Temporary Restaining Order Issued For Concealed Carry Improvement Act (merged thread)

[spat]

I thought it was deemed that one or two, or a few local laws didn’t make it a tradition and would not be applied. It seems Suddaby has gotten that part wrong.

Such laws were not entirely uncommon in the "wild" west.

They were only ever local ordinances though and never withstood a constitutional challenge AFAIK.

Miller was the first real constitutional challenge to a gun control law, and the states appealed to SCOTUS without anyone to defend the appeals ruling since the original defendant was long gone.

SCOTUS should never have granted cert with only one side available for arguments.

 

[John Stark]

Unfortunately there *is* history of local gun control.

The famous gunfight at the OK corral was the local law enforcement (the Earps with Doc Holliday) trying to enforce the gun prohibition enacted by the city of Tombstone against the Clanton's who were violating it.

But, none of that ever survived any sort of appeal, so I'm not sure how binding it would be as "history and tradition".

WTF are you talking about? The Supremes already (and correctly) set the parameters for what "history, text, and tradition" applies to with regards to the Second Amendment, and that is 1791; when it was ratified.

The Constitution means what it meant when it was ratified in 1789, and the Bill of Rights means what it meant when they were ratified in 1781. We can call that Original Intent, or "history, text, and tradition," or "textualism," or whatever other rubric that leads us back to what was said and meant and intended at the time our nation was founded, but that is the standard.

The only things that have any bearing on the reading and interpretation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights after the fact are the other Amendments passed after the fact, along with the proper rules of grammar and syntax of the English language as it was known and understood at the time, and the relevant historical and legal context.

The 14th Amendment and how that applies would be the biggest Amendment with regards to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it accomplished what some wanted during the debate on their ratification: applying the Bill of Rights to the states. As far as I'm concerned, that means the Bill of Rights was applied to the States the day the 14th Amendment was passed by Congress, and that application fell in line with what the Founders said it meant and intended at the time of ratification. I do not hold to the made up Supreme Court doctrine of "incorporation," wherein the Supremes make decisions as to when the provisions of the Bill of Rights become law with regards to the States and their citizens after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Its a made up doctrine that the Court arrogated to itself, and quite frankly only extended the pain and suffering of our nation after the Civil war for needless decades.

Dragging retarded references to the freaking Earps into this is absurd.

There are some points made in the 4 controlling Supreme Court decisions that go back to the Founding era that are apropos with regards to the Second Amendment and various early rulings and laws regarding Arms, but those points merely backup the notion that "history, text, and tradition" means "when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified."

If you want to debate this at length in another thread, I'll be your Huckleberry.

 

[spat]

WTF are you talking about? The Supremes already (and correctly) set the parameters for what "history, text, and tradition" applies with regards to the Second Amendment, and that is 1791; when the they were ratified.

The Constitution means what it meant when it was ratified in 1789, and the Bill of Rights means what it meant when they were ratified in 1781. We can call that Original Intent, or "history, text, and tradition," or "textualism, or whatever other rubric that leads us back to what was said and meant and intended at the time our nation was founded, but that is the standard.

The only things that have any bearing on the reading and interpretation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights after the fact are the other Amendments, along the proper rules of grammar and syntax of the English language as it was known and understood at the time.

The 14th Amendment and how that applies would be the biggest Amendment with regards to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it accomplished what some wanted during the debate on their ratification: applying the Bill of Rights to the states. As far as I'm concerned, that means the Bill of Rights was applied to the States the day the 14th Amendment was passed by Congress, and that application fell in line with what the Founders said it meant at the time of ratification. I do not hold the made up Supreme Court doctrine of "incorporation," wherein the Supremes make decisions as to when the provisions of the Bill of Rights become law with regards to the States and their citizens. Its a made up doctrine that the Court arrogated to itself, and quite frankly only extended the pain and suffer of our nation after the Civil war for needless decades.

Dragging retarded references to the freaking Earps into this is absurd.

There are some points made in the 4 controlling Supreme Court decisions that go back to the Founding era that are apropos with regards to the Second Amendment and various early rulings and laws regarding Arms, but those points merely backup the notion that "history, text, and tradition" means "when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified."

If you want to debate this at length in another thread, I'll be your Huckleberry.

Oh, I'm not advocating for the 1890s standards at all. I'm just saying that people are going to bring that "history" up.

I'm a 2A absolutist. I don't even agree with the history and traditions doctrine. I think the only question should be "is it 'arms' ?" 'Cause if it is, then it's hands off entirely.

The only legitimate argument the government should have once someone invokes the 2A is that the law in question doesn't affect "arms" at all.

Demonstrating that the object in question has any immediate utility in combat should be an immediate disqualifier for any attempt to regulate it's ownership, acquisition, or possession in any capacity.

He'll, if it was up to me I would strike down vehicle registration laws under the 2A, because vehicles are useful in combat.

 

[John Stark]

I don't even agree with the history and traditions doctrine.

