SCOTUS finally takes gun-rights case
- Thread starter pronstar
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I like this, for many reasons. Mostly, it's a situation where the SC can strike down a gun control law and, in the aftermath, the nattering classes can be shut down with a simple "Why would you object to that law being struck down? It was insane!"
Good spin doctors on the side of the angels can make serious hay with a proper decision on this case.
Good spin doctors on the side of the angels can make serious hay with a proper decision on this case.
The 2 things that came from this, helping everybody is:
1) Define either a level of Scrutiny above Intermediat or establish rules in their use. 2 layers of Federal Courts affirmed this asinine law under Intermediate Scrutiny. Alternately, state clearly that Original Text and Understanding is to be used.
2) That the 2A right is not a Home tied right. Many Circuits took Heller too literally.
1) Define either a level of Scrutiny above Intermediat or establish rules in their use. 2 layers of Federal Courts affirmed this asinine law under Intermediate Scrutiny. Alternately, state clearly that Original Text and Understanding is to be used.
2) That the 2A right is not a Home tied right. Many Circuits took Heller too literally.
Not being heard. Kavanaugh caved to protect Roberts.
The court caved to politicians, who got one thing right. The court is not well.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/art...s-case-as-moot-kavanaugh-urges-new-cert-grant
The court caved to politicians, who got one thing right. The court is not well.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/art...s-case-as-moot-kavanaugh-urges-new-cert-grant
Loss of power.
Big .gov is afraid that if they allow little chips in the wall of gun control to happen eventually the wall falls.
NO WAY will the Swamp allow that to happen.
jordanmills
TGT Addict
Lame.
Disappointing, but not surprising. The court cannot rule a law which does not exist unconstitutional. And the law had been replaced.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas want to hear one of the other 2A cases that have applied to SCOTUS.
The wildcard is Roberts. And he seems to be afraid of controversy ever since the Florida election dispute.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas want to hear one of the other 2A cases that have applied to SCOTUS.
The wildcard is Roberts. And he seems to be afraid of controversy ever since the Florida election dispute.
The case was correctly ruled mooted because the plaintiffs got everything they sought. Sucks but that’s the only place this one was going. If it had gone our way, it would have an asterisk next to it as Miller was. Not noted was the 10 other #2A cases that have been held on the Shadow Docket for months...EVERY LAST ONE has been moved to the Conference on May 1, this Friday. Odds are high that they will take one of them which will have a bigger impact than NYSRPA ever would have given.
Considering three justices dissented, I would mootness wasn’t as clear cut as believed. Several court-watchers also mentioned that Kavanaugh waivered, perhaps so as to not leave Roberts hanging in the wind.
Here are the 10 Cases going to Conference on Friday:
Mance v Barr (18-663) whether the federal government can prohibit interstate handgun sales
Pena v Horan (18-843) (California) whether possession of a gun can be limited to "safe" guns
Rogers v Grewal (18-824) (New Jersey) whether the government can require a "special need" in order to allow carry outside the house
Gould v Lipson (18-1272) (Massachusetts) whether the government can require a "special need" in order to allow carry outside the house
Ciolek v New Jersey (19-114) whether the government can require a "justifiable need" in order to grant a carry permit
Cheeseman v Polillo (19-27) (New Jersey) whether licenses can require a "justifiable need" for possessing a gun
Worman v Healey (19-404) (Massachusetts) whether "assault weapons" and "large capacity feeding devices" can be banned
Malpasso v Pallozzi (19-423) (Maryland) whether licenses can require a "good and substantial reason" for possessing a gun
Culp v. Raoul (19-487) (Illinois) Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
Wilson v. Cook County (19-704) (Illinois) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are in common use at this time.
Mance v Barr (18-663) whether the federal government can prohibit interstate handgun sales
Pena v Horan (18-843) (California) whether possession of a gun can be limited to "safe" guns
Rogers v Grewal (18-824) (New Jersey) whether the government can require a "special need" in order to allow carry outside the house
Gould v Lipson (18-1272) (Massachusetts) whether the government can require a "special need" in order to allow carry outside the house
Ciolek v New Jersey (19-114) whether the government can require a "justifiable need" in order to grant a carry permit
Cheeseman v Polillo (19-27) (New Jersey) whether licenses can require a "justifiable need" for possessing a gun
Worman v Healey (19-404) (Massachusetts) whether "assault weapons" and "large capacity feeding devices" can be banned
Malpasso v Pallozzi (19-423) (Maryland) whether licenses can require a "good and substantial reason" for possessing a gun
Culp v. Raoul (19-487) (Illinois) Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
Wilson v. Cook County (19-704) (Illinois) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are in common use at this time.
Read a good WSJ editorial with some more information. I was probably wrong in my assessment of the "mootness" of the case.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-chief-justice-ducks-on-gun-rights-11588026396?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
They are putting this down to Roberts' fear of political controversy. Which I think is accurate.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-chief-justice-ducks-on-gun-rights-11588026396?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
They are putting this down to Roberts' fear of political controversy. Which I think is accurate.
Respectfully disagree with the WSJ article. Roberts and Kavanaugh are eyeing one of the 10 other cases. NYSRPA was toast when NYC revised their laws. It was also the easiest to pick up for Cert. The hill steepens going forward and NYCs antics will ultimately make it more painful to the Grabbers...
