The only thing this thread has done for me is to reinforce my already existing opinion that Chief Justice Roberts is a fucking cunt and a coward to only be played by the left.
SCOTUS rules in NYSRPA vs NYC
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
It was funny however when he yelled at Chuck Schumer
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
It has been suggested that powerful people have dirt on him that would harm him . Now he is a puppet .. Think back to this ....
Hillary Clinton: Filegate (1993)
From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
After getting caught throwing political enemies to the IRS, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. Then Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Basically, Craig was using his "Security" role to have the FBI investigate anyone they suspected of being an adversary (and the IRS conincidentally audited a highly overlapped list). This included Linda Tripp and Kathleen Willey, and many G.O.P. files. After a few investigations showed that only Republicans or enemies of the Clintons were targeted, Hillary blamed Craig for a simple "bureaucratic SNAFU". People familiar with the Clintons were still dubious. But alas, lost documents, forgetting relationships, knowing nothing about what was going on under their watch that just happens to target Clinton's political enemies? They might be innocent, but there sure seems to be a pattern.
Hillary Clinton: Filegate (1993) - iGeek
Less heard information about Guns, Technology, History, Law, Organizations, People, Places, Philosophy, Religion, Politics, Climate, Reviews, and my life experiences.
igeek.com
Yes, I am happy I didn't buy into the scam. You should be ashamed of being so easily fooled.
RBean
.40 S&W
All this bickering among ourselves is not helping. As an attorney, I'll still have to keep working with the courts. What happened here is the attorneys for the plaintiffs screwed up early on. In all my gun cases I plead that Art. 400 is unconstitutional because of the unlimited discretion of the licensing officer (cops, judge etc) to issue, deny, revoke a license. Denying a constitutional right without any due process. They didn't do this. You never know when a case will be accepted by the Supreme Court. The city may have given up its b.s. travel restriction, but could not have repealed Art. 400, so that would have been alive. The plaintiff's pleading was too narrow.
In gun cases in the Eastern District, I have gotten two victories of sorts on Motions for Summary Judgment, awaiting trials on damages, two victories when the county capitulated, but also made the cases moot. One still pending on Motions for Summary Judgment.
I now have another case where Nassau County PD revoked a pistol license because of an alleged threat. No hearing, no evidence presented, told plaintiff he couldn't have long guns either. Total and permanent denial of 2nd and 14th Amendment rights. County has filed motion to dismiss saying he was not entitled to a post deprivation hearing because he had been deprived of no rights because he didn't have any. They claim "no right to possess a pistol in NY, even in your own home."
Since this case is on the pleadings only, the appeal will be simple. Is there a right to possess a pistol in NY or not? Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald says yes. Courts in NY ignore these cases. This is exactly the situation J. Kavanaugh was talking about. If there is a right to possess a pistol in NY, then Art. 400 is unconstitutional. I think the judge will dismiss the case and we will appeal to the 2nd Circuit. Trump has appointed at least two judges to the 2nd, so its makeup has changed. If the 2nd continues to ignore Supreme Court cases, then a writ to SC, if we can finance it.
In gun cases in the Eastern District, I have gotten two victories of sorts on Motions for Summary Judgment, awaiting trials on damages, two victories when the county capitulated, but also made the cases moot. One still pending on Motions for Summary Judgment.
I now have another case where Nassau County PD revoked a pistol license because of an alleged threat. No hearing, no evidence presented, told plaintiff he couldn't have long guns either. Total and permanent denial of 2nd and 14th Amendment rights. County has filed motion to dismiss saying he was not entitled to a post deprivation hearing because he had been deprived of no rights because he didn't have any. They claim "no right to possess a pistol in NY, even in your own home."
Since this case is on the pleadings only, the appeal will be simple. Is there a right to possess a pistol in NY or not? Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald says yes. Courts in NY ignore these cases. This is exactly the situation J. Kavanaugh was talking about. If there is a right to possess a pistol in NY, then Art. 400 is unconstitutional. I think the judge will dismiss the case and we will appeal to the 2nd Circuit. Trump has appointed at least two judges to the 2nd, so its makeup has changed. If the 2nd continues to ignore Supreme Court cases, then a writ to SC, if we can finance it.
Last edited:
Nothing against you. I am sure this is how the Founders intended this to be. Your rights only matter if you have money. I am so sick and tired of all this fucking sedition and treason. All these fuckers get away with everything because money and power. The whole fucking system is corrupt, there are no laws for them only us. There is no power for us only them. If you think you have rights you are delusional, all rights have been suspended since the start of this stupid fucking lock down. Everyone is granted limited allocations. Today you can go to the store, today you can have the cancer removed from your body. No you can't go to work. No you can't make additions to the home that you own and pay taxes on again and again. This country is doomed.
