SCOTUS just fucked us!

[spat]

I have no doubt that Chuck Schmuck will do his best to keep that in there, if not add more anti gun crap as well, in order to keep us from carrying in NYC.

The question is what anyone is doing letting chuckles anywhere near it. It's not like they are trying to get his vote, so fuck him. The only ones to court are the last couple wafflers in the middle. Give them a nice federal highway depot or something in their home district and get on with things....

 

[Marine Cpl]

If all we end up with is NY having to recognize other states resident permits as NY unrestricted I'll be happy. Anything more is gravy.

Yea. I guess. If the Senate one passes, we'd have to change our residency to get any benefit.

 

[Snappo]

in 2014/15 hunting season, the Dept's of Conservation of all 50 states issued a combined total of 14 MILLION Big game hunting licenses. If you combine ALL THE ARMIES ON THE PLANET, including China, Russia, India, Pakistan, America and all of Europe, that 14 million is easily the largest Army on the planet.

The problem? Getting them all on the same page at the same time

I'm getting kind of old; so I hope the revolution starts at noon, has sandwich & soup breaks at 2 and 7, and has porta potty access. Just kidding. But yeah - some catalyst has to happen that brings Americans together to defeat tyranny. My guess would be revokation of 1A and 2A completely.

 

[RDN]

Why do we have to wait for that?
The Republicans finally have a super-majority for the first time in decades. WTF are they waiting for!

As the makeup of SCOTUS is now. It is not wise to bring forth any major AWB /gun cases to that court. There is a waffling (on gun rights) "conservative" justice sitting on the bench. It is crucial, he needs to be replace before we can advance the issue.

 

[GuyMontag]

Same old song and dance.

Just like while Scalia was still kicking, the so-called "conservatives" on the court strike again.

 

[nortatoga]

SCOTUSBLOG has just reported that SCOTUS has denied cert for Peruta, with a dissent by Thomas and Gorsuch! It looks like some of the judges we thought supported 2A rights are not 2A after all!

FUCKERS!!!!

Here's a link to the dissents:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062617zor_8759.pdf

If the Court took this case! Too rule in favor would mean over turning Heller v DC , And 4 of the 5 Justices including Thomas are still on the Bench!

 

[JosERW]

You know what? I think the pressure is building and we are going to see some fantastic jurisprudence from the court soon. The point that Thomas made in his dissent about how the court hasn't ruled on a 2A case since 2010 and in that time has ruled on 35 1A and 25 4A cases is disparaging. That the court has been derelict in its duty to treat all right enumerated in the Constitution with equal consideration hits the nail on the head and once the court leans more conservative, which it will, we will start to see these matters being put to rest and in our favor.

What makes you so optimistic? I wish I could share in that optimism. I know if they court had 5 liberal judges on it they'd be ramming rulings down our throat. The SC has had every chance to overturn may issue, aw and magazine bans and they've done nothing. NOTHING. Its very likely they refuse Kolbe and Trump is a one term President. Then what? What are they waiting for?

 

[JosERW]

This should have been expected....

Here's where SCOTUS really stands on the 2nd Amendment.

First, you have an "individual" right to keep and bear arms.

Secondly, it's being left up to the States what they will allow you to own, under what circumstances you can own it, and where/how you can carry it.

If you own a firearm, ANY firearm, your rights are being granted. Government now has the "duty and responsibility" to restrict that right as it pertains to open/concealed carry, magazine capacity, firearm design (military/non-military design/use), and what precludes you from owning a firearm in the first place (mental health matters, substance abuse, criminal activity).

The above are reasons why SCOTUS hasn't taken a 2nd Amendment case of ANY value since Heller in 2010 which stated that ownership is an individual right.

Get it yet ?

NY, CA, Mass, NJ, Hawaii...... = screwed for all eternity. More States to follow.

Except that the above completely contradicts Heller.

 

[JosERW]

I am relieved that they rejected this case. It was too broad.


It has little to nothing to do with the right to own a hand gun.

Besides the fact for over 100 years, NY Law says you must have permission from the State just to be able to own/purchase/possess or touch a handgun.
That is the real rub and infringement. Unfortunately the fact that for over 100 years nobody ever fought it, it has become accepted.

