SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Supreme Court to finally take up a major gun rights case
Page 1 2 3 4 ... 12

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Supreme Court to finally take up a major gun rights case Login/Join 
Now in Florida
Picture of ChicagoSigMan
posted
SCOTUS announced today that it will hear NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett. The case considers the extent to which the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense.



LINK
 
Posts: 5952 | Location: FL | Registered: March 09, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
Sounds like it could be a monumental one.


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else.
~Andrew Klavan
 
Posts: 28242 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
hello darkness
my old friend
Picture of gw3971
posted Hide Post
I have zero faith the current justices will make a decision that isn't woke. I hope i'm wrong...
 
Posts: 7399 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Uppity Helot
posted Hide Post
I hope its 6-3 in favor of freedom.
 
Posts: 2664 | Location: Manheim, PA | Registered: September 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Ice Cream Man
posted Hide Post
If they took it up, my guess is they are going to find a technical ground for the case itself.

Or, they could find for the truth, and a great deal of stress and craziness in politics would go away - nothing else would change, and the right could go back to worrying about profligacy and economic liberty.
 
Posts: 4834 | Location: Republic of Ice Cream, Myrtle Beach, SC | Registered: May 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Internet Guru
posted Hide Post
The Supreme Court is as political and divisive as the rest of the country.
 
Posts: 1602 | Registered: April 06, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
I can see its easily being decided that concealed carry has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, just as the Court once decided that the Second applied only to weapons suitable for military use.

What it should be is a matter of, as a very distant relative of my wife put it, “The right of self defence is the first law of nature.” (St. George Tucker, 1803). Without being able to possess and carry the tools necessary for the effective exercise of the right of self-defense, it’s like saying we have the right of the freedom of the press, but cannot own a printing press or anything similar such as a typewriter or computer printer.

Unfortunately, far too many people, including gun owners, believe that the only rights we have are spelled out in the Constitution. I suspect that had someone suggested that the right of self-defense had to be spelled out in the Bill of Rights, the delegates then would have laughed him out of the room in incredulous disbelief that something so basic had to be stated. Today, however ….

It will be interesting to see how this goes, and it could have more profound effects on our gun rights than anything in recent memory. Even if it goes our way, it may not be as much in our favor as we’d like.




7/93
 
Posts: 45611 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
If it goes our way, it will be like Heller.

A step in the right direction but not making much difference to most of us.

If it goes against us, it could really hurt.

We can only watch and see.
 
Posts: 4190 | Registered: February 15, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
On the wrong side of
the Mobius strip
Picture of Patrick-SP2022
posted Hide Post
quote:
Unfortunately, far too many people, including gun owners, believe that the only rights we have are spelled out in the Constitution.


That pesky 10th amendment seems to get forgotten quite often.
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.




 
Posts: 3803 | Location: Texas | Registered: April 16, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
I have zero, absolutely zero faith in the Supreme Court to do the right thing.

Ever.

They've proved it time and again. Put a conservative on the court and they say all the right things during the hearings. Then when the rubber hit the road, they clam up or vote as a regressive. Its sickening.
 
Posts: 52036 | Location: Tucson Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Grandiosity is a sign
of mental illness
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gw3971:
I have zero faith the current justices will make a decision that isn't woke. I hope i'm wrong...


Same here.
 
Posts: 2411 | Location: MO | Registered: March 07, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
semi-reformed sailor
Picture of MikeinNC
posted Hide Post
So correct me if I’m reading this wrong...
The city has set up some scheme of granting a license to possess a handgun
But you can only take it to a gun range within the city limits
And there is really only one that is open to the public (all the other required memberships)
And there is no way you can legally carry the firearm to your other home outside of the city
And don’t even think of lying about why you have a gun in your car because the cops can look at the books of the only legal ranges w/I the city limits
And if you have a home outside of the city you can just get permit for possessing a gun in that locale...

Anything else I’m missing?



"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” Robert A. Heinlein

“You may beat me, but you will never win.” sigmonkey-2020

“A single round of buckshot to the torso almost always results in an immediate change of behavior.” Chris Baker
 
Posts: 9710 | Location: Temple, Texas! | Registered: October 07, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Always an optimist, I am hoping it goes our way. For those of us behind enemy lines, it would be exceedingly helpful.


-c1steve
 
Posts: 3644 | Location: West coast | Registered: March 31, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick-SP2022:
That pesky 10th amendment seems to get forgotten quite often.


As does the “equal protection of the laws” clause of the 14th. It’s common in “may issue” states for members of the privileged elite to be given permits that are essentially unavailable for everyone else.




7/93
 
Posts: 45611 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I hope a person with more understanding of the way it works can explain this to me.

I don't like the wording of this.

They are limiting the question "justifiable need". Even if this is decided as unconstituional,
This will be another decision that glosses over having to ask permission to exercise a right.

Even from heller all we hear is
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia wrote as he laid out certain exceptions. History demonstrates, Scalia said, "the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

So even a positive outcome reaffirms for "history" that having to ask for a permit is fine.
 
Posts: 872 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: August 16, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shit don't
mean shit
posted Hide Post
You guys have zero faith in Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett...interesting. Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 5386 | Location: 7400 feet in Conifer CO | Registered: November 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Deal In Lead
Picture of Flash-LB
posted Hide Post
I have faith this will go the right way, either 5-4 or 6-3.
 
Posts: 9099 | Location: Gilbert Arizona | Registered: March 21, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
Since this was accepted on a narrow basis, the court will determine that Petitioner's rights were violated under the the NYC law because you can't have a right that you can't exercise when the city throws up so many roadblocks and discretionary decisions that exercising the right is impossible.

While it makes for a great splashy headline to think they are going to say you can carry in public or that a state or municipality can't infringe on that, the court will be conservative on this in a 6-3 decision to say the city is wrong.

In dicta the court will say that all rights are subject to some restriction but that it's up to cities/counties/states to determine what they are so long as the the ultimate result isn't a de facto denial. States that have no permit requirements will be fine, states that have good cause requirements will be fine so long as the results aren't perverted, arbitrary or capricious.

They will let this play out and see how it unfolds. My best assessment is that the court will not make this their last major 2nd A decision by any means.
 
Posts: 3565 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
Would this case be an opportunity to attach strict scrutiny to the right to carry?



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 7633 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
I wonder who the 4 justices were who wanted to take this up? I have read that Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, and maybe Gorsuch have been wanting a Second Amendment case. The last NYC case about transporting handguns that was turned down as moot was mostly because that is what Robert's wanted but now with Amy Coney Barret at SCOTUS he does not have the power he used too as the big swing vote. I am thinking this case will be very positive for the Second Amendment. There was a lot of speculation that Roberts was no longer trusted as an ally on the Second Amendment while ACB appears to be an ally with her testimony during her confirmation hearing and otherwise. I have a very good feeling about this and long overdue.



“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
― Margaret Thatcher
 
Posts: 9444 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 ... 12 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Supreme Court to finally take up a major gun rights case

© SIGforum 2022