Last edited:
RBean
.40 S&W
You are right. In one case my client spent over $10,0000. Then when we have them cornered, the County gave up. Only cost them a signature. Corrupt power hungry govt operators.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
My problem is he presents absolutely no viable alternative. In fact presents really no alternative at all.
Situations like this definitely proves two things President Trump was correct about (and while I am a supporter of his, I'm slowly losing faith with the lack of staunch 2A support).
1. The swamp needs to continue being drained
2. Term limits needs to be imposed on ALL government positions.
The lack of term limits have enable swamp things like Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters, Schumer and many more from reaping the benefits from decades of scheming under the guise of "progress". Might I also add that this is not just isolated to the liberals, many Republicans are just as guilty as those liberal fuck bags whether they are so flagrant about it or more subtle; in the end, wrong is wrong.
SomeSoldier is definitely correct that we as a country are doomed. We as a people need to get our politicians and government officials under control, people forget that they work for us - we don't work for them. But I won't speak on this topic any further in fear of having my rights stripped away for simply exercising my first amendment rights. Being a Patriot and a non-conformist to liberal ideology these days gets you labeled as a domestic terrorist.
1. The swamp needs to continue being drained
2. Term limits needs to be imposed on ALL government positions.
The lack of term limits have enable swamp things like Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters, Schumer and many more from reaping the benefits from decades of scheming under the guise of "progress". Might I also add that this is not just isolated to the liberals, many Republicans are just as guilty as those liberal fuck bags whether they are so flagrant about it or more subtle; in the end, wrong is wrong.
SomeSoldier is definitely correct that we as a country are doomed. We as a people need to get our politicians and government officials under control, people forget that they work for us - we don't work for them. But I won't speak on this topic any further in fear of having my rights stripped away for simply exercising my first amendment rights. Being a Patriot and a non-conformist to liberal ideology these days gets you labeled as a domestic terrorist.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
All he is doing is pointing out what is going on to educate people. Do you remember when Darth pointed out that the NRA was anti gun and corrupt. Well, Mosinitis is Darth now. He doesn’t have to provide a solution. But he can wake you guys up.
Actually I did. I can even put it in a slogan. No ruling before November, no votes in November. Simple and easy to accommodate. What's not to like.
I didn't know we voted for Supreme Court Justice's, Yup you have it all figure out keep educating us!
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
OK.
So with a politicized court, we allow the left to completely take over the executive and legislative branches and they expand and pack the Court.
How's that supposed to work out?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Regardless of whether his solution is right or wrong, bottom line is that he isn’t wrong for telling you the truth of their corruption. Perhaps someone smarter than us that becomes aware and doesn’t fall into the brainwashed corruption of 5 to 4 or waiting for another case can come up with a better solution.
Interesting read from last Dec 2 2019 by Adam Winkler
This part in particular .....
More than two centuries ago, the Supreme Court turned down a request by President George Washington and announced it would not issue advisory opinions on proposed or hypothetical legislation. To ensure the best arguments are made, the court insists on real, live controversies involving actual laws capable of being enforced presently. New York City’s repealed gun restrictions, by contrast, have been wiped from the books and can’t ever be enforced against anyone.
The court should adhere to its long-standing bar on advisory opinions and refuse to rule on these dead and buried gun laws. For gun control advocates, that result would be a welcome respite, but hardly a long-lasting one. Even if the court drops the New York case, there are several other cases challenging gun laws waiting to be heard by the justices. It may only be a matter of time before the court, under the banner of the Second Amendment, makes it even harder for any cities or states to enact meaningful gun laws.
This part in particular .....
More than two centuries ago, the Supreme Court turned down a request by President George Washington and announced it would not issue advisory opinions on proposed or hypothetical legislation. To ensure the best arguments are made, the court insists on real, live controversies involving actual laws capable of being enforced presently. New York City’s repealed gun restrictions, by contrast, have been wiped from the books and can’t ever be enforced against anyone.
The court should adhere to its long-standing bar on advisory opinions and refuse to rule on these dead and buried gun laws. For gun control advocates, that result would be a welcome respite, but hardly a long-lasting one. Even if the court drops the New York case, there are several other cases challenging gun laws waiting to be heard by the justices. It may only be a matter of time before the court, under the banner of the Second Amendment, makes it even harder for any cities or states to enact meaningful gun laws.
You need to follow logic. My reply was based on a premise that I identified the problem. As such those who will ask for our vote in November can pull the strings of the Supreme Court. My solution is based on that premise.
Nope, the SCOTUS will be painted as politicized whether it gives us a ruling or not.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
It's a false premise though.
You accepted this premise when you conceded that I identified the problem.
First off you think the Right should threaten the Courts like the Left did? Got It!!