.I would rather see other cases go to the SC. \
Restrictions on certain types of commonly owned guns.
Magazine limits.
Illegal record keeping of gun registrations etc.

Heller makes Sullivan unconstitutional but we'll never win that case. I want to see Kolbe go because it was quite possibly the most biased ruling ever but now I am doubtful.

 

[stuck in ny]

Bush was not anything close to pro-gun. He would have continued Clinton's assault weapons ban if the bill made its way to his desk.

He also asked for and got the "Patriot Act" and introduced us to "free speech" zones, so to be fair, he trampled on all of our civil liberties not just the gun rights.

Screw bush, screw the barrel ban, screw "Patriate" deceptively named crap, screw unconstitutional spying.

 

[fartgamer]

Interesting theory posted on another site.

Supremes Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts were afraid Kennedy was going to retire and the court would split 4-4. That would affirm the 9th Circuit ruling. Too big a chance to take, so they punted.
Be aware Alito was pretty firm, and positive, in his opinion on Caetano v Massachusetts in a case involving a stun gun used for defense.
With Kennedy, Ginsburg and possibly Breyer leaving, Trump has a chance to swing the court right for a few decades. Another similar case could come up soon, and be decided 5-4 or 6-3.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Interesting theory posted on another site.

Supremes Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts were afraid Kennedy was going to retire and the court would split 4-4. That would affirm the 9th Circuit ruling. Too big a chance to take, so they punted.
Be aware Alito was pretty firm, and positive, in his opinion on Caetano v Massachusetts in a case involving a stun gun used for defense.
With Kennedy, Ginsburg and possibly Breyer leaving, Trump has a chance to swing the court right for a few decades. Another similar case could come up soon, and be decided 5-4 or 6-3.

It's still a pretty big IF in my opinion. The fact that Alito and Roberts didn't join in the dissent on Peruta leaves me questioning how they would rule. Also wondering why the lefties didn't grant cert since it only takes 4 justices. Or were they likewise concerned that Kennedy might rule against them?

 

[fartgamer]

It's still a pretty big IF in my opinion. The fact that Alito and Roberts didn't join in the dissent on Peruta leaves me questioning how they would rule. Also wondering why the lefties didn't grant cert since it only takes 4 justices. Or were they likewise concerned that Kennedy might rule against them?

I think the lefties were certainly afraid of a 5-4 ruling against them. Again, if Roberts and Alito voted for cert they too were taking a chance of the 9th sticking.
Just an opinion, we won't know until someone leaves and then the mother of all battles ensues. Of course if Roberts and Alito are anti gun, then it doesn't really matter.

 

[Snappo]

Interesting theory posted on another site.

Supremes Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts were afraid Kennedy was going to retire and the court would split 4-4. That would affirm the 9th Circuit ruling. Too big a chance to take, so they punted.
Be aware Alito was pretty firm, and positive, in his opinion on Caetano v Massachusetts in a case involving a stun gun used for defense.
With Kennedy, Ginsburg and possibly Breyer leaving, Trump has a chance to swing the court right for a few decades. Another similar case could come up soon, and be decided 5-4 or 6-3.

Let's hope to God that Trump throws in SCOTUS judges that are in their late 30s and early 40s. No fossils already in their 60s and 70s. Then we could stay conservative for 30 or 40 years easily.

 

[Chuck D]

Except that the above completely contradicts Heller.

There's that Heller thing again.

Heller, other than stating you can't outright ban handgun possession isn't worth the paper it's written on otherwise we wouldn't still be fighting over magazine capacity, concealed carry, and permit schemes.

 

[RBean]

It is not that Heller is not worth anything, I've spent time reading and analyzing Heller and McDonald in preparing Motions for Summary Judgments in Weinstein and Cusumano cases, it is that the lower courts ignore the decisions. Until the Supreme Court starts enforcing those opinions by taking and reversing the lower courts, that is not going to change. I'm probably wasting my time because the County will appeal the to 2nd Circuit if we win. The 2nd Circuit has a history of ignoring Heller.

 

[spat]

It's still a pretty big IF in my opinion. The fact that Alito and Roberts didn't join in the dissent on Peruta leaves me questioning how they would rule. Also wondering why the lefties didn't grant cert since it only takes 4 justices. Or were they likewise concerned that Kennedy might rule against them?

