SCOTUS rules in NYSRPA vs NYC

[ManrisFrack]

No no no no no no, we hear the same old bullshit over and over. How do you keep people in the game, by telling them to work to change the system. This doesn't work. I didn't tell anyone to kill anyone stop putting up strawmen,.

Did you even read what you quoted? I said the system is broken and that I have no faith in solutions that use our existing systems to enact reform. We're on the same page with that. I think most of us got to that same page just by observing and with precious little help from you.

I never accused you of "tell[ing] anyone to kill anyone". However, the ability/right/duty to forcibly overthrow the rule of tyrants is one of the basic underpinnings of the Second Amendment. You didn't need to mention it specifically because it's been the last ditch option since the beginning of this country. I also basically said that, at least in my mind, armed revolt isn't an option.

So what is left if we can't use the existing framework for reform and revolution isn't an option? Until you can answer this, you're no better than those you are admonishing.

The rest of us, we'll go back to speculating about how we might, by some miracle, be able to succeed by using the existing system. It probably won't work but it sure costs less than the alternative that also, probably won't work.

Unless you've got a solution, all this yammering on about what a sham SCOTUS is and how stupid we are for talking about it is straight up troll behavior.

 

[Mosinitis]

You're doing a piss poor job of leading - even from behind a keyboard.

The system either works for every right of every man or it doesn't. It's a binary choice. Every single poster is this thread agrees that the decision is unjust and offensive to the spirit of the Second Amendment.

So once one realizes that the system is broken you come to two options - live with it or reform it. You need to lead people toward a reformation movement.

What does this reformation movement look like? What is the mechanism by which it means to effect change? No one will follow you anywhere until you answer these questions and can do so eloquently.

For myself, I cannot see a legal path for reformation within our system that I consider viable. I am also not willing to kill my countrymen in order to reform our system. This is the impasse that you are failing to address.

Did you even read what you quoted? I said the system is broken and that I have no faith in solutions that use our existing systems to enact reform. We're on the same page with that. I think most of us got to that same page just by observing and with precious little help from you.

I never accused you of "tell[ing] anyone to kill anyone". However, the ability/right/duty to forcibly overthrow the rule of tyrants is one of the basic underpinnings of the Second Amendment. You didn't need to mention it specifically because it's been the last ditch option since the beginning of this country. I also basically said that, at least in my mind, armed revolt isn't an option.

So what is left if we can't use the existing framework for reform and revolution isn't an option? Until you can answer this, you're no better than those you are admonishing.

The rest of us, we'll go back to speculating about how we might, by some miracle, be able to succeed by using the existing system. It probably won't work but it sure costs less than the alternative that also, probably won't work.

Unless you've got a solution, all this yammering on about what a sham SCOTUS is and how stupid we are for talking about it is straight up troll behavior.

There is a very simple and eligant solution. Don't vote until something is actually done, instead of promised. This requires staying away from the koolaid.

 

[nortatoga]

There is a very simple and eligant solution. Don't vote until something is actually done, instead of promised. This requires staying away from the koolaid.

Great Idea then Hillary would be President!!

 

[Mosinitis]

Great Idea then Hillary would be President!!

What makes you think they want that. The leverage is against them and the solution is in their hands.

 

[nortatoga]

What makes you think they want that. The leverage is against them and the solution is in their hands.

Who is They and Them?

 

[Mosinitis]

Republican establishment in all three branches of government.

 

[nortatoga]

Republican establishment in all three branches of government.

No you said not to VOTE did you not?

 

[Mosinitis]

Organized ultimatum. No ruling, no votes.

 

[nortatoga]

Organized ultimatum. No ruling, no votes.

No Republican Senate and President, Leftist Justice's is that what you want?

 

[Mosinitis]

No Republican Senate and President, Leftist Justice's is that what you want?

We are back to post #64.

 

[nortatoga]

We are back to post #64.

Which makes no sense! Please elaborate ?

 

[Mosinitis]

Which makes no sense! Please elaborate ?

You are assuming that winning in November is more important to the voting base then people who are running and the establishment that supports them. This is where you are wrong.

 

[Nevar]

Sorry to say The Supreme court was bought and paid for long ago. No matter how many on the Right or Left They will do what the super powerful few order them to do

 

[nortatoga]

You are assuming that winning in November is more important to the voting base then people who are running in November and the establishment that supports them. This is where you are wrong.

So you don't like your guy/gal 100% you withhold your vote? The Left feels the same about their guy/gal but still votes for them? Kinda how you think it should be?

 

[ManrisFrack]

I think he wants us to force the politicization of SCOTUS from the right. The left just went ahead and did it. The right would rather use it as a carrot to keep their base following along.

