Except it is costing the taxpayers time and a half.
NYC Tax Payers. They voted for the politicians that put these laws in place, screw them. They are lucky that the Plaintiffs aren't asking for damages.
Except it is costing the taxpayers time and a half.
NYC Tax Payers. They voted for the politicians that put these laws in place, screw them. They are lucky that the Plaintiffs aren't asking for damages.
Not all the tax payers voted the same way...
NYC Tax Payers. They voted for the politicians that put these laws in place, screw them. They are lucky that the Plaintiffs aren't asking for damages.
I thought they did back in Heller? They ignored tiers of scrutiny in the majority opinion and went with the Historical Context review. It was Breyer in the dissent that created the 2A-two-step the lower courts have been using. But for whatever reason (Kennedy & Roberts) the Court hasn't taken another case defending the Historical Context method.
Damn, you threw water on my fire!!They did not really ignore the tiers of scrutiny, they stated that the law would not meet "any of the standards of scrutiny". The majority did not really explain why the law would not meet intermediate scrutiny however. They adopted a historical approach, which the lower courts found confusing. The lower courts took this ambiguity over intermediate scrutiny to come to the opposite conclusion.
Breyer actually proposed an interest balancing approach, which the majority rejected. While there may not be much difference between what Breyer proposed and what the lower courts are doing, the problem is with the explanation. The lower courts appear to be following SCOTUS's guidance on intermediate scrutiny and none has been able to explain why they are not following SCOTUS's guidance. All of the cases before this one have simply argued that the lower court should have used the historical approach without explaining why the intermediate scrutiny approach is wrong.
While the arguments of this case are not appreciably different from the other cases, the circumstances are different. This is the first time that enough justices can confidently see there is an error that they can correct. Because the arguments are so similar to other cases that they have rejected, I suspect that this will be a very narrow ruling and the lower courts will likely be able to use intermediate scrutiny to sustain most gun control laws.
They did not really ignore the tiers of scrutiny, they stated that the law would not meet "any of the standards of scrutiny". The majority did not really explain why the law would not meet intermediate scrutiny however. They adopted a historical approach, which the lower courts found confusing. The lower courts took this ambiguity over intermediate scrutiny to come to the opposite conclusion.
Breyer actually proposed an interest balancing approach, which the majority rejected. While there may not be much difference between what Breyer proposed and what the lower courts are doing, the problem is with the explanation. The lower courts appear to be following SCOTUS's guidance on intermediate scrutiny and none has been able to explain why they are not following SCOTUS's guidance. All of the cases before this one have simply argued that the lower court should have used the historical approach without explaining why the intermediate scrutiny approach is wrong.
While the arguments of this case are not appreciably different from the other cases, the circumstances are different. This is the first time that enough justices can confidently see there is an error that they can correct. Because the arguments are so similar to other cases that they have rejected, I suspect that this will be a very narrow ruling and the lower courts will likely be able to use intermediate scrutiny to sustain most gun control laws.
In Heller II's dissent, Kavanaugh was unhappy with the majority's use of the 2A two-step instead of Heller I's historical approach, saying he would apply the historical approach. It may be as simple as there is no ambiguity over a fifth vote today vs prior terms.
NYC Tax Payers. They voted for the politicians that put these laws in place, screw them. They are lucky that the Plaintiffs aren't asking for damages.
Not all the tax payers voted the same way...
Justice Scala pointed out the Second Amendment merely acknowledges a preexisting right and provides it is not to be curtailed . . . not really rocket science to put this into its “historical context.” It appears, at least to me, the courts (mostly progressive judges) have been motivated essentially by hostility rather than confusion.
When the Second Amendment is at issue progressive Judges, and Justices will find law, facts, and a rationale to reach their desired result. Logical arguments based on law, and the Constitution are not apt to get in the way. The outcome of Second Amendment litigation (with a few exceptions) can be determined by simply looking at who appointed the decision makers.
As to why the S.C. failed to follow up on Heller sooner, anybody’s guess, but Kennedy may well have been the fly in the ointment.
If “intermittent scrutiny” (actually, as applied rational basis) is to continue to be the rule, then the Court wasted everyone’s (including its own) time granting cert, or so it appears to me. At any rate, more cases are in the pipeline.
Regards
Jack
Honestly I think it is a matter of the scope of the case. This isn't a constitutional carry case or a concealed carry case or cutting at the NFA or GCA. This case is about NYC saying "fine you can own it, but you can't take it anywhere except these few places and only if you get prior permission from the NYPD". In terms of the scope of 2A rights this is bare minimums. I bet even Kennedy would have sided with the 2A on this one, whereas other cases he or Roberts or both appeared to be hesitant to expand the scope of 2A rights nationwide.
Or that you need a may-issue permit to take your family bible to a book binder for repair. No court would allow that to stand.Agree. Very insightful. This is a great “entry level” case.
Scope of the 2A obviously needs clarification. So called assault weapon bans, registration requirements, etc...
What is far more insidious is the idea that a government can use qualitative “may issue” whims of a government official to curtail any right. Imagine having to explain why you need to vote, or speak in the public square. Or even a privilege such as a driver’s or hunter’s license.
“I believe Scalia also pointed out that there is a historical prohibition on concealed carry based on historical cases. Should we accept that the right does not include the right to concealed carry?”
Put into “historical context” open carry was the “manly” thing to do at that time, this stuff is not problematic.
Regards
Jack
Or that you need a may-issue permit to take your family bible to a book binder for repair. No court would allow that to stand.