Supreme Court to Discuss 2nd Amendment - Friday 3/26

[zorro]

This could be interesting.................if it goes anywhere

Supreme Court to discuss case that could expand Second Amendment rights - CNNPolitics

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Holy crap a ruling which directly affects NYs messed up pistol process might make it to SCOTUS.

Very interesting.

 

[C3D]

The reality is with the Supreme Court under a "packing" threat that the majority of the justices won't do squat with this case.

 

[zorro]

Impossible to say at this stage which way it will go

Even the chance that the 2 shootings in the last week could heavily influence their decisions............it shouldn’t as clearly they are “non political” !!!!!!

 

[GOPerfect]

A man with an incurable disease is already dead and is just biding his time.

The Second Amendment here in the US is dead as well; most just don't know it yet.

Day by day, we will lose more and more and more. Before you know it, the Right will be so regulated that it will be near impossible to own or have a gun.

These courts will do nothing. They prove this year after year after year.

The Politicians in Washington and many States are not friends to our cherished Bill of Rights.

Day by day we lose a bit more.

I am glad to see that there are still some that think there is promise going forward; I do not.

Inch by inch, foot by foot we will continue to lose.

This is not a Right thing or a Left thing. this is much greater than a political affiliation.

 

[Jmac00]

with the SCOTUS now a political wing for the DemocRATic party, and with Kavanagh and Gorsuch being kinda wishy-washy on their decisions, Im not all that confident these rulings would go the way 2A rights citizens want it too. I hope Im wrong, but Im not very confident in any SCOTUS ruling at this point.

What I would really like to see in a National Reciprocity law, with NO registration, But I doubt that would even be discussed.

 

[IrishMick]

The whole Sullivan Act and permitting scheme is unconstitutional. The Court has already reaffirmed half the unconstitutionality of it with the Heller and MacDonald rulings. We still cannot keep a handgun in the home without obtaining a permit to do so. Can't purchase one without permission and registration of the gun. Fuck Tish James on the longstanding process of an unconstitutional law being ok because we've been violating the peoples rights for a 100+ years. It was constitutional to fucking own PEOPLE as SLAVES since before the founding of our nation so how could we get rid of such a longstanding practice?!?

 

[GOPerfect]

Dream land is where people are if they think anything already passed is going away.

Dream land to think that Biden and the Mutt won't pass their bullshit AW ban.

When they pass this shit, it will be here to stay. After that, they will push more and more.....

I am not being negative about this, I live in reality.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I don't think this is the right case, and I don't think it will resolve in our favor if SCOTUS takes it up.

The right case, as IrishMick points out above, would involve the deep violations of Heller and McDonald. This case seeks to establish the right to possess a pistol outside the home. Which I totally support... but I do not think SCOTUS will.

 

[dc9mm]

with the SCOTUS now a political wing for the DemocRATic party, and with Kavanagh and Gorsuch being kinda wishy-washy on their decisions, Im not all that confident these rulings would go the way 2A rights citizens want it too. I hope Im wrong, but Im not very confident in any SCOTUS ruling at this point.

What I would really like to see in a National Reciprocity law, with NO registration, But I doubt that would even be discussed.

Not sure WHY you say its a polictal wing of the democrats. It HAS BEEN but now there is a majority that are right leaning at least. That has not been the case for a very very long time. So if anything it finally isn't a political wing for the left.

 

[fresch]

ok I just got the transcripts:
Did you guys hear about that second thing about guns?
yes we did.
great
what do you guys want to eat?
next on the scheduale

 

[IrishMick]

