Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:17 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
because SCOTUS might be worried about appearing to take an avalanche of 2A cases.
If the court takes this opportunity to define the standard of review as strict scrutiny, they may not take another case for years.
My fear is that a decision imposing a strict scrutiny standard becomes a Pyrrhic victory. It’s like hitting a giant reset button in 2A litigation. Decisions that relied the intermediate scrutiny or rational basis standard are essentials invalidated because the court used the wrong standard.
Will scotus take a “right to carry” case? Probably not. The issue isn’t ripe. The lower courts need to weigh in applying strict scrutiny.
Now, with more Trump judges, perhaps we score a few more wins. But in general, liberal judges will generally go through the gymnastics to support whatever gun control measures a state dreams up. In the mean time, restrictive laws remain in place and we all grow old as the issues are relitigated.
And the big winner is Justice Roberts. He can say he defended the 2A, but doesn’t have to touch another case for years.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-24-2019, 3:34 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm wondering if the timing of the hearing of this case might be pushed for this year just to keep it at least partially out of the 2020 general election?

If the case is heard in 2020 and the decision handed down in late June, then a decision supporting our right to self-defense will likely be a huge issue at the Democrats' July 2020 convention and a pretty big one at the August Republican convention.

I doubt Roberts would like the contribution to the politics and will try to avoid that. So if he can I'd bet he tries to get it heard and the decision out in June of this year. Alternatively it would not be stunning if it were heard after the summer break if he can ensure that the opinion was out long before the conventions.

If he can do it, it'll be out in late June.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-24-2019, 5:55 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,504
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I'm wondering if the timing of the hearing of this case might be pushed for this year just to keep it at least partially out of the 2020 general election?

If the case is heard in 2020 and the decision handed down in late June, then a decision supporting our right to self-defense will likely be a huge issue at the Democrats' July 2020 convention and a pretty big one at the August Republican convention.

I doubt Roberts would like the contribution to the politics and will try to avoid that. So if he can I'd bet he tries to get it heard and the decision out in June of this year. Alternatively it would not be stunning if it were heard after the summer break if he can ensure that the opinion was out long before the conventions.

If he can do it, it'll be out in late June.
I don't think any strings will be pulled to speed up this case.

That being said the calendar for SCOTUS has yet to be released past February, so I don't know that it's a formality this gets pushed to next term. There seems to be enough cases ahead to fill the argument schedule but there were numerous cases granted cert at the same time that may be related and thus be argued together, which frees up some space.
Even if it does get pushed to next term, would this necessarily be one of the blockbuster cases that gets released in June? Not convinced about that either.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-24-2019, 7:15 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 640
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
If the court takes this opportunity to define the standard of review as strict scrutiny, they may not take another case for years.
My fear is that a decision imposing a strict scrutiny standard becomes a Pyrrhic victory. It’s like hitting a giant reset button in 2A litigation. Decisions that relied the intermediate scrutiny or rational basis standard are essentials invalidated because the court used the wrong standard.
Will scotus take a “right to carry” case? Probably not. The issue isn’t ripe. The lower courts need to weigh in applying strict scrutiny.
Now, with more Trump judges, perhaps we score a few more wins. But in general, liberal judges will generally go through the gymnastics to support whatever gun control measures a state dreams up. In the mean time, restrictive laws remain in place and we all grow old as the issues are relitigated.
And the big winner is Justice Roberts. He can say he defended the 2A, but doesn’t have to touch another case for years.
You get it. Only it will be worse. This will be a narrowly tailored decision that lower courts will ignore with impunity. We get nothing for the next gen years, just steadily deteriorating rights.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-24-2019, 8:11 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,522
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
My fear is that a decision imposing a strict scrutiny standard becomes a Pyrrhic victory. It’s like hitting a giant reset button in 2A litigation. Decisions that relied the intermediate scrutiny or rational basis standard are essentials invalidated because the court used the wrong standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
You get it. Only it will be worse. This will be a narrowly tailored decision that lower courts will ignore with impunity. We get nothing for the next gen years, just steadily deteriorating rights.
That's just the "battered CA gun owner syndrome" talking.

