quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
You are wrong because you think the Supremes care about external, national politics. They don't much care about that, if at all.

The only way to explain much of Robert's behavior as a rational and moral human being over the course of his career as Chief Justice is to assume he's been desperately trying to keep the composition and role of the Supreme Court as unaffected by national politics and internal differences over national politics as he possibly can. That is, of course, assuming he's a rational and moral human being.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I would agree that the Justices spend far more of their time and legal brain power deciding how to narrow their role in cases to the maximum extent possible.

Its why the Court rewrote the dispute in NYSRP, to make any decision arguably only affecting the two plaintiffs.

Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to do that? Actual cases and controversies and all that, you know, where law isn't based on guesswork, where as much as possible gets worked out through the lower courts and where the other two branches remain as unimpeded as possible when it comes to forming legislation?

Last I knew only Nassau had a split system. I know people in Suffolk and their license was signed off by a judge.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
In every county outside of the five that make up NYC, it's a county or state superior court judge that issues pistol licenses.

In Nassau and Suffolk, it's the county Police and Sheriff depending on location, so a down state thing.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
In every county outside of the five that make up NYC, it's a county or state superior court judge that issues pistol licenses.

In Nassau and Suffolk, it's the county Police and Sheriff depending on location, so a down state thing.

But those are still 'May Issue' situations not 'Shall issue' situations, correct? If so, this is still a huge infringement of constitutional rights.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
I listened to it while reloading and I felt the NY AG and DAG were dishonest when speaking about laws from other jurisdictions in regards to history etc…he mentioned Texas and how since the 1860s concealed/open handguns have been forbidden. Which is just not true. You can get a LTC/CCW and since this year you can open carry….I saw him being sneaky.

I hope the justices are aware or look up what the rules are today and see that the rest of us are doing fine with our CCW/LTC and “wanting what they have” is allowed.

The only part of the arguments that really rubbed me the wrong way was this idea of historical "precedence" brought up by both the (liberal) Justices and the 2 opponents. As if somehow past infringements of a right somehow justify present ones? This country has historically suppressed the rights of marginalized groups (Blacks, women, gays, etc), so am I to assume the Justices would be ok with reinstituting voting or other restrictions on these groups because "history"? I highly doubt it.

All pistol licensing in NYS is may issue. You can be turned down for any issue brought to the attention of the issuing agent. In reality you will only get denied for something like a felony or a domestic violence issue. I know people who got in serious trouble as late teens or early adults and they have pistol licenses.

The issue here is protection outside the home, and off one's property. In that case you are playing roulette depending on what county you live in, and sometimes between judges in the same county.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
In every county outside of the five that make up NYC, it's a county or state superior court judge that issues pistol licenses.

In Nassau and Suffolk, it's the county Police and Sheriff depending on location, so a down state thing.

But those are still 'May Issue' situations not 'Shall issue' situations, correct? If so, this is still a huge infringement of constitutional rights.

My permit is a NY "carry" permit, but with county level administrative restriction. I can only carry to and from a range, or while in the field hunting. If I do otherwise (and get caught) I'm not breaking the law, so I won't get arrested, but I am violating the restrictions on my permit and *can lose my license.

*(can as in, first time offense, a 6-12 month suspension, assuming there are no other aggravating factors. After that I think you're done for good.)


My county lost a legal battle over it years ago and the end result was they changed the wording and what they called it, played a semantics game , but did not change the restrictions themselves. That's kind of where I see this going even if it's favorable for us. They'll change some things around, continue to ignore the constitution/courts, and go on like they always have.

The justices are aware of national and external politics and the effects their decisions have on them. To say it a different way, they do know what their decisions do to national and external politics, and they intend those consequences.

But the influence doesn't run the other way very much. External forces do not motivate the justices very much because those forces have little to no power over them.

So, if a lefty votes against the second amendment, that justice knows what that means for the U.S. And he intends that to happen.

But a justice does not vote against the second amendment because some outside power block has the power to influence him to do so. That justice had long ago formed that view of the world, and came to an anti-2d amendment view years ago.

The influence runs out of the Court, but not much into the Court. When they get those jobs their views are set.

Some turn out to have been hiding their real opinions, like Stevens. He was a closet lefty all along, and when he got to the court he was finally in the position to do what he wanted because he knew no one could stop him. He wasn't "turned" to the left by some outside power after he got there. It is intellectually dishonest, but I don't think he was changed.

Interesting that the most grief coming from the Liberal Justices.