@GOPerfect
I agree with your assessment. Laws, especially gun control laws, rarely come off the books once they have been passed. They jusy keep stacking laws on top of laws even when they contradict each other. The powers that run things are neither Democrats or Republicans, both parties are just along for the ride, getting fat and rich along the way. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms will be gone in one more generation. Any private firearm ownership will be so heavily regulated that you won't be able to keep your guns in your home and you'll need permission to take your shotgun out of the storage place to go hunting.
On another note I try to read and understand the court rulings but their decisions seem to contradict themselves. The argument for the legality of AR15 ownership seems pretty clear cut. Going back to the Miller decision which failed to strike down the NFA, the loss being due to no one appearing for Miller and the decision to uphold the NFA was based on a Sawn Off Shotgun having no practical use in support of the Militia. Not discussed or adjudicated was the entirety of the law in which fully automatic arms which definitely have a place in militia use are also being infringed. Therefore according to the SCOTUS of the time Arms which have a direct correlation to service in the militia are protected. Almost every gun law and edict since then had been in contravention to the initial reasoning behind this decision. GCA, Sporting Purpose Tests, AWB, etc. are all aimed at removing/limiting arms that have a direct use in participation in a militia. If the original reasoning of the Miller decision is that arms related to militia service are protected, the AR15 should be the most protected arm as it is the closest civilian rifle to what the army here uses (actually we should have M16/M4's but that's another discussion). Yet the court has contradicted itself over and over by upholding the plethora of laws and edicts which attack ownership of arms useful to militia service. I hold out no hope that SCOTUS will protect our rights especially in regards to the 2A.

 

[Saltwater60]

Not sure WHY you say its a polictal wing of the democrats. It HAS BEEN but now there is a majority that are right leaning at least. That has not been the case for a very very long time. So if anything it finally isn't a political wing for the left.

So tell me why you feel this way? Because the media says there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court? I’d argue that fact anyday of the week and win on the ruling record. They have and will continue to side with liberals and liberal ideas more than conservative ideas. Barrett is untested. The other two Trump appointed have sided with liberals more often than not.

 

[Phazer]

The reality is with the Supreme Court under a "packing" threat that the majority of the justices won't do squat with this case.

Agreed.

Most of the justices are petrified at the prospect of being subject to the Leftist mobs. SCOTUS will never, ever, rule to uphold rights enshrined in the second amendment.

 

[Cooolone]

Laws...

Supreme Court...

Government...

Well, let's see... Over 300 million firearms in the U.S.

I'd say the ship sailed!

Make all the laws you want, you won't have compliance! There are States too that will rebel! Not everyone is on board with such ridiculousness. They stopped talking about how many states have swung to Constitutional carry/possession. How many had relaxed their laws. The media only publicizes otherwise. Same goes for the miscreants who shoot up dollar stores and churches. Not the grandma's that saved their own lives from gangbanger break&entering...

Anyways, the Govt is BY the PEOPLE. It's really that simple. And they won't, ever, convince all the people to follow their agressive progressive agenda...

The question is what will YOU do? NY State passed it's BS Safe Act and had little, very little compliance! They don't talk about that do they? And honestly, are they coming around kicking in doors? No, of course not.

Fact is right now there's many that are using contemporary social upheaval to propagate their agenda. The D.C protest escalated in their words to an insurrection, but the seizing of public property, firebombing of govt buildings and others are just frustrated demonstrators.

They think everyone falls for this shit and or eats it up. But they don't understand it's fueling and festering an undercurrent of hostility that is boiling and waiting for the catalyst to ignite it all. They just need to keep it up and see what happens.

So anyways... The SCOTUS, the same one that allowed decades of NY Shitty defacto infringement of residents RIGHTS off the hook because, geeee, they set a policy, not even law, to amend their malfeasance...

They won't do a damned thing, period! And they have no damned teeth anyways...

But it's good for reading, good for the weak minds to worry about. Insurrection... Lmao! If and when it comes, it will make the availability of underwear scarcer than toilet paper during Covid!

 

[Dr. Evil]

Barrett is untested.

IIRC she already failed. Thomas and Alito were the only ones that had balls recently regarding PA.

 

[Phazer]

IIRC she already failed. Thomas and Alito were the only ones that had balls recently regarding PA.

BINGO!

By the "rumors" we heard about SCOTUS, Roberts was already too scared by the prospect of mob actions to do anything at all.

SCOTUS will continue to help the Left whittle away at our culture until an outright assault on the constitution is simply viewed as the next logical step...so...no big deal.

