WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is turning to gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade, even though those who brought the case, New York City gun owners, already have won changes to the regulation they challenged.

The justices’ persistence in hearing arguments Monday despite the city’s action has made gun control advocates fearful that the court’s conservative majority could use the case to call into question gun restrictions across the country.

Gun rights groups are hoping the high court is on the verge of extending its landmark rulings from 2008 and 2010 that enshrined the right to have a gun for self-defense at home…”

https://apnews.com/63f3f7f8f4e3462d81789bbab50d33b6

Much more interesting info in the article. Gun control advocates are whining about the SCOTUS taking the case.

Hope at the end of the tunnel.

Interesting article.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Gun rights groups are hoping the high court is on the verge of extending its landmark rulings from 2008 and 2010 that enshrined the right to have a gun for self-defense at home…”

IMO that's highly unlikely given the attributes of this particular case. We need SCOTUS to be forced into a case wherein they have to finally weigh in on specifically what "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed" means. Unfortunately the current coward we have as chief justice will do everything in his power to prevent that case from coming before the court.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Gun rights groups are hoping the high court is on the verge of extending its landmark rulings from 2008 and 2010 that enshrined the right to have a gun for self-defense at home…”

IMO that's highly unlikely given the attributes of this particular case. We need SCOTUS to be forced into a case wherein they have to finally weigh in on specifically what "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed" means. Unfortunately the current coward we have as chief justice will do everything in his power to prevent that case from coming before the court.

Do I hear RBG's breath rasping?

μολὼν λαβέ

Nothing is a slam dunk with SCOTUS anymore, but we can hope. And if Justice Ginsberg decides the pressure is to much, that's a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Gun rights groups are hoping the high court is on the verge of extending its landmark rulings from 2008 and 2010 that enshrined the right to have a gun for self-defense at home…”

IMO that's highly unlikely given the attributes of this particular case. We need SCOTUS to be forced into a case wherein they have to finally weigh in on specifically what "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed" means. Unfortunately the current coward we have as chief justice will do everything in his power to prevent that case from coming before the court.

Do I hear RBG's breath rasping?

Personally I think its even bigger than Ruthie. Roberts has stated numerous times he does not want the court to be "political" or to "set national policy". Finally weighing in on what "shall not be infringed" means is something I thing Roberts will avoid like the plague. Essentially, he is unwilling (just like in his BarryCare opinion) to do the job he has been entrusted to do. Personally I think Roberts is a huge problem.

I can see waiting a few more months, or even years, when RBG is gone, before lots of gun rights cases are brought up. Roberts weakness will not be much of an issue at this time.

When these are decided, I suspect many of the state's laws will be struck down.

Those of us in the totalitarian states have been waiting for this for a looooong time.

quote:

Roberts has stated numerous times he does not want the court to be "political" or to "set national policy".

You mean like he did with RobertsCare?

quote:

Originally posted by XinTX:

quote:

Roberts has stated numerous times he does not want the court to be "political" or to "set national policy".

You mean like he did with RobertsCare?

In Roberts' mind, his opinion didn't set policy as his vote allowed the existing law, passed through the house and senate to stand. Even though BarryCare was unconstitutional, his side stepping the issues associated with it, and allowing the law to stand, kept the focus for BarryCare on Congress. I lost 'all' respect for Roberts based upon his vote and position (i.e. rampant cowardice) on BarryCare.

From the article its obvious that the gun grabbers don't like it when WE use the courts, but they have no issue with using the liberal judges to further their goals.

I think the SC and LE is in a tough position. Once the 2nd amendment was attenuated, the public and culture evolved. Had the public had access to the full rights under the 2nd this whole time, there would be a more responsible culture RE: guns. We have not had full access. To the contrary, we have had increasingly less access so younger generations are not as savvy nor conditioned to respect the power and potential of firearms. Add to that the rejection of high moral codes and now we have the ingredients for abuse and destruction that we have now.