^^^ from the transcript recording above ^^^

Interesting there seems to be a lot of "there will be blood in the streets" speculation by some Justices.
A lot of "where should it be restricted?" as well.
I would have expected more of a focus on the Constitution and the blatantly denial of a permit based on an interpretation of a need.
Fascinating nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
^^^ from the transcript recording above ^^^

Interesting there seems to be a lot of "there will be blood in the streets" speculation by some Justices.
A lot of "where should it be restricted?" as well.
I would have expected more of a focus on the Constitution and the blatantly denial of a permit based on an interpretation of a need.
Fascinating nonetheless.

What would be far more interesting would be putting the following single polling question to all of the justices and making them answer it 'truthfully'.

Question: Do you have any interest whatever in what the Constitutional intent of the 2A is as per the founders intentions?

Yes
No

If answered truthfully, I believe the outcome of that poll would be telling. I truly believe you'd get at least 4 'No' votes (Sotomayor, Kagan voting as Sotomayor did, Breyer, and Roberts) and perhaps one or even two more that would come as a surprise to many.

I don’t think anyone would have to “make them answer it truthfully.”

The progressives have always been very open about seeing the Constitution as a “living document” and said stuff like “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Every Supreme Court nomination and many lower court nominations become an open conflict between the strict constructionists (the law is the law as written) and the judicial activists (the law is what we think it ought to be and we’ll figure out how to interpret it that way).

It isn’t exactly a hidden agenda.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maladat,

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
Last I knew only Nassau had a split system. I know people in Suffolk and their license was signed off by a judge.

Missed this... I'm in Suffolk. Western townships are issued by Suffolk County Police, eastern by Suffolk County Sheriff.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Always an optimist, I am hoping it goes our way. For those of us behind enemy lines, it would be exceedingly helpful.

I’m an optimist too, and, by God, I have faith in the Justices nominated by president Trump.

If the decision does go our way the CA libs will be bouncing off the walls.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
If the decision does go our way the CA libs will be bouncing off the walls.

Gee, that would be a shame. NOT!

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
If the decision does go our way the CA libs will be bouncing off the walls.

Don't kid yourself. If SCOTUS rules appropriately in this case, New York, California, Illinois, and a number of other socialist states will have a group of new bills ready to go to restrict the hell out of this right by going at it from another direction. No way they simply accept the high court's ruling.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
If the decision does go our way the CA libs will be bouncing off the walls.

Don't kid yourself. If SCOTUS rules appropriately in this case, New York, California, Illinois, and a number of other socialist states will have a group of new bills ready to go to restrict the hell out of this right by going at it from another direction. No way they simply accept the high court's ruling.

Actually Illinois has had shall issue for many years now. This even includes Chicago. In 2020 there were6.6 million guns sold in Illinois!

quote:

Originally posted by p08:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
If the decision does go our way the CA libs will be bouncing off the walls.

Don't kid yourself. If SCOTUS rules appropriately in this case, New York, California, Illinois, and a number of other socialist states will have a group of new bills ready to go to restrict the hell out of this right by going at it from another direction. No way they simply accept the high court's ruling.

Actually Illinois has had shall issue for many years now. This even includes Chicago. In 2020 there were6.6 million guns sold in Illinois!

Only about 7 or 8 years now. And that was in response to a court decision in D.C. that required them to make less restrictive their pistol permit requirements.(They didn't allow permits outside of the home.) So it's not like Illinois suddenly got a conscience. They were afraid if it went to SCOTUS that they and other lefty states would be required to be "shall issue" states.

quote:

They were afraid if it went to SCOTUS that they and other lefty states would be required to be " shall issue " states.

The way it should be.
No reason whatsoever that it should anything but that in step with the 2nd Amendment.

In Westchester county residents deal with the county PD for 100% of the licensing and amendment process. The licenses themselves are still signed off by judges. In most of NY state the licensee deals with the county clerk for pistol licensing issues. Since all applications for pistol licenses in NYS go through a police department, and then through the NYSP, I don't know why downstate counties insist on using credentialed LEO's and their police budgets to perform what is a purely an administrative issue under NYS law. It's a complete waste of time and money.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
Last I knew only Nassau had a split system. I know people in Suffolk and their license was signed off by a judge.

Missed this... I'm in Suffolk. Western townships are issued by Suffolk County Police, eastern by Suffolk County Sheriff.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

They were afraid if it went to SCOTUS that they and other lefty states would be required to be " shall issue " states.

The way it should be.
No reason whatsoever that it should anything but that in step with the 2nd Amendment.

False.
The way it SHOULD be is that the government stays the hell out of our way and we can carry guns (concealed or otherwise) without it’s consent.
“The rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms”.
keep = possess
bear = carry