You can be personally pessimistic about what is about to happen because you don't want to raise your hope, but blindly proclaiming that we cannot win is irrational. It's the old hedging your bets, where you'll take being wrong if we win, but at least you'll be able to claim you have been right if we lose. Try that strategy with your own life and you'll be a couch potato unable to accomplish anything.

So, let's stick to rational aspects of this discussion, which is "what can we expect the ruling to be." It should be based on reality of how and why SCOTUS takes cases and on the recent changes to the composition of the court.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-24-2019, 8:23 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

How quickly can things change? Just look at the Gay Marriage ruling, that flipped the legal landscape nationwide almost overnight.

And in a sense that's sort of what we all expected after the McDonald v Chicago decision of 2010. And that case did result in a few powerful consequences, like giving Illinois of all places shall issue CCW laws.

But I don't think anyone anticipated the scale or the depth of the Lower Federal Courts insubordination and nullification of the DC v Heller precedent. So here we are.

Will the new New York case under consideration result in a nothingburger? Unlikely. The Supreme Court will rule something with huge implications. Either the 2nd Amendment will be dead for all practical purposes, or gun-control will be on a deathwatch.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people

Last edited by gunsandrockets; 01-24-2019 at 8:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-24-2019, 8:26 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

"Battered CA gun owner syndrome". I'm using that term

It's so true... people here have gotten so used to losing, that they've decided that winning is impossible.

SCOTUS isn't California, guys. They don't have a 70% anti-gun majority like we have here, and they don't have any constituents they need to impress.

We've simply forgotten those facts because of 10 years of anti-2A-smackdown getting ignored by SCOTUS.

When they finally get the bench majority they need for a 2A case, and relatively immediately take their first case with the obvious intention of doing something productive with it (why else would they waste their time with such a trivial case?), people here in CA are so beaten down, exhausted, and resigned to defeat that they don't even notice the light at the end of the tunnel that's so bright it's burning their retinas.


How is this case different than Heller and McDonald (which have been largely danced around or outright ignored by the lower courts)? The answer is simple. The Justices are now armed with the knowledge of all of the tricks being played to exploit the weaknesses and loopholes in Heller/McDonald, and they've had 10 years to come up with a plan to close them once and for all.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-24-2019 at 8:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-24-2019, 8:42 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,696
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
But I don't think anyone anticipated the scale or the depth of the Lower Federal Courts insubordination and nullification of the DC v Heller precedent.
Uh ... I did -- long before anyone was willing to take the notion seriously, back when people naively thought that courts were "objective". They were unwilling to follow the implications of the judge selection process to its logical conclusion.

Now, fortunately, we know better. Most of us should have known better, and likely would have known better if not for the euphoria of the 2008 and 2010 wins. That's water under the bridge now. What really matters is that we've obviously learned from our experience. Pain tends to be an excellent teacher.

But it's important to learn the right things from experience. Some here have learned the wrong thing, and now believe it is impossible to win no matter what.


This particular case is interesting because of the situational characteristics. There's absolutely no good reason for the Court to take this case only to bury the 2nd Amendment for good -- it has had plenty of opportunity to do that prior to now, and the composition of the court has become considerably more favorable to us since then. There's no good reason for the Court to issue an ultra-narrow decision, either, because there's scant difference between doing that and simply denying cert.

No, situational logic strongly suggests that the Court will do more (likely much more) than issue a lukewarm decision.


Now, obviously nothing is certain here. But if the Court issues a narrow and worthless decision, it will be inexplicable with the information we currently have on hand.


