Joined
·
75,809 Posts
Nemo, that second circuit case you linked above - it has nothing at all to do with this, does it? I spent all yesterday evening thinking that the S.Ct was taking up an "assault weapon ban" Second Amendment case.
Posts by Malum Prohibitum
1 - 20 of 453 Posts
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
The Rifle & Pistol case begins, then, with four virtually certain votes against the New York law-the two newcomers, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts voted for the gun owners in Heller and McDonald. He may have been trying to keep the Court out of the Second Amendment area for institutional reasons since then, but that's not likely to make him go back on his earlier votes when the time comes to throw down.
Same link as previous post; it's worth reading in its entirety.
Same link as previous post; it's worth reading in its entirety.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
The constitutional right to travel is a big, big deal, and that is one of the questions presented.
Yes, they are doing it in baby steps, but I remember the same criticism of Heller. Presenting it in baby steps is why the court took the case.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
Is there a likely scenario where the Supreme Court yet again adopts no standard of review? Perhaps they hold that there is some right outside the home to transport a locked, unloaded firearm, consistent with the right to travel, the (dormant) Commerce Clause, and the Second Amendment, but that New York's ban on all travel outside the city needs no standard of review, because it is a complete and utter ban, and thus unconstitutional no matter what standard is used?
They need not address transporting such weapons inside the city, because that is permitted.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
I agree with the step by step approach, but, damn, it is going to take a long time at this rate.
The best outcome from this case is a right, outside the home, to transport an unloaded handgun in a case outside the city where you live for purposes of visiting a shooting range or a second home.
The lower courts, the same ones who adamantly insist that Heller and McDonald cannot be expanded outside the home, will then have a series of appellate court cases seeking a right to be carrying loaded guns outside the home, but will insist that the Supreme Court went no further than unloaded, cased guns. And another decade will pass.
Maybe with Trump's two nominees (a unique situation for a President's first two years), one of whom probably tipped the balance (i.e., replacing Kennedy), there will be four votes for taking up future cases and five votes for recognizing a right to BEAR arms, outside of sensitive locations, such as schools and publicly owned buildings. Maybe. Let's hope.
The best outcome from this case is a right, outside the home, to transport an unloaded handgun in a case outside the city where you live for purposes of visiting a shooting range or a second home.
The lower courts, the same ones who adamantly insist that Heller and McDonald cannot be expanded outside the home, will then have a series of appellate court cases seeking a right to be carrying loaded guns outside the home, but will insist that the Supreme Court went no further than unloaded, cased guns. And another decade will pass.
Maybe with Trump's two nominees (a unique situation for a President's first two years), one of whom probably tipped the balance (i.e., replacing Kennedy), there will be four votes for taking up future cases and five votes for recognizing a right to BEAR arms, outside of sensitive locations, such as schools and publicly owned buildings. Maybe. Let's hope.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
How far those on the left pervert the constitution. From the author, discussing the "right to travel" aspect of the case (although more mocking than discussing).
The plaintiffs also claim that being asked to travel without their guns is akin to being forbidden to travel at all-as though a person were not constitutionally whole without a gun. To them, the restriction is as profound a violation of rights as "a prohibition on leaving city limits to get an abortion."
The right to travel for an abortion outside of one's state has been recognized by the federal courts. Laws seeking to forbid it or discriminate in favor of residents are struck down as violating the right to travel. What stands out to me is that this author mocks the very idea of the right to bear arms (unloaded and cased) while traveling as any sort of constitutional right, while holding up abortion rights as the standard. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution, but the author believes it to be the ultimate standard of comparison, against which the right to bear arms while traveling is lacking profundity.
The reality is that we have two generations of persons now, maybe three, that do not bother reading the constitution and instead cheer for a results oriented approach to judging at the Supreme Court.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
Well, I didn't exactly say that. It is a step in the right direction and might lay the groundwork for an actual right to "bear" arms outside the home. I am just concerned about how long this approach will take.
