his opinion was in the Majority of at least 4 others. Which I would highly doubt. I say this even though Roberts during oral arguments even questioned the constitutionality of even requiring a permit in the first place to exercise one’s constitutional right to ”bearing” a firearm.

We of course will get a dissenting Opinion from Breyer, Sotomayor, and/or Kagan.

I will admit it is possible for Barrett to be writing the opinion. But I would very highly doubt that she will.

 

[delaware_export]

I just don’t know, but the opinion piece notes how he can‘t just write it, it also must get votes of the justices that agree. he could be in the same boat as Scalia was trying to get agreement, but having to go more strongly worded, lest Thomas‘ opinion be the one 5 agree on.

Or… who knows. This speculation will be done in under 4 weeks! What will we speculate about .

I'm sorry but if Roberts writes the opinion we are boned. He will write the most narrow opinion he can get away with while staying in the majority.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I'm sorry but if Roberts writes the opinion we are boned. He will write the most narrow opinion he can get away with while staying in the majority.

If he does, and I highly doubt he will, I would agree we will be hurting. But I doubt he will.

yet… keep in mind, during oral arguments he even questioned why we require a permit to exercise a constitutional right in the first place, when we don’t require a permit to exercise any other constitutional right.

Because of that, that is why I believe he will be writing an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part to the Majority opinion.

It will be Thomas or Barrett to write the opinion, and for many many reasons. I do as well as many others believe as well that it will be Thomas. Especially since Dobbs has ended up being written by Alito.

 

[DC-W]

I just don’t got the Chief letting Thomas write this. I posited on this much further up thread.

Barrett is no dummy.

 

[lkessler]

Maybe tomorrow!

 

[hodgepodge]

Maybe tomorrow!

Two weeks.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

NYSRPA v. Bruen: An Analysis

What to expect from SCOTUS in June

slagfa.substack.com

I stated almost everything he wrote several weeks before I read that article for the first time today. Amazing article.

however, obviously it was written a month or so ago, before additional new things have come to light.

1. additional mass shootings.
2. the additional 2 cases on hold, making 4 cases on hold pending this case.
3. Who has not authored an opinion for November, leaving Barrett and Thomas as the only two.

So I will add comment to his article.

1. The additional Mass shootings, this late in the game of writing opinions and dissents will not have any impact on the majority opinion. It may in the dissents written, but not in the Majority.

2. The Four cases on Hold.

A. Young V Hawaii. A similar case as this one, except covering the issuance of a permit for Open carry. The Bruen case May cover the issue of open carry as well as conceal carry, and thus the young case will will simply get a Per Curiam result with Granted, reversed, remand see Bruen case. With no opinion issued except for maybe a dissenting opinion by the Liberal justices.

B. ANJRPC, and Duncan, both Magazine Capacity ban cases out of two different circuit courts. One gains New a Jersey the other against California. One of these maybe granted cert for oral arguments. Yet I highly doubt that for several reasons. Both cases are hold, one for several months. It would not be logical to grant one for a hearing and deny the other, or even grant both for oral arguments. Thus for those reasons, I believe they will be PC. Grant, reverse, remand, but one or both will be issued with an opinion, along with dissents from the liberal justices.

C. Bianchi v Frosh, an Assault weapons ban case that also includes a magazine capacity ban but not at its core issue. This one was the last case to be put on Hold. This one could very well be granted for oral arguments. But again I highly doubt that it will, I also doubt it will be denied. For many of the same reasons as was stated in the other gentleman’s article, this case will also be PC with a Grant, reverse, remand, and a opinion given along with dissents by the liberal justices.


While there are many doubters and pessimists reading this forum and thread. And I while I am not an Optimist, I am being optimistic. However I am doing so based on a lot of educated and logical evidence of what SCOTUS has done in the past, how our legal system operates, and what the justices themselves have issued as opinions. As well as what all those on the Anti-2A are freaking out about as well.

Like I have said many times before. we pretty much know what they will say. What will matter is how well it is said and written.

Heller was written poorly, but blame that on Kennedy, and partly on Scalia himself.

Thomas writes well, much better then Scalia ever has. But that’s a matter of opinion!

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Maybe tomorrow!

Two weeks.

Not tomorrow… but before the 23rd. Keep in mind that they have 4 cases on hold waiting on this case.

Unless they deny those four cases, which I doubt they will. It would be illogical of them to issues PC’s on those 4 cases prior to issuing the opinion in this case. Thus they have to issue the opinion on this case first. PC’s are issued during orders. Orders are issued after a conference. The last Conference is on the 23rd. Thus will probably issue the opinion before the 23rd and the PC’s for those 4 cases after the 23rd conference.

 

[axshon]

Thomas writes well, much better then Scalia ever has. But that’s a matter of opinion!

IMHO, the guy is a hero. Out of everyone on the court, he is the person whose hand I'd most like to shake. I trust him. I hope he writes it.

 

[ShafTed]

If, as we all hope, Thomas got the opinion, it was finished a long time ago. (Doesn't take much time to transcribe four words from the original source: shall, not, be, infringed.) We are now waiting on the encyclopedia of dissents, volumes Bryer, Kagan, Sotomayer, and possibly Roberts.

Two weeks, anyone?