One other thing: it should be obvious from the behavior of the lower courts that for any decision made here to stick, SCOTUS must be willing to take on many more 2A cases. "Progressive"-controlled lower courts are going to defy the Supreme Court to an even greater degree than they already have, using "reasoning" and means hitherto unseen. SCOTUS must be willing to correct that for the 2nd Amendment to have any teeth. I would bet money that Thomas, at least, knows this.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 01-24-2019 at 8:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-24-2019, 9:14 AM
510rick's Avatar
510rick 510rick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
He had struck me as a hard core professional. His decision will be driven by the violations of the Constitution, not by revenge.
I agree 100percent
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:16 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Holy crap. A Rolling Stone article that is unbiased and only contains facts. No, I am not being sarcastic.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ndment-783877/
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:29 AM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
Holy crap. A Rolling Stone article that is unbiased and only contains facts. No, I am not being sarcastic.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ndment-783877/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolling Stone Magazine
we will get our first big change from the Kavanaugh Court — not in abortion, not in LGBT rights and not in the death penalty, but rather in the right of people to bear arms, public safety be damned.
You must have missed this dig?
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:47 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 3,231
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
Holy crap. A Rolling Stone article that is unbiased and only contains facts. No, I am not being sarcastic.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ndment-783877/
Unbiased? Not sure I agree but at least it's not an egregiously anti-2A hit piece, at least until the very last sentence. There it links to another article from 2016 explaining why it's time to repeal the 2A and how wrong the founders were for including it.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member

Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:57 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I did, I missed the dig at the very end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
You must have missed this dig?
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:21 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 640
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
That's just the "battered CA gun owner syndrome" talking.

You can be personally pessimistic about what is about to happen because you don't want to raise your hope, but blindly proclaiming that we cannot win is irrational.
I am not proclaiming we can not win. I lived through the downfall of the Soviet Union. I was on the barricades in 1991. In front of tanks in 1993. People can win freedom from the worst of tyrannies.

I am just looking at objective facts in front of us. This is the oddest, most in-significant incarnation of RBA.

Last edited by Offwidth; 01-24-2019 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:59 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
I am not proclaiming we can not win. I lived through the downfall of the Soviet Union. I was on the barricades in 1991. In front of tanks in 1993. People can win freedom from the worst of tyrannies.

I am just looking at objective facts in front of us. This is the oddest, most in-significant incarnation of RBA.

You're not looking at why they took this case (probably), the behavior of lower courts, the past 10 years of denial from cert on 2A cases, a brand new pro-2a judge, etc.

I've been following these court cases very closely since Drake was denied cert. While nothing is definite, the fact that they took this case is huge. SCOTUS did not suddenly decide to take an obscure law in New York City after years of denying cert in order to put a ruling that simply strikes down the law. There isn't a circuit split on this issue, so there no urgency or reason to take this unless they plan on expanding the 2A or allowing the 2-step analysis to stay in place. It's unlikely they will okay the 2-step analysis, considering the past 9 years.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-24-2019, 1:25 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 640
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
You're not looking at why they took this case (probably), the behavior of lower courts, the past 10 years of denial from cert on 2A cases, a brand new pro-2a judge, etc.
I am looking at each of those factors and do not let the excitement of having "something" to be decided on its merits cloud that analysis.

Out of all possible options they picked this? That is a strong signal to their actual intent.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 01-24-2019, 1:49 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,210
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
Holy crap. A Rolling Stone article that is unbiased and only contains facts. No, I am not being sarcastic.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ndment-783877/
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
You must have missed this dig?
And don't overlook this:
Quote:
What seems more likely is that, while he was on the Court, Justice Kennedy supported the basic right to own a handgun for self-defense, but he was unwilling to go much further to expand gun rights. Thus, the Court never had enough votes to strike down the various laws that came to it in the past decade and instead ignored those cases. But now, with Justice Kavanaugh, the Court’s conservatives think they have the fifth vote to expand the Second Amemdment, so they took this new case.
This rag seems to think that the 2nd Amendment is fully defined and that now the court is going to "expand" it. I would argue that it has been fully defined since its inception and that now the court has the opportunity to "defend" it.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 01-24-2019, 2:39 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think that SCOTUS would have taken this case with Kennedy.