This case will gain a little something for persons living in NYC. It may even gain the rest of us a right to travel TO a place like NYC with the gun unloaded, something we do not possess today (federal law protects traveling through only, not stopping, and not even checking into a flight).
But it will not gain anything more in circuits like the Second Circuit, or the Ninth, which will go only as far as the case holding and no further.
That is, until the Supreme Court takes another case and pronounces a right to bear arms outside the home. I think this is coming. It is just a question of when. There may be five votes for it now with Kennedy deceased.
I do not wish for anyone's death, but if Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to pass on, I think this whole process will move much more quickly.
ONE ADDITIONAL THOUGHT - The right to travel aspect may turn out to be significant. The right to travel is generally a right to not be discriminated against because one is not a resident of the state to which one is traveling. Depending upon what the court holds (I do not think this case involved traveling outside of NY state, but only within the state) it might greatly influence reciprocity. Think about traveling to Illinois or Oregon. Both states discriminate against Georgians in how the right to bear arms affects them when visiting. I hold out a small hope that this case might lay the groundwork for a "right to travel" that means you get to carry like a local, maybe both of the states I mentioned will have to issue a nonresident license.
GCO was preparing such a case against SC, which was mooted by legislation in SC recognizing Georgian's right to carry there.
I have a faint memory of a case on behalf of a nonresident here in Georgia, but I cannot recall how that one came out. Anybody?
I do recall the Second Circuit (in which is NY) denied a Navy Seal's right to travel case - he wanted to bring his pistol when visiting his mama in NY, but they would not issue him a license. The case strongly hinted that he would have a claim but for the fact that there was not right to bear arms that applied to an individual. This was a pre-Heller case. It has been discussed here on the forum many years ago.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
LOL! I wish I could make $$$ doing that kind of law . . . :lol:
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
GUNS
Also on Jan. 22, the court granted certiorari in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. The case involves a New York City law that limits handgun owners to possessing their guns at the address listed on their handgun license, with the sole exception of transporting the gun "directly to and from" one of approximately seven "authorized small arms range/shooting club[ s ], unloaded, in a locked container, the ammunition to be carried separately."
From 1791 until 2008, the court always interpreted the Second Amendment-and there weren't that many cases-as protecting only a right to have guns for militia service. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008 ), the court held that the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to have guns in the home for the sake of security. The court struck down a D.C. ordinance that prohibited private ownership or possession of handguns. In McDonald v. City of Chicago(2010), the court held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.
But in many instances since 2010, the high court has denied certiorari in cases involving gun rights. There are basic unanswered questions: What level of scrutiny is to be used for the Second Amendment? Does the Second Amendment protect a right to have guns outside the home? If so, what types of regulations are permissible?
All of these questions underlie the court's consideration of the New York law. Interestingly, although the case had been on earlier conference lists and could have been taken for this term, the court waited until after the docket for this year was full, and it appears that the case will not be argued until October.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
Also on Jan. 22, the court granted certiorari in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. The case involves a New York City law that limits handgun owners to possessing their guns at the address listed on their handgun license, with the sole exception of transporting the gun "directly to and from" one of approximately seven "authorized small arms range/shooting club[ s ], unloaded, in a locked container, the ammunition to be carried separately."
From 1791 until 2008, the court always interpreted the Second Amendment-and there weren't that many cases-as protecting only a right to have guns for militia service. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008 ), the court held that the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to have guns in the home for the sake of security. The court struck down a D.C. ordinance that prohibited private ownership or possession of handguns. In McDonald v. City of Chicago(2010), the court held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.
But in many instances since 2010, the high court has denied certiorari in cases involving gun rights. There are basic unanswered questions: What level of scrutiny is to be used for the Second Amendment? Does the Second Amendment protect a right to have guns outside the home? If so, what types of regulations are permissible?
All of these questions underlie the court's consideration of the New York law. Interestingly, although the case had been on earlier conference lists and could have been taken for this term, the court waited until after the docket for this year was full, and it appears that the case will not be argued until October.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
I agree that this may lay the groundwork for a right to bear arms outside the home, but the Supreme Court is not going to go further than the plaintiffs are requesting. That will have to await a future case building on the framework laid out in this case. That is all I was trying to explain in post #48.
