Now I did take criminal justice in school but I forgotten a lot since then so maybe someone can scrub me up here on what can be done. Now that there will be a conservative majority on the Supreme Court after Trump appoints a new Justice is there any chance that someone could take our shity gun laws to the Supreme Court? What could be done, what could the best case scenario be?
Supreme Court.
- Thread starter PlantBasedPatriot
- Start date
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Best case?
Just off the top of my head only...
Goodbye Sullivan Act / all states become "shall issue" (eh, what the hell- constitutional carry for all).
Overturn unSAFE and similar laws.
Goodbye 86 act, GCA, and NFA.
Goodbye 922.
BATFE held responsible for misusing/keeping/sharing 4473 data.
LEOTA held unconstitutional due to 14th amendment.
Holding my breath over none of this.
Just off the top of my head only...
Goodbye Sullivan Act / all states become "shall issue" (eh, what the hell- constitutional carry for all).
Overturn unSAFE and similar laws.
Goodbye 86 act, GCA, and NFA.
Goodbye 922.
BATFE held responsible for misusing/keeping/sharing 4473 data.
LEOTA held unconstitutional due to 14th amendment.
Holding my breath over none of this.
speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
What?
One can hope.
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
What can be done? Realistically? Very little, at this point. The battle over the majority of SAFE has been fought and lost. Our best hope right now is for similar provisions in other states to be shot down by SCOTUS, and then mount a new challenge to New York's laws based upon that.
That's my read, anyway. But I'm just an average schmoe.
That's my read, anyway. But I'm just an average schmoe.
Despite the ruling in the Heller case the supreme court has not taken up any other gun rights case. It looks like the oh so refined justices on the court don't really want to grant the average american what the constitution calls for. Justice Thomas is the only reliable one on the court. We need trump to get a solid conservative to replace kennedy and then hope for ginsburg to leave and replace her with another conservative. Then there might be sufficient backbone in the supreme court to actually address a 2A case.
The Second Amendment ‘Has Become Optional’
The Second Amendment ‘Has Become Optional’
C3D
.308 Win
We are unlikely to see a major change in RKBA jurisprudence unless another seat opens and is filled. Even then, I think the Supreme Court will be extremely unlikely to bring strict scrutiny to 2A challenges; more likely it will be intermediate or heightened scrutiny.
The Sullivan Act would probably fall under any of those standards; but CCW permit laws generally, the GCA, and the NFA, will remain.
The Sullivan Act would probably fall under any of those standards; but CCW permit laws generally, the GCA, and the NFA, will remain.
oc shooter
.223 Rem
very important could change the court for many years
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
@tirwin1 you left out the very important McDonald case but I overall agree with you. I wish Thomas were Chief Justice.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
"Best case?" More appropriately a "Pie-in-the-sky unobtanium-plated list for constitutional 2nd amendment adherents."
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
He said "best" case. I come in here optimistic and positive for once and you kick me in the nuts? I would've said "a slight slowdown in the incremental chipping away at 2A" if he asked for the "likely" outcome. JFC!
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Here is a take on the SCOTUS and why they haven’t taken up a another gun case to enforce Heller. I read or listened to it somewhere else but can’t remember where.
The answer was justice Kennedy.
Either side of the issue had a clue which way he would rule on the issue. So rather than take a chance on a ruling, both sides avoided direct confrontation of the issue.
However there was one case that gets ignored. The Massachusetts stun gun case.
Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia
The answer was justice Kennedy.
Either side of the issue had a clue which way he would rule on the issue. So rather than take a chance on a ruling, both sides avoided direct confrontation of the issue.
However there was one case that gets ignored. The Massachusetts stun gun case.
Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
From the wiki...
After concluding that the Massachusetts stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment, Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe."
After concluding that the Massachusetts stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment, Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe."
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It makes me wonder if NYS ban on stun guns is still enforceable. Or it’s ban on tasers by private citizens
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
If I had to guess, I'd say that it is enforceable until it gets struck down. However, it may not take SCOTUS to strike it down. That is to say, you'll probably get arrested, go to trial, and get convicted, but it is likely to get tossed on appeal at some level.
Just a guess on my part though - I'm not a lawyer.