quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

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 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.

That was my point exactly. If the SC justices truly honored their calling to preserve liberty for all, they would return liberty stolen by politicians over the generations. However, I don't think those on the SC want to be limited to their proper role. There is no power in 'Yes'. There is only power in 'No'. They have accepted the scatacephallic notion that rights can be limited. Once limited, rights are permissions. Permission can be denied. That is where we have been for generations.

Also, I agree with SFL's post above. It's not just the 2nd they assail. They use attenuation of other rights to justify the further destruction of the BoR as a whole. The BoR was a firewall. It has been decayed and undermined by sophistry and ignorance for 200 years.

quote:

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.

And there you have it. Chief Justice Roberts exhibiting once again he wants nothing to do with 2A cases, and is not an ally of anyone looking for the SCOTUS to reaffirm and protect the BOR's. We need RBG to be replaced by someone who has respect for the Constitution before another 2A case comes before the court. Roberts' vote needs to be rendered all but irrelevant.

quote:

Roberts' vote needs to be rendered all but irrelevant.

Yep, been saying this for the last couple years. Roberts has been a huge disappointment. Replacing RBG would mean a true 5-4 split, possibly 6-3 on some things, but one never knows with Roberts.

If anything I think it's a shame that a state can use the full force of it's legal representation and treasury, to pursue a case up to the Supreme Court, and then collude with the state legislators to make a small enough change, which would then allow them to plead the case "moot".

SCOTUS (and the state voters) should be rebuking the state on this alone.

quote:

Part of it concerns the advertising Remington used to sell AR's. The claim is that it provoked the asshole Lanza to kill his mother, steal the weapon, and commit mayhem in the elementary school.

Anyone initiating a case that uses this logic to support litigation against a company needs to be hit in the head with a rock. Why not go after all the automakers that have “professional drivers on closed course” commercials?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:...And there you have it. Chief Justice Roberts exhibiting once again he wants nothing to do with 2A cases...

This is not a defense of Roberts and I have not read the lower court's holding in this case. That said there is a saying in law "bad facts make bad law". It may not be a case of wanting nothing to do with the 2A, but possibly looking for that "perfect" case to end this issue once and for all.

Good example is United States v. Cruikshank, which in some respects is still a zombie case (Heller pretty much killed it, but it aint dead).

If you really believe that "shall not be infringed" is written in stone then start marching for felons to get their civil rights back, including firearms. Because there is no caveat in the 2nd regarding felony convictions, and by allowing states to take away that right, you open the floodgates to other "restrictions", and Cruikshank rises again from the dead.

This always struck me as an odd case for the court to take up. They have been so reluctant to wade back into the @nd Amendment, so I was surprised that this is the case they choose to take it up again.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a better than 5-4 decision punting on the case as moot.

I would much rather have them take up the Illinois reciprocity case or one of the "good cause"/may issue permit cases. I think those cases will give us a much stronger statement on the 2nd Amendment than this travel restriction case from NY.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:...And there you have it. Chief Justice Roberts exhibiting once again he wants nothing to do with 2A cases...

This is not a defense of Roberts and I have not read the lower court's holding in this case. That said there is a saying in law "bad facts make bad law". It may not be a case of wanting nothing to do with the 2A, but possibly looking for that "perfect" case to end this issue once and for all.

Good example is United States v. Cruikshank, which in some respects is still a zombie case (Heller pretty much killed it, but it aint dead).

If you really believe that "shall not be infringed" is written in stone then start marching for felons to get their civil rights back, including firearms. Because there is no caveat in the 2nd regarding felony convictions, and by allowing states to take away that right, you open the floodgates to other "restrictions", and Cruikshank rises again from the dead.

If someone pays their debt to society then why should their rights be taken forever? Should people like Martha Stewart, General Flynn, Joe Bob - white collar felons, not have their 2nd amendment rights restored? A hardened criminal is just going to get a gun illegally anyway when they get out of prison.

While perhaps inconvenient, either the BoR are written in fucking stone or they aren’t. Tough crap if a non violent felon gets to vote and buy/carry a gun if they’ve paid up. I’m not for having lawyers and politicians decide the issue for us. Wasn’t that the point to begin with?

So yeah, people either need to march or accept reasonable restrictions- until they are inconvenient to you I guess.

*** I know General Flynn hasn’t been convicted and likely won’t. I was using him as an example.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:...And there you have it. Chief Justice Roberts exhibiting once again he wants nothing to do with 2A cases...

This is not a defense of Roberts and I have not read the lower court's holding in this case. That said there is a saying in law "bad facts make bad law". It may not be a case of wanting nothing to do with the 2A, but possibly looking for that "perfect" case to end this issue once and for all.

Good example is United States v. Cruikshank, which in some respects is still a zombie case (Heller pretty much killed it, but it aint dead).

If you really believe that "shall not be infringed" is written in stone then start marching for felons to get their civil rights back, including firearms. Because there is no caveat in the 2nd regarding felony convictions, and by allowing states to take away that right, you open the floodgates to other "restrictions", and Cruikshank rises again from the dead.

I'd be one board with restoring a felon’s gun rights. I’m thinking that they’re going to armed anyway through illegal means, so why should we have restrictions that only serve to restrict the law abiding? Also, since the left is pushing to restore felon’s voting rights, it makes sense for felons who qualify to vote should also qualify to be armed. You can not argue that they are responsible enough for one but not both of those rights.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
This always struck me as an odd case for the court to take up. They have been so reluctant to wade back into the @nd Amendment, so I was surprised that this is the case they choose to take it up again.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a better than 5-4 decision punting on the case as moot.

I would much rather have them take up the Illinois reciprocity case or one of the "good cause"/may issue permit cases. I think those cases will give us a much stronger statement on the 2nd Amendment than this travel restriction case from NY.

I am not a lawyer but have read about the possibility that they could rule that "strict scrutiny" needs to be used in Second Amendment cases which would have further reaching ramifications that just to NYC.

IMO a lesser Second Amendment case like this might be a good idea to see where the Justices are on the Second Amendment. Justice Roberts has been pro Second Amendment in the past but many are concerned it that is still the case or has he drifted left on that. Justices Alito and Thomas are very solid pro Second Amendment but what about the two new Justices? Justice Gorsuch questioning seems to indicate that he still has concerns about infringing Second Amendment Rights even after NYC supposedly "fixed" their draconian law. Justice Kavanaugh was silent and why was that?

IMO there is a risk taking on bigger Second Amendment infringement issues like "may issue" as in what if that has unfavorable ruling? If SCOTUS rules that "may issue" is fine or their is no right to carry firearm outside the home that could set off a wave of blue states rescinding or greatly restricting their CCW laws or even a federal ban at some point.

Word is if they do moot the case that should happen very quickly so we may know within the next few days. There is another Second Amendment case that SCOTUS has put on hold, Rogers v. Grewal (see link below), about deciding to take up and many believe they are waiting to see the outcome of the NYC case so if NYC case is voted to be moot we may see SCOTUS take the other case up shortly.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/...ision/#axzz66yeACJLM

Transcript of arguments -

http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...2019/18-280_m64o.pdf