Thanks for the reminder on what happened to the nonresident case in Georgia. I could volunteer to move to one of those states for a right to travel case, but I still have several years left on my valid Georgia license.
Thanks for the reminder on what happened to the nonresident case in Georgia. I could volunteer to move to one of those states for a right to travel case, but I still have several years left on my valid Georgia license.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
We had the Supreme Court hinting that the government could ban guns at schools and government buildings over a decade ago (Heller). And yet we are still arguing about whether there is any right to bear arms outside the home. It is an area of very unsettled law.
This case may settle it, for unloaded, cased weapons when transporting to a second home or a public shooting range.
This case cannot go further because that is all this case is about. The only groundbreaking issue is whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home at all.
It will be several more years while places like the Second Circuit recalcitrantly recognize a right to carry outside the home, but only while unloaded, cased, and going to a second home or shooting range, while shooting down all other claims. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take up a following case with broader issues (such as carrying loaded and ready for confrontation) in less than another eleven years. I'll be getting old by then.
This case may settle it, for unloaded, cased weapons when transporting to a second home or a public shooting range.
This case cannot go further because that is all this case is about. The only groundbreaking issue is whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home at all.
It will be several more years while places like the Second Circuit recalcitrantly recognize a right to carry outside the home, but only while unloaded, cased, and going to a second home or shooting range, while shooting down all other claims. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take up a following case with broader issues (such as carrying loaded and ready for confrontation) in less than another eleven years. I'll be getting old by then.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
:rotfl2:
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
The Young case out of Hawaii, the Ninth Circuit has stayed consideration en banc until the US Supreme Court rules in this case out of NY.
https://www.georgiapacking.org/thre...-v-state-of-hawaii.275099/page-4#post-2956209
https://www.georgiapacking.org/thre...-v-state-of-hawaii.275099/page-4#post-2956209
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
This word doesn't really fit the context.
And a "pro-gun Justice?" What? Are there pro-free-speech Justices? And anti-slavery Justices that uphold the Thirteenth Amendment?
This writer sees everything as political activism, even constitutional rights.
This word doesn't really fit the context.
And a "pro-gun Justice?" What? Are there pro-free-speech Justices? And anti-slavery Justices that uphold the Thirteenth Amendment?
This writer sees everything as political activism, even constitutional rights.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
:lol: Wow. Talk about playing the long game with strategy.
Leftists have it down.
I wish conservatives and libertarians would figure out a strategy to win over the long term, instead of playing defense all the time.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
This tells me they all have predicted that the S.Ct. will strike down the law, but they want to mitigate the damage the ruling will do to other laws.
We have all seen the results of intermediate scrutiny on our liberty to bear arms, or even to keep arms suitable for service in a militia.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
. My guess is the S.Ct. will duck the standard of review question again and hold that under any standard of review the law should be struck down.
To be clear, though, no federal court has applied strict scrutiny, so I doubt the S. Ct. will do so.
Also, there is no reason to adopt the same standard of review analysis from one constitutional right question and apply it to another. What I mean is, the Second Amendment may not end up being a rational basis - intermediate - strict paradigm of review. They might shift to something altogether new.
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
. Ha ha! Great!
Joined
·
75,809 Posts
I agree with their position, but fear the outcome with revisionist lefty judges. Remember some of the false history narratives being pushed out there by anti-gun folks. Read dissenting opinion in Heller. They'll have you thinking America was a place practically free of guns and full of tight, restrictive regulations and that the NRA came along and invented this myth of an Armed America.
This is, however, what I was talking about above. Just because this standard of review paradigm is used in other types of cases does not mean it should be used in Second Amendment cases.
This is, however, what I was talking about above. Just because this standard of review paradigm is used in other types of cases does not mean it should be used in Second Amendment cases.
1 - 20 of 453 Posts