Thank God you're not a politician, elected official, or justice.

 

[spat]

Thank God you're not a politician, elected official, or justice.

What's wrong with text only ?

"Is this thing 'arms' ? Then nothing that burdens ownership or possession in any way is constitutional".

The language in the 2A is far stronger than anything else in the constitution. "Shall not be infringed" is a far stronger statement than "congress shall pass no law".

"Shall not be infringed" means not only is the federal government prohibited from infringing on the right, it it has an affirmative duty to prevent anyone else from doing so either.

 

[John Stark]

What's wrong with text only ?

You would fit right in with the Living Document apparatchiks.

Hard pass.

 

[Grimscale]

You would fit right in with the Living Document apparatchiks.

Hard pass.

Sp you're saying that someone who believes the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be enforced as written are analogous to people who claim it can be modified based on current societal norms, while implying that you support being able to twist the meaning of the statements in the Constitution based on something someone said outside of the congressional chambers months or years later, even when it contradicts the plain text statement within the document?

Am I reading this right?

 

[Saltwater60]

Oh, I'm not advocating for the 1890s standards at all. I'm just saying that people are going to bring that "history" up.

I'm a 2A absolutist. I don't even agree with the history and traditions doctrine. I think the only question should be "is it 'arms' ?" 'Cause if it is, then it's hands off entirely.

The only legitimate argument the government should have once someone invokes the 2A is that the law in question doesn't affect "arms" at all.

Demonstrating that the object in question has any immediate utility in combat should be an immediate disqualifier for any attempt to regulate it's ownership, acquisition, or possession in any capacity.

He'll, if it was up to me I would strike down vehicle registration laws under the 2A, because vehicles are useful in combat.

You’re correct and Suddaby already has brought up that similar timeframe and he won’t be the last to do it.

 

[John Stark]

Sp you're saying that someone who believes the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be enforced as written are analogous to people who claim it can be modified based on current societal norms, while implying that you support being able to twist the meaning of the statements in the Constitution based on something someone said outside of the congressional chambers months or years later, even when it contradicts the plain text statement within the document?

Am I reading this right?

Perhaps you have made a fair assessment here, but only if you are able to define for me what you mean by "as written" and the "plain text."

Further, you might expand upon your statement about how I imply that I "support being able to twist the meaning of the statements in the Constitution based on something someone said outside of the congressional chambers months or years later..."

I'll give you a hint; "history, text, and tradition" has a meaning mostly summed up in one word.

 

[maverick52]

Any chance we get a decision today from Suddaby?

 

[Truebeliever]

Is like to think that will happen but as we’ve seen on these other lawsuits that they can apply the exception to just the person filing the suit or just those types of people. I don’t see this being broadly applied since the whole standing thing has been such an issue. I could see standing being applied to people like this but not the rest of us.

They did that when it came to issuing a permit— not where a permit holder can carry unless they make a separate law. They don’t do that in a court settlement.

 

[Saltwater60]

They did that when it came to issuing a permit— not where a permit holder can carry unless they make a separate law. They don’t do that in a court settlement.

The state could change the law saying if you’re a PI, bondsmen, or an officer/freelancer for the courts then you’re exempt from CCIA and moot this lawsuit easily. I suspect they would do that to preserve the CCIA.
From my understanding they tried to do this with the pastors lawsuits about churches being exempt. It didn’t work, but it could in a case like this. Life will get interesting.

 

[Saltwater60]

Any chance we get a decision today from Suddaby?

I wish, but I doubt it.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

The state could change the law saying if you’re a PI, bondsmen, or an officer/freelancer for the courts then you’re exempt from CCIA and moot this lawsuit easily. I suspect they would do that to preserve the CCIA.
From my understanding they tried to do this with the pastors lawsuits about churches being exempt. It didn’t work, but it could in a case like this. Life will get interesting.

So, how do we all become PI's? Like Thomas Magnum perhaps? I already have the moustache (and a nice big full size 1911 to carry in the waistband of my shorts, LOL). And would we then be able to carry in all 62 counties, - NYC included? Sign ME up!

 

[John Stark]

The state could change the law saying if you’re a PI, bondsmen, or an officer/freelancer for the courts then you’re exempt from CCIA and moot this lawsuit easily. I suspect they would do that to preserve the CCIA.

Maybe, but from a legel standpoint Equal Protection comes into play at some point.

People who are actual officers of a court are one thing, but private investigators, freelancers, and even bondsmen (bounty hunters) are much closer to being mere "civilians" who make their living by doing chores outside the bounds of government agents even if those fields have quite a lot of overlap.

If the idea that cops and "officers of the court" can Keep and Bear Arms but "civilians" cannot is sketchy as hell (to say the least), then I would think the idea that others who make a profession in similar endeavors but who are not public officials or personnel is even sketchier.