It's very unusual to even *have* a dissent for a case getting denied cert, so I wouldn't read too much into that. They usually only get written dissents in actual decisions.

 

[nortatoga]

It's very unusual to even *have* a dissent for a case getting denied cert, so I wouldn't read too much into that. They usually only get written dissents in actual decisions.

I was thinking the same thing!

 

[Chuck D]

It is not that Heller is not worth anything, I've spent time reading and analyzing Heller and McDonald in preparing Motions for Summary Judgments in Weinstein and Cusumano cases, it is that the lower courts ignore the decisions. Until the Supreme Court starts enforcing those opinions by taking and reversing the lower courts, that is not going to change. I'm probably wasting my time because the County will appeal the to 2nd Circuit if we win. The 2nd Circuit has a history of ignoring Heller.

I've read Heller as well, certainly not from an Attorney perspective but I didn't just fall off a turnip truck.

If the Courts ignore the ruling in Heller and SCOTUS denied CERT, then exactly what good is Heller, or any other pro-gun Court ruling in NYS ?

We as a community take the high road while the gun grabbers laugh hysterically at us and drain our wallets.

Where I come from, that's not winning and Heller is absolutely useless in giving me back my rights.

 

[RBean]

That is why I am probably wasting my time on these cases.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

That is why I am probably wasting my time on these cases.

I know it can be draining in more ways than one, but I, for one, appreciate what you are doing, and follow it closely. I would like to help you more financially (I gave you a few bucks a while back), but I am quite strapped at the moment.

Good Luck RBean! Please, keep going!

 

[RBean]

Thanks for the help. We have three more depositions to take in Carroll and Cusumano. In Weinstein and Cusumano I will be claiming (amoung other things) that PL 265 and PL 400 are unconstitutional. First PL 265 makes it illegal to exercise a constitutional right without a license, then PL 400 give the licensing official the power to grant or deny this right based on undefined terms and his personal, subjective opinion of the applicant. Since a denial, suspension, revocation or delay of a license denies you the "core" of your constitutional right, to possess a handgun in your home for defense (even the 2nd Cir. says this) the statute must be judged by the strict scrutiny standard. Under strict scrutiny the gov't has the burden of PROVING that this is the least restrictive and most narrowly tailored law possible to achieve their objective.

Since they CLAIM their objective is to prevent crime, they have to prove that nothing else will do. To prevent crime they want to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals (so they say). Only problem is that the law is not narrowly tailored for this. It is only aimed at the law abiding because only the law abiding get or attempt to get the license. The criminal class don't bother and just get illegal handguns and carry and use as they wish. A law which makes it illegal for a person who has been convicted of a felony or violent crime, who has been adjudicated to be insane or is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm would be narrowly tailored. Don't we already have those law? I think yes.

So a pistol license can't be constitutionally treated as a privilege. If a license is required to possess a pistol, then the license is a RIGHT not a privilege.

What I need is an expert witness who can produce a report based on stats to the effect that PL 400 does not "meet their goal" in reducing crime. So far I have reached out to the various gun rights organizations and they have been absolutely NO HELP. We don't really need to prove that PL 400 does not work, only that it can't be proven to work, since the govt has the burden of proof.

 

[nortatoga]

Am I the only one who reads Heller as to say concealed carry of weapons is not protected under 2A?

 

[RBean]

Here is what Heller says on the subject:


". . . we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

In discussing the scope of the right and level of scrutiny the Court stated at 2821 [18]:

"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all".

It does not necessarily protect the right to carry concealed. But it seems to me to protect the right to carry in some way. I think under Heller the states can regulate how you carry, but can't prohibit carrying all together. But of coarse NY does just this. On a "case by case" basis. The 2nd circuit refused to follow Heller in this regard. It should have rule an unlimited license a right or declare laws against open carry invalid.

What NY does is give the "licensing officer" the power to decide "on a case by case basis" who can and cannot exercise this right. The 2nd said that carrying out side the home did not involve the "core" of the 2nd Amendment right so strict scrutiny didn't apply. Then use a bunch of pure bs to uphold the discretion on limitations on licenses.

In my brief I claim that "A constitutional guarantee subject to [the whim of a licensing officer] is no constitutional guarantee at all".

 

[Cooolone]

Until the Supreme Court starts enforcing those opinions by taking and reversing the lower courts, that is not going to change.

Yes, and was pretty much pointed out in the unanimous ruling in Ceatano, that lower courts continue to ignore it's guidance!

Has been said before, that the Judicial Branch, here the highest, the SCOTUS, has NO TEETH, to enforce it's rulings. So effectively, a hole has been identified and exploited by those who wish to challenge or ignore our Constitution, regardless of what any SCOTUS ruling may hold.

So what happenes when Strict Scrutiny becomes the measure and a State like NY takes exception to ignore it and do what it wants? What will it (SCOTUS) do? What will the Federal Gov't do? Would it come in, seize the Governor and institute Federal oversight until Constitutional Protections be afforded as prescribed?

By all the posts here, in discussions, readings and more, talk of placing Justices on the court have little value, to say they will fix things, because it only means if whenever it may swing to a different ideology, the rulings would be overturned. So what then?

So back to 'Strict Scrutiny'... All Rights should be treated the same. There can be no other way! But will SCOTUS then take away what has been allowed for 'reasonable' restraint of certain freedoms? Ie, the old argument of yelling "Fire" in a theatre.

Anyways... Again, doesn't matter much, as the SCOTUS has No Teeth!

I'll go with what the courts have already exclaimed, that in order to have rights at all, you "must" invoke them! Invoke them I will, every single day of my life, including the 2nd Amendment!!!

 

[RBean]

The Supreme Court can enforce its rulings if it will. It doesn't. It could have taken Kalchulsky (2nd cir) or Peruta (9th cir) or the case from the 4th. But they didn't. Even when Scalia was still on the bench. Kennedy may have some regrets re Heller and McDonald, so the other don't want to take the chance. In Ceatano the facts were so compelling, an abused woman with a restraining order using a non-lethal weapon convicted of a crime possessing that weapon and then the totally ridiculous ruling of the Mass. Supreme Court that stun gun wasn't protected because they didn't exist in 1789, (an argument specifically rejected in Heller) was more than even the anti-gun, anti self defense liberals on the court could take.

The Court could have taken any of these cases and reversed them specifically. Then in NY if licensing officers didn't issue unlimited carry licenses,find the officer (cop or judge, doesn't matter) in contempt, send out the Federal Marshalls and arrest them for contempt. They have the power just not a sufficient majority (or balls), yet. We need at least one and maybe two more retirement parties or funerals on the Court in the next three years.

 

[Cooolone]

The Supreme Court can enforce its rulings.

Explain Judicial Enforecement if you will, when those most effected by their rulings ignore what they say if it is against what they want.

Provide some example of the SCOTUS doing what you say, sending Federal Marshalls to bring before them local Elected Officials, Judiciary, or here, licensing officers...

 

[RBean]

A court issues an order directing some one to do or not do something. That order is served on the persons so directed. If they don't follow the order, the other side in the litigation can file a Motion to hold the persons so ordered, in contempt of court. The motion is served on the person ordered. They get a chance to appear in court to show why they should not be held in contempt. They either consent and follow the order or can be arrested and held in contempt.

In practicality, the Supreme Court sends the case back to the lower court (cir ct) which might send it back to the District Court to issue the order i.e. an injunction that law enforcement personel not enforce some law the Court found unconstitutional. If they continue to enforce the unconstitutional law, they can be held in contempt and jailed. It hasn't gotten to that point since the civil rights cases the 60s.

Same as an Order of Protection. One is told to stay away from another. If the don't, if the order is violated, then they are served with motion, appear and then can be jailed. Court orders, cops, court officers, federal marshals, depending on court to arrest and hold.

I did once have to file a Motion for Contempt for an appellate court to hold a trial judge in contempt for failing to vacate a previous improper order he had issued. Didn't go any further, he issued the order to vacate. However, I tried to avoid his court in the future.

Sorry, lawyers just can't give short answers.

 

[RBean]

If such a case is taken, and ruled our way, or if concealed carry rest. law passed and states refuse to follow, actually, US Justice Dept. could step in and prosecute official for civil rights violations. An Obama Administration never would, but US Atty Gen. Jeff Sessions might.