This case is so far removed from any other limitation within the country, that they pretty much would have had to take it. I do agree, that we won't get much out of this case beyond a requirement that states must allow free transportation. Would love if it addresses open carry / conceal carry but I doubt they will go that far as others have already mentioned.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 01-24-2019, 2:52 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post

Out of all possible options they picked this? That is a strong signal to their actual intent.
Yes, they picked this case because the 2-step analysis done by the 2nd circuit majority flies in the face of Heller and McDonald more than any other case I have seen so far.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 01-24-2019, 3:07 PM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Of all the Courts of Appeal, which Circuit has been most hostile to 2nd Amendment rights since the 2010 McDonald v Chicago decision? Hasn't it been the Second Circuit?

That may be another reason why SCOTUS picked this case to hear.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 01-24-2019, 3:07 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 168
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Yes, they picked this case because the 2-step analysis done by the 2nd circuit majority flies in the face of Heller and McDonald more than any other case I have seen so far.
Yup. They couldn't have found a worse example of flagrant disregard. New York offered zero evidence that the law met the objective or was necessary and CA2 lapped it up calling it intermediate scrutiny. If they didn't intend to straighten out lower court analyses, they won't have bothered with this case. It's not as if they don't have enough to do.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 01-24-2019, 3:11 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wouldn't a particularly egregious violation if the 2A in the context of Heller and McDonald lend itself to a more narrow ruling?

I do not take comfort in this case. While I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will make a beneficial ruling, I do not think that it is necessarily going to turn out as we wish/hope.

But I'll admit to having speculated that when the date for oral arguments is announced maybe flying out to be there. But I have long legs and not enough money for 1st Class so I don't enjoy most flights and I pretty much refuse to wear a suit and tie so based on my recollection of previous admonitions that right to self-defense supporters should show up in very respectable attire (i.e. a suit for the males). . . It's pretty unlikely that I'll be there.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 01-24-2019, 3:30 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 168
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Wouldn't a particularly egregious violation if the 2A in the context of Heller and McDonald lend itself to a more narrow ruling?
Maybe. But all the cool courts are doing it. So why not slap them all at the same time? This is the primary reason I think Roberts will be strongly on board. Can't have those lower courts making a mockery out of his decisions and it's sort of their civil rights moment around the least legally developed of those rights (2A). Decisions on the inclusivity of the Bill of Rights (now including even those disfavored 2A rights) have been made and ignored as they were in other civil rights struggles. Time to drop the hammer?
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 01-24-2019, 3:44 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,258
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Then you clearly haven't read Heller v. DC, nor have you seen the Scalia interview.

If you're serious, you'll go back and read the precedents - the tests done in each case are quite revealing...not just on manner of carry or location, but the firearm itself...

=8-)
As I said, I read it when it came out.
Yes they cited a bunch of cases that addressed carry - because the outcomes supported individual right to arms - not because they were interested in mode of carry. And as I said, there's nothing surprising about the 19th century attitude, that does not equate to what you keep claiming.

Until SCOTUS rules that only open carry is protected - and they haven't, then they haven't.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 01-24-2019, 3:59 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Wouldn't a particularly egregious violation if the 2A in the context of Heller and McDonald lend itself to a more narrow ruling?

.
That depends on the majority opinion. Given what Heller says, the blatant disregard for Heller, the Dissent from cert opinions released in the past 6 years, and Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II, it is very possible the ruling itself will be narrow (the law is unconstitutional), but have wide sweeping consequences because they reject the 2-step intermediate scrutiny test rejected in Heller.

My prediction is the ruling has enough teeth to effect in the home and purchase rules. Magazine capacity, handgun roster, limits on the amount of guns you can purchase per month, and *possibly* semi auto rifle bans. The lower courts will grudgingly accept this, but only apply it to "in the home". They will rule against carry until SCOTUS takes up a bear case. It's possible the 9th circuit will still consider semi-auto rifles to be "military weapons" that Heller does not cover. Of course I am speculating, because I have no idea what the opinion will actually be. However, based on the lower courts behavior for the past 9 years, I think they will continue to try to get away with as much as they can.