 

[Nevar]

While I think "Cooolone" made some very good points.
I Say the current Supreme Court has been bought and paid for. Just like many/most Politicians they have there own Firearms and Armed body guards. We the public are just peons.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Summary:
The new case concerns a New York law governing licenses to carry concealed handguns in public. It requires residents to show they have what the state calls an "actual and articulable" need to do so.
"The law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second Amendment and directly advances New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention," New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote in court papers.
Nash, for instance, requested to carry a handgun for self-defense after a string of robberies in his neighborhood but he was denied because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense. Koch wanted a similar license and he was able to cite his experience of participating in safety training courses. He too was denied.
Koch wanted a similar license and cited his participation in safety training courses. He too was denied.

A.) Is the current system capricious and arbeitrary?
B) Is the current system an infringement on the rights of New York Citizens?

 

[zorro]

Not directly connected.........but there is a pattern to be viewed which no doubt will impact more states than they list

US Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to open carry guns in public

 

[SonOfSun]

with the SCOTUS now a political wing for the DemocRATic party, and with Kavanagh and Gorsuch being kinda wishy-washy on their decisions, Im not all that confident these rulings would go the way 2A rights citizens want it too. I hope Im wrong, but Im not very confident in any SCOTUS ruling at this point.

What I would really like to see in a National Reciprocity law, with NO registration, But I doubt that would even be discussed.

6 of 9 justices appointed by Republicans makes it a Democratic court?

Mmmmmm ok.

 

[libertysnake]

Two states (New York and South Carolina) prohibit openly carrying handguns, but not long guns

Yeah I'm pretty sure if a cop in NY sees you walking around with a rifle on your shoulder you're going to jail. That's bullshit. Long gun open carry isn't a thing in NY.

 

[prambo]

SCROTUM will do nothing.

Thomas and Alito are the only justices that could be considered strict constitutionalists.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are limp twisted liberals.

Barrett isn't unproven, she's already in the communist camp...always was. Minimally, she's a completely malleable nebbish.

Remember the blank notepad schtick from her appointment hearings?

Pure political theatre.

If she's so damn good as a constitutional scholar why is she so invisible? There's no fucking OJT on SCROTUM girlie!

Trump screwed the pouch up the shit chute with his 3 appointments - and we're left holding the bag of shit.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

6 of 9 justices appointed by Republicans makes it a Democratic court?

Mmmmmm ok.

Doesn't matter who they are appointed by. It's how they rule on cases.

 

[Celt]

They have the dirt on Roberts from his trip to pedo island, thats how they keep him and all their friends/enemies in line.

 

[Cooolone]

A.) Is the current system capricious and arbitrary?

YES!

B) Is the current system an infringement on the rights of New York Citizens?

YES!

 

[Cooolone]

The limits accepted, or scrutiny allowed creates the problems to begin with. Especially when arbitrary administrative restrictions are put in place outside the LEGISLATURE! Licensing agents, even Judges should not have the ability to create their version of Utopia! And the different restrictions across a State in local municipalities create a burden and hardship on those citizens. NY Shitty is the best example. But at least that is written into State law...

So until strict scrutiny is recognized and subsequently applied... This shit will never end! The mental midgets politicans and local municipalities will institute their versions of what they deem to be ok, alright or hey, if you want it, jump through the hoops we put in front of you. Pat your head, jump in one leg and rub your belly while reciting the pledge of allegiance and explaining why you need a firearm and maybe we'll let ya have one. Oh wait, all those who are members of the same golf club as the local judicial, go to line B (express pass)...

Just a bunch of bullshit...

 

[tirwin1]

BOHICA

 

[GOPerfect]

6 of 9 justices appointed by Republicans makes it a Democratic court?

Mmmmmm ok.

Not a Democrat court...

It is a Liberal Court.

Huge difference.

Many of these Justices are looking at my Constitution in a Liberal way. To really understand the Founding Fathers intent and the Constitution, one needs to look from a Conservative point of view.

Not Liberal and Conservative in the way of political parties.

The reading, understanding and interpretation of the words and passages.

 

[IrishMick]

@GOPerfect
This will never happen. If the Justices viewed and interpreted the Constitution as set forth by the Founders it would mean a drastic reduction of power especially at the Federal level. This will never be allowed. The government will never give up power.