SCOTUS rules in NYSRPA vs NYC
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Alcohol prohibition (unlike the drug war) was constitutionally valid, they specifically amended the constitution to allow it.
You are correct about the rest of the BS though.
BS. Who decides if the amendment is valid?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
There is a specific process for that, they followed it.
If the 18th ammendment wasn't valid, why was the 2nd ?
I've often wondered that myself. What is the process.
Hell, the 2A is in fact an amendment. It's a change to the constitution. What makes that OK?
And people wonder why anarchy is looking better and better.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
It's not complicated and it's been done dozens of times.
Since the process is defined in the original constitution, the ammendments become part of it.
Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
That doesn't really solve the issue though. Look at the impeachment proceedings. You will gain nothing to do with the constitutionality of the issue. Party lines will be voted on and we are back at square 1.It's not complicated and it's been done dozens of times.
Since the process is defined in the original constitution, the ammendments become part of it.
Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
Our system is a fucking scam, lets give the city a 100 years of rights violating then let them change the law last minute to avoid scrutiny. Ultimately this failure falls on the NYSRPA their initial complaint was to narrow. They didn't even ask for damages which would have permitted a ruling. These lawyers are not as sharp as they pretend to be. Reading and watching their arguments is cringe worthy. The only light is that its being recommended the new complaint be heard by the court of appeals and maybe they can skip the line.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If the ammendment process is followed, by definition what comes out is constitutional.
It may be wrong, but it would be constitutional.
Also, the process requires a large supermajority. If one party controls 3/4 of the government already then it's kind of a moot point.
"Wrong but constitutional."
I think this is where I am really coming to grips with the reality that our system might not be a great as everyone touts. The fact that you can just strip rights away at the raise of a hand because of your political beliefs is a problem. Maybe when the country was founded you might be able to trust your fellow man, but then why bother with all the laws in the first place?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
You can strip rights because you have the power.
That is the only thing that's required, and it's always been that way and always will.
The only thing law can do is raise a red flag that "hey, he's not supposed to do that".
Ultimately the only guarantor of rights is an entity with the power to enforce them, but if it has the power to do that, it has the power to strip them.
Probably why the constitution doesn't grant rights, it says which ones can't be removed.
But that's going by the wayside.
Again, the ideals were sound, but the execution seems to be piss poor and getting worse.
Or they can simply keep their promise because they have more to lose.
2/3 of Congress needs to approve it or by constitutional convention called for by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Then it moves on and 2/3 of the States need to vote for it.
It must be disappointing for many that the NRA lawyers have had 13 years to make a legal case that the Heller and McDonald opinions were wrong that prohibitions on concealed carry don't violate the Second Amendment, but now that SCOTUS directed them to explain how the denial of the two petitioners' applications for concealed carry violated the Second Amendment, they couldn't.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
The NRA lost sight of their chartered purpose long ago. All thats left is a corporate shell of greed that exists to make money.
Sad, but true.
The short version for people who did not understand, the NRA lawyers in NYSRPA v. Bruen filed a cert petition that presented the following question to the Supreme Court, "Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."
The justices rewrote the question to this, "LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE STATE'S DENIAL OF PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR CONCEALED-CARRY LICENSES FOR SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT."
The justices presumably rewrote the question and limited it to concealed carry because the petitioners had never sought to openly carry a handgun, anywhere, nor did they challenge NYC's ban on the open carry of long guns.
The justices rewrite of the question also changed the "question presented" from a facial challenge to an as-applied challenge (Heller and McDonald were facial decisions). In one way that was doing the petitioners a favor because a law can be constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as it applies to a particular person under a specific set of facts. In another way, that made the case more difficult for the NRA lawyers because if a law is unconstitutional as it applies to others even though it is constitutional as applied to the petitioners, there was still a chance of making a winning case prior to the rewrite of the "question presented" by and to the justices.
The NRA lawyers asked for and received two extensions of time to file their brief on the merits.
The NRA's brief on the merits did not even attempt to answer the question presented. The brief did not even attempt to claim that the denial of some hypothetical person's application for a concealed carry license would violate the Second Amendment under any hypothetical set of circumstances.
The NRA's failure to answer the question presented pretty much guarantees that New York will win.
Unless New York, in its brief on the merits, doesn't answer the question the justices rewrote but instead argues the original question presented or even argues its own counterstatement of the question it presented in its Brief In Opposition to the granting of the cert petition.
If New York makes that mistake, then the Justices are free to answer a different question than the one they rewrote, if they want to.
New York's brief on the merits is due on September 14th.
Last edited:
But if the Supreme Court changes the question, it essentially changes the entire case.
How is this legal?
They could completely invalidate any and all challenges to Federal or State infringements just by changing the complaint.
How is this legal?
They could completely invalidate any and all challenges to Federal or State infringements just by changing the complaint.