|Now in Florida|
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.
|Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie|
Sounds like it could be a monumental one.
Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country
Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else.
|hello darkness |
my old friend
I have zero faith the current justices will make a decision that isn't woke. I hope i'm wrong...
I hope its 6-3 in favor of freedom.
|The Ice Cream Man|
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.
The Supreme Court is as political and divisive as the rest of the country.
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.
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.
|On the wrong side of |
the Mobius strip
That pesky 10th amendment seems to get forgotten quite often.
I have zero, absolutely zero faith in the Supreme Court to do the right thing.
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.
|Grandiosity is a sign |
of mental illness
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
Always an optimist, I am hoping it goes our way. For those of us behind enemy lines, it would be exceedingly helpful.
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.
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.
|Shit don't |
You guys have zero faith in Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett...interesting.
|I Deal In Lead|
I have faith this will go the right way, either 5-4 or 6-3.
|Irksome Whirling Dervish|
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.
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
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
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 ... 12|