If not we with hold our votes and with that surrender the Presidency and the Senate to the Left! That is your logical premise?
So now Joe Biden replaces RGB and the Left add's 6 more Leftist Jurists (Anti 2A) to the Court!
But we showed them Right!!
I'm really getting an Education here!
In all the bitching you've taken your eyes off of the ball.
Immediately after this case, the Supreme Court distributed 6 Second Amendment cases for the May 1, 2020 conference. That's in 2 days.
Wow look at that, Kavanaugh knew what he was talking about when he said he'll deal with the lower courts handlings in upcoming cases.
The cases are:
Mance v. Barr (5th Circuit)—challenge to federal prohibition on out-of-state handgun purchases
Pena v. Horan (9th Circuit)—challenge to California's prohibition on "unsafe" handguns (including "microstamping" requirement)
Gould v. Lipson (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
Rogers v. Grewal (3rd Circuit)—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
Cheeseman v. Polillo (N.J. Supreme Court)— challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
Ciolek v. New Jersey (N.J. Supreme Court )—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
Immediately after this case, the Supreme Court distributed 6 Second Amendment cases for the May 1, 2020 conference. That's in 2 days.
Wow look at that, Kavanaugh knew what he was talking about when he said he'll deal with the lower courts handlings in upcoming cases.
The cases are:
Mance v. Barr (5th Circuit)—challenge to federal prohibition on out-of-state handgun purchases
Pena v. Horan (9th Circuit)—challenge to California's prohibition on "unsafe" handguns (including "microstamping" requirement)
Gould v. Lipson (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
Rogers v. Grewal (3rd Circuit)—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
Cheeseman v. Polillo (N.J. Supreme Court)— challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
Ciolek v. New Jersey (N.J. Supreme Court )—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
The remaining four...
Update: SCOTUSBlog located four more Second Amendment cases that were distributed for the 5/1/20 conference:
- Worman v. Healey (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts ban on "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines
- Malpasso v. Pallozzi (4th Circuit)—challenge to Maryland's "may issue" conceal carry license regime
- Culp v. Raoul (7th Circuit)—Challenge to Illinois's ban on allowing non-residents to apply for conceal carry license
- Wilson v. Cook County (7th Circuit)—Challenge to Cook County's ban on "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines
Because the city had repealed the ban last summer, a majority on the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims are moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in concluding that the case should go back to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun rights rulings, in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh suggested, the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.” The court’s electronic docket reveals that Kavanaugh’s suggestion may come to fruition soon: By the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Friday’s conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York case.
Several themes emerge from the cases that the justices will now review on Friday. The justices are being asked to weigh in on (among other things) whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, whether state and local governments can ban assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and whether the federal ban on interstate gun sales is unconstitutional.
This will start at 9:30am Friday morning.
Several themes emerge from the cases that the justices will now review on Friday. The justices are being asked to weigh in on (among other things) whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, whether state and local governments can ban assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and whether the federal ban on interstate gun sales is unconstitutional.
This will start at 9:30am Friday morning.
After ruling in New York gun rights case, more Second Amendment cases set for Friday conference - SCOTUSblog
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in a challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban last summer, a majority on the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims are moot –
www.scotusblog.com
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
All those cases should be taken one by one and a judgment rendered on each of them. But you are conditioned to think that it’s okay to just look at them and not do anything with the majority of them. That’s the point.
Most people are too stupid/ashamed to admit that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
And it does NOT provide any justification for the other side.
"How did the universe form?"
"I don't know."
"Therefor God did it." <---No.
"The NRA is an anti gun organization."
"And what would you like is to do instead?"
"I don't know."
"Ok, then I'll keep throwing my money at them." <---No.
SCROTUM is a political joke. And even if it ruled in our favor, it would be kind of baseless to me.
This is the same court that said slavery is justified and upheld prohibition at one point. It changes not based on evidence, as science does, but political spectrum. Therefore it is moot.
Personally, the first time a SCROTUM rules on party lines 5/4 or 4/5 they should be immediately disbarred. Without reservation. Yes, even if it's not "fair" for them. We can't chance it with our rights like that. Wipe them and start anew. First time the next group rules on party lines, obviously ignoring ACTUAL constitutionality, gone.
They will all be looked at Friday. They're not lumped together. Check out the links provided and read up. Don't assume you know. The cases aren't all being argued tomorrow. This is a preliminary vote. Now down the road some of the cases could be paired because they are against the same state for the same reason. Time will tell.
Because the two that Trump added are so amazing?
Your priority is a fucking political party, not the 2nd amendment. This is very clear from your thought process. Demanding what was promised and withheld is not threatening.
And your way of thinking will say goodbye to the 2nd amendment! By the political party on the Left. They have already threatened to stack the Court and you want to hand it right to them!