If all goes well this is the beginning of the end for the control advocates. I don't think it will be the final nail in the coffin, but it will do significant damage. We have been living in limbo post-Mcdonald.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 01-24-2019, 6:10 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,633
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
You get it. Only it will be worse. This will be a narrowly tailored decision that lower courts will ignore with impunity. We get nothing for the next gen years, just steadily deteriorating rights.
So, it will be like Heller and McDonald, where lower courts and anti politicians just ignore them completely and it will be a victory in name only.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 01-24-2019, 6:45 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
As I said, I read it when it came out.
Yes they cited a bunch of cases that addressed carry - because the outcomes supported individual right to arms - not because they were interested in mode of carry. And as I said, there's nothing surprising about the 19th century attitude, that does not equate to what you keep claiming.

Until SCOTUS rules that only open carry is protected - and they haven't, then they haven't.
Seriously?

Again,

Seriously?



http://www.guncite.com

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 01-25-2019, 6:30 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
That's just the "battered CA gun owner syndrome". So, let's stick to rational aspects of this discussion, which is "what can we expect the ruling to be." It should be based on reality of how and why SCOTUS takes cases and on the recent changes to the composition of the court.

It’s an interesting first case after standing down for 10 years. It’s an issue that affects very few; people who lives in Manhattan, but would like to bring their gun to their 2nd homes (i.e. people wealthy enough to have more than 1 gun). So, why such an esoteric case?

I’d like to think it’s just an opening salvo; an indication the court is going to get very “hands on” now that they have their 4th vote for cert, but I kind of doubt that. I think Roberts is the new swing vote and doesn’t have the appetite for a massive dismantling of gun control. Is it a vehicle to establish a right to carry a gun outside the home? Seems unlikely. The plaintiffs aren’t asking for a right to carry. And, there are plenty of “right to carry” cases to choose from.

In my opinion, the NYC law is secondary and real issue here is the standard by which courts review gun control laws.

With respect to NYC, I expect a very narrow decision. Heller codified a right to possess a handgun in the home and that means you must be permitted to transport a gun to your home, including a 2nd home (pretty mundane, but like I said, NYC isn’t the real issue here).

The bigger part of the decision, in my opinion, will be that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right. And, as such, any restrictions on this right are subject to strict scrutiny. I think we have some strong evidence for this in the dissent from denials of cert over the years. A common theme is frustration over the 2A being treated as a “disfavored” less important secondary right that doesn’t mesh with a fundamental right of self-defense.

Now, on its face, this is a big deal, but it won’t have an immediate impact. It will mean re-litigating many issues. And, as Kcbrown eloquently points out, it requires SCOTUS to take a more active role in smacking down activist progressive judges that defy its ruling. And they will defy its ruling. But this is course correction that will take years to play out, not an overnight dismantling of gun control.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 01-25-2019, 7:38 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do remember that I'm being the pessimist, but it is also important to remember that even if SCOTUS tries for a narrow ruling, if they apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases then the reach is going to be broad - especially if they are serious about it going forward.

OK, I'll return to my normal skepticism and remember that we don't know who voted for cert, why they voted for cert, or what their desired outcome might be.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 01-25-2019, 7:59 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,026
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
With respect to NYC, I expect a very narrow decision. Heller codified a right to possess a handgun in the home and that means you must be permitted to transport a gun to your home, including a 2nd home (pretty mundane, but like I said, NYC isn’t the real issue here).
Being allowed to transport a handgun to another home because Heller said you could have a handgun in the home for self-defense would definitely be about as narrow a change as we could get.

What auxiliary value such a decision might serve obviously depends on the language around it. If we see language enshrining “guns in public” as a legitimate state safety concern that would be adequately mitigated by a gun being unloaded and locked up with destination requirements, which this law goes beyond, that’s not good.