I say that to speculate this: The SC and LE must allow for full access to 2nd amendment rights if they truly believe in the constitution and bill of rights they swore to protect and defend. But now the public is not trustworthy to have and use fully automatic weapons generally. Some folks are. I think most of us are. But inner city thugs.....? No.

So what is the answer if the solution is to end arbitrary oppression vis-a-vis 2a while preventing a destructive correction?

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I think the SC and LE is in a tough position. Once the 2nd amendment was attenuated, the public and culture evolved. Had the public had access to the full rights under the 2nd this whole time, there would be a more responsible culture RE: guns. We have not had full access. To the contrary, we have had increasingly less access so younger generations are not as savvy nor conditioned to respect the power and potential of firearms. Add to that the rejection of high moral codes and now we have the ingredients for abuse and destruction that we have now.

I say that to speculate this: The SC and LE must allow for full access to 2nd amendment rights if they truly believe in the constitution and bill of rights they swore to protect and defend. But now the public is not trustworthy to have and use fully automatic weapons generally. Some folks are. I think most of us are. But inner city thugs.....? No.

So what is the answer if the solution is to end arbitrary oppression vis-a-vis 2a while preventing a destructive correction?

Your post is extremely difficult to follow.

I think if it is saying what I think it is saying, I think it is too late to matter. There are too many people in this country that want nothing more than to burn it down. They'll cite "racism" on one side as they burn down a CVS, and cite "bootlickers" on the other as they burn down a CVS. What's worse is people will stand in line to defend them. They both have their own pet "HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT" fraud going where the facts do not matter, and what matters to them is the ends justify the means. Anyone who thinks that they are way too far out there is the enemy to them.

Basically, they just want to fuck shit up in this country and social media has given them a real chance to exploit violence in the name of their cause.

It is going to hurt us all in the days ahead, both politically and personally.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

Darthfuster, I guess I’d disagree that support for the 2A has decreased, at least compared with 20 years or so ago (but not 75 years ago). Concealed carry laws are much more widespread than 20 years or so ago; the AWB had a sunset clause, and the Dems have (until recently) been smart enough not to push to bring it back at a national level. While participation in hunting has decreased, I believe gun ownership is at least as widespread as in the past. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I think the SC and LE is in a tough position. Once the 2nd amendment was attenuated, the public and culture evolved. Had the public had access to the full rights under the 2nd this whole time, there would be a more responsible culture RE: guns. We have not had full access. To the contrary, we have had increasingly less access so younger generations are not as savvy nor conditioned to respect the power and potential of firearms. Add to that the rejection of high moral codes and now we have the ingredients for abuse and destruction that we have now.

I say that to speculate this: The SC and LE must allow for full access to 2nd amendment rights if they truly believe in the constitution and bill of rights they swore to protect and defend. But now the public is not trustworthy to have and use fully automatic weapons generally. Some folks are. I think most of us are. But inner city thugs.....? No.

So what is the answer if the solution is to end arbitrary oppression vis-a-vis 2a while preventing a destructive correction?

Your post is extremely difficult to follow.

I think if it is saying what I think it is saying, I think it is too late to matter. There are too many people in this country that want nothing more than to burn it down. They'll cite "racism" on one side as they burn down a CVS, and cite "bootlickers" on the other as they burn down a CVS. What's worse is people will stand in line to defend them. They both have their own pet "HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT" fraud going where the facts do not matter, and what matters to them is the ends justify the means. Anyone who thinks that they are way too far out there is the enemy to them.

Basically, they just want to fuck shit up in this country and social media has given them a real chance to exploit violence in the name of their cause.

It is going to hurt us all in the days ahead, both politically and personally.

Yeah sorry, I was being distracted and trying to toggle my attention between my post and Mrs DF's very important point about spinning yarn.

What I am trying to say is that since the 1934 NFA society has evolved away from personal responsibility and morality. Now I wonder if law enforcement and the SC would be willing to allow the public to have NFA items now banned even if they believed all gun control to be unconstitutional. Has the damage been irreversibly done?