 

[spat]

So, how do we all become PI's? Like Thomas Magnum perhaps? I already have the moustache (and a nice big full size 1911 to carry in the waistband of my shorts, LOL). And would we then be able to carry in all 62 counties, - NYC included? Sign ME up!

You'd need a good Hawaiian shirt too....

 

[spat]

Perhaps you have made a fair assessment here, but only if you are able to define for me what you mean by "as written" and the "plain text."

Further, you might expand upon your statement about how I imply that I "support being able to twist the meaning of the statements in the Constitution based on something someone said outside of the congressional chambers months or years later..."

I'll give you a hint; "history, text, and tradition" has a meaning mostly summed up in one word.

If they can pervert the plain text "shall not be infringed", then they can sure as hell pervert any notion of "history" or "tradition" into whatever they want.


The plain text is sufficient, and unambiguous to anyone who isn't willfully attempting to misinterpret it.

 

[John Stark]

If they can pervert the plain text "shall not be infringed", then they can sure as hell pervert any notion of "history" or "tradition" into whatever they want.


The plain text is sufficient, and unambiguous to anyone who isn't willfully attempting to misinterpret it.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

 

[Saltwater60]

Maybe, but from a legel standpoint Equal Protection comes into play at some point.

People who are actual officers of a court are one thing, but private investigators, freelancers, and even bondsmen (bounty hunters) are much closer to being mere "civilians" who make their living by doing chores outside the bounds of government agents even if those fields have quite a lot of overlap.

If the idea that cops and "officers of the court" can Keep and Bear Arms but "civilians" cannot is sketchy as hell (to say the least), then I would think the idea that others who make a profession in similar endeavors but who are not public officials or personnel is even sketchier.

I guess but it happens all the time. They may decide it’s only while they are working but it’s pretty hard to determine while they are or aren’t working. Remember this is NYS and I have zero faith in them or the judges.

 

[Glock_USA]

It appears as if an appeal has been filed today, making me think the decision is out, although maybe not officially. This is either a screw up or good news for us.

 

[cranberry]

It appears as if an appeal has been filed today, making me think the decision is out, although maybe not officially. This is either a screw up or good news for us.

View attachment 177746

apparently it's nothing just some administrative changes .

 

[Glock_USA]

apparently it's nothing just some administrative changes .

It says "notice of appeal" though.

 

[cranberry]

It says "notice of appeal" though.

This is coming from someone who is in the know with the lawsuit "it's nothing ".

 

[Truebeliever]

The state could change the law saying if you’re a PI, bondsmen, or an officer/freelancer for the courts then you’re exempt from CCIA and moot this lawsuit easily. I suspect they would do that to preserve the CCIA.
From my understanding they tried to do this with the pastors lawsuits about churches being exempt. It didn’t work, but it could in a case like this. Life will get interesting.

The pastor lawsuit worked. The entire church section of the law is blocked by the federal courts, not just for the individual plaintiffs.
Yes the state could change the law but they would have start the entire legislative process over from the beginning.

 

[spat]

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

So, what sort of infringement do you think would survive "Shall not be infringed" but would be struck down because of "history and tradition? "


The history and tradition just gives them more excuses IMHO.

Which do you think is better ?

"No infringements of any kind for any reason".

Or

"Infringements that are supported by history and tradition are OK".

 

[Acer-m14]

just reading the Text of the 2A should end it all ..

if its not in the Text then we go to history and tradition they say ..

well at the very end is shall not infringe

so say in history some Court house banned guns ... but the Text says shall not infringe

 

[Saltwater60]

The pastor lawsuit worked. The entire church section of the law is blocked by the federal courts, not just for the individual plaintiffs.
Yes the state could change the law but they would have start the entire legislative process over from the beginning.

I agree but the state tried to make it only apply to the two pastors.

 

[Glock_USA]

After hearing the state's Attorney say in court that they aren't enforcing any of this I guess I'm not going to really let it bother me much. It would be nice to have the decision though. I assume it won't be coming out over the weekend at all?

 

[Saltwater60]

After hearing the state's Attorney say in court that they aren't enforcing any of this I guess I'm not going to really let it bother me much. It would be nice to have the decision though. I assume it won't be coming out over the weekend at all?

Then why did these assholes do this? Why did hochul say on TV with all her NYSP cronies that there was a zero tolerance policy? The judge should have asked if you’re not enforcing it I’m shutting the entire law down then and thanks for your time.

 

[Glock_USA]

Then why did these assholes do this? Why did hochul say on TV with all her NYSP cronies that there was a zero tolerance policy? The judge should have asked if you’re not enforcing it I’m shutting the entire law down then and thanks for your time.

Because they get compliance without actually having to do anything. They can appease their base. They know 99% will just go along with it because they are "law-abiding". That's why I like the new shift to "peaceable persons". More and more people are not playing the game anymore. The Supreme Court has held that we have a right to carry guns in public for self defense. If someone gets arrested for it the state could be in a world of shit. Potentially out tens of millions of dollars. They know this and are counting on you not knowing. Will you call their bluff?