We may get a reminder that “and bear” is part of the amendment as well, and an explanation that this law necessarily fails any level of scrutiny (without clarifying what is appropriate or what wouldn’t fail if the appropriate level were applied) which would be annoying, and the lower courts would do with it what they’ve done with Heller.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:20 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 874
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Here's my prediction:

• This opinion will be one of Thomas' last, if not his last, and he will want to go out with a bang. He already has made mention of the Second being a disfavored right in his dissents, and also opined that the court should have given Peruta due consideration. If Roberts is inclined to let Thomas make his decision and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Alito agree, I think Roberts will be onboard.

• In reading the responses from NRA on the complaint, and De Blasio's stern rebuke of the action, De Blasio believes that NYC has the sovereign right to limit 2A to the home, and only one home. This flies in the face of a right to bear, a right to travel and transporting property (hello CA AWB!) and not only do I think we will see the court acknowledge that right to travel with a firearm, but I believe that there is a good chance because the step from a "premises" license, which is too restrictive, and a "carry" license, that is a unicorn in NYC, this will lead the court to not only strike down the NYC law but also declare that anything more restrictive than shall-issue permitting likely violates the right outside the home.

• Finally, I believe that the court will redefine scrutiny for the rights they have enumerated as strictly defined. The insubordination of the lower courts will not go unnoticed or unaddressed. They also likely have FOPA and Revell v. Port Authority in mind and will make it so that case can be re-argued or struck down and FOPA covering all travelers in NYC/NJ.

I could be very far off the mark, but if the ball is handed to Thomas and he runs with it, I feel this will be the outcome.

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 01-25-2019 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:52 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
Maybe. But all the cool courts are doing it. So why not slap them all at the same time? This is the primary reason I think Roberts will be strongly on board. Can't have those lower courts making a mockery out of his decisions and it's sort of their civil rights moment around the least legally developed of those rights (2A). Decisions on the inclusivity of the Bill of Rights (now including even those disfavored 2A rights) have been made and ignored as they were in other civil rights struggles. Time to drop the hammer?
This is a possibility since several recent requests for cert have pointed out how the lower courts are ignoring SCOTUS precedent and blatantly disregarding rules of procedure to the point of abusing their authority as the judiciary to achieve the pre-desired outcome.

This case, like Cataneo, might be a good case to force the inferior courts back into obedience.

I still have reservations about how far the SCOTUS could take this however.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-25-2019, 11:12 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Here's my prediction:

• This opinion will be one of Thomas' last, if not his last, and he will want to go out with a bang. He already has made mention of the Second being a disfavored right in his dissents, and also opined that the court should have given Peruta due consideration. If Roberts is inclined to let Thomas make his decision and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Alito agree, I think Roberts will be onboard.

• In reading the responses from NRA on the complaint, and De Blasio's stern rebuke of the action, De Blasio believes that NYC has the sovereign right to limit 2A to the home, and only one home. This flies in the face of a right to bear, a right to travel and transporting property (hello CA AWB!) and not only do I think we will see the court acknowledge that right to travel with a firearm, but I believe that there is a good chance because the step from a "premises" license, which is too restrictive, and a "carry" license, that is a unicorn in NYC, this will lead the court to not only strike down the NYC law but also declare that anything more restrictive than shall-issue permitting likely violates the right outside the home.

• Finally, I believe that the court will redefine scrutiny for the rights they have enumerated as strictly defined. The insubordination of the lower courts will not go unnoticed or unaddressed. They also likely have FOPA and Revell v. Port Authority in mind and will make it so that case can be re-argued or struck down and FOPA covering all travelers in NYC/NJ.

I could be very far off the mark, but if the ball is handed to Thomas and he runs with it, I feel this will be the outcome.
I don't think any of that is unreasonable.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-25-2019, 11:12 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Here's my prediction:

• This opinion will be one of Thomas' last, if not his last, and he will want to go out with a bang. He already has made mention of the Second being a disfavored right in his dissents, and also opined that the court should have