The legal precedents for limiting the Bill of Rights have long been set in stone. As I have stated many times before most people have sat idly by over the years as the Supreme Court (and lower courts, State and Federal) have chipped away at the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th Amendments in the name of “getting tough on crime” or terrorism. Now the 1st Amendment is under attack to protect us from “hate speech”.

So when you ask the rhetorical question of why the courts don’t understand “shall not be infringed”, the answer lies in the restrictions to the other Amendments. If you have EVER made the statement that some criminal “got off on a technicality” well, you are part of the problem, that “technically” is the Bill of Rights, and your voice was heard, as the courts “closed that loophole” (read, limited the Bill of Rights).

It is not an attack against the 2nd Amendment, it is an attack against the Bill of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

quote:

So when you ask the rhetorical question of why the courts don’t understand “shall not be infringed”,

Just to be clear, I've never claimed the courts don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means. What I've claimed and hold to is that judges refuse to accept the meaning and as such, substitute their personal opinions for the true meaning in support of an agenda. And yes, I would wholeheartedly agree with you that those same judges are doing the same thing with all the other amendments as well.


Someone (I think maybe darthfuster?) mentioned that SCOTUS won't want to visit what "shall not be infringed" means because recognizing that phrase for meaning what it actually means would force the return of rights to all of us that have been infringed upon throughout the years, potentially resulting in abuse and some bad outcomes by those who would abuse those rights. I would contend that is not the purpose of the court, and that its shameful and beyond arrogant that the court thinks that's part of their responsibilities. They are to weigh in on what is and is not constitutional without regard to what some members of the population might or might not do with those newly unfettered rights. They're SCOTUS justices for Christ's sake, not societal baby sitters.

Update and looking like it may not proceed being considered moot. Part of the article pasted below.

https://www.vox.com/2019/12/2/...new-york-state-rifle

"The fight to expand gun rights may have hit a snag in the Supreme Court
Second Amendment activists are likely to get bad news from the Supreme Court, but it won’t last long.

By Ian Millhiser Dec 2, 2019, 1:10pm EST]

A highly anticipated Second Amendment case that threatened to upend a decade of precedents appears likely to go up in smoke if today’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court are anything to go by. All four members of the Court’s liberal minority appeared to believe that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, and Chief Justice John Roberts asked a few questions suggesting that he is sympathetic to this view.

That won’t prevent the Supreme Court from eventually revisiting the Second Amendment, but it might have to wait for a different case to do so.

The case the Court heard, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, involves a very narrow challenge to a New York City gun licensure rule that was later repealed. The city offers two kinds of licenses to gun owners. A “carry” license permits them to carry a handgun for “target practice, hunting, or self-defense,” while a “premises” license only permits gun owners to “have and possess in his dwelling” a handgun. Under a now-repealed rule, premise license holders were only allowed to bring the gun out of their home for limited purposes, including to practice shooting at seven specific gun ranges.

The plaintiffs in New York State Rifle had asked for very limited relief. They asked that gun owners who hold “premises” licenses — which allow gun owners to keep a gun in their home and also to practice shooting at seven specific gun ranges — also be allowed to bring the gun to different ranges. One plaintiff also asked to be able to transport the same gun between two homes.

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court announced last January that it would hear the case — the first major Second Amendment case to reach the Court since Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation gave the Court a solid conservative majority — New York officials tried to make it go away.

New York City changed its rules to allow people with premises licenses to do exactly what these plaintiffs wanted to do, and New York State passed its own law preventing the city from ever restoring the old legal regime.

In legal parlance, that means the case is moot. Federal courts may only decide live controversies between competing parties. And there is no live controversy here because, in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s words, New York “has thrown in the towel.”

But the plaintiffs disagreed, and the bulk of Monday’s hour of oral arguments in New York State Rifle focused on whether the case is in fact moot. During the arguments, only Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appeared ready to argue that a live controversy still exists. Significantly, Roberts asked a few questions where he seemed to seek reassurance that New York won’t impose any consequences on these plaintiffs — a concession that New York was happy to make.

Thus, while nothing is certain until the Court hands down its opinion, it appears there may be five votes to make this particular case go away"......