If the Repubs were squishier than the general public, it might work. That's not the case though. They'll call that bluff all day long and another eight years of Dem government will have the swing voters crawling back to the Republicans. Personally, I think revolution would be an easier feat than getting the general public to hold position as long as would be required - and as I've alluded to, I don't think revolution has a snowball's chance either.

Wonder if you could form an independent group powerful enough to buy the court? You'd have a hell of a time keeping it true to founding principles though. It would attract all sorts of interests wanting to sway it toward their own causes as soon as it got powerful enough to make a difference.

 

[Mosinitis]

No bluffs, do it for real. The bottom line, they have more to lose.

 

[ManrisFrack]

Keep at it, maybe you'll get enough followers that it won't be a bluff. Right now though, you aren't there.

The other problem is that, presumably, they won't have the power to politicize the courts if the dems grab the Senate, Presidency or both.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Meds.

Take them please.

 

[Mosinitis]

Keep at it, maybe you'll get enough followers that it won't be a bluff. Right now though, you aren't there.

The other problem is that, presumably, they won't have the power to politicize the courts if the dems grab the Senate, Presidency or both.

I do have a solution. The stupidity and lack of back bone by others is what I am knocking in this thread. My solution depends on that.

 

[Mosinitis]

So you don't like your guy/gal 100% you withhold your vote? The Left feels the same about their guy/gal but still votes for them? Kinda how you think it should be?

???????

 

[Darth]

Couple more bucks to the NRA and we'da had it boys!

 

[SomeSoldier]

Sorry stopped caring what gov says.

 

[General Malaise]

Help me understand this. This pertains to NYC residents taking their guns outside of the city, correct?
This is one of the reasons people with second homes in upstate NY claim it upstate as their primary residence whether it is or isn’t.

 

[dwa12479]

Help me understand this. This pertains to NYC residents taking their guns outside of the city, correct?
This is one of the reasons people with second homes in upstate NY claim it upstate as their primary residence whether it is or isn’t.

Here's the cliff notes....

* NYC says you're not allowed the take your guns out of the City for any reason.
* Plaintiffs file suit and the City defends their law. The City wins at the local level and the 2nd Circuit.
* SCOTUS grants cert, and suddenly the City changes the law to avoid having the Court actually rule on it.
* In other words, they knew full well that what they were doing was Unconstitutional, and retreated as soon as they saw the possibility of SCOTUS ruling on the case. Once the law was changed, SCOTUS decided that the planitiffs got what they wanted, so the case is essentially dead.

 

[Saltwater60]

Did this go the way we would have hoped? NO

Did it do any harm? NO

Now some of the other cases that were stayed awaiting this case can now move forward! Young v Hawaii for one.

Every no decision hurts us. It’s a win for the other side and energizes them. This case had them scared thinking it would encourage strict scrutiny. I read some articles on it and they seemed scared from what I saw. Also the other thing is we spent time, money, and energy on this case. There’s only so much of those three to go around.

 

[Saltwater60]

Help me understand this. This pertains to NYC residents taking their guns outside of the city, correct?
This is one of the reasons people with second homes in upstate NY claim it upstate as their primary residence whether it is or isn’t.

Sure but then you can’t take your gun to your first or second home in NYC. No other permit in NYS issued outside of NYC is recognized in NYC. I’d think you’d want your gun where you are most of the time?

 

[Chevusa]

According to the NRA, we won

 

[SomeSoldier]

Here's the cliff notes....

* NYC says you're not allowed the take your guns out of the City for any reason.
* Plaintiffs file suit and the City defends their law. The City wins at the local level and the 2nd Circuit.
* SCOTUS grants cert, and suddenly the City changes the law to avoid having the Court actually rule on it.
* In other words, they knew full well that what they were doing was Unconstitutional, and retreated as soon as they saw the possibility of SCOTUS ruling on the case. Once the law was changed, SCOTUS decided that the planitiffs got what they wanted, so the case is essentially dead.

Except this is showing a pattern of behavior infringing on people's rights and they have the power to do something about it.

 

[Darth]

So Trump's golden boy 2A savior wasn't?

According to the NRA, we won

View attachment 70865

Well NRA, I'll bet your membership actually is excited. Because if they are dumb enough to be a member, they are dumb enough to consider that a victory.

 

[Chevusa]

So Trump's golden boy 2A savior wasn't?

I’m not sure about that. This case didn’t have any teeth to it. There was no party that was in need of “relief” (legal term). I read the entire original filing when this case was heard months ago. Most of the Justices didn’t even want to hear it because there was no substance to it. The conservatives forced it to be heard.

The Justice you are referring to said they are aware of other 2A cases that need to be heard by the Court. Those cases may bear some fruit. At least we now have the chance for these cases to be heard, where before they never would have been. This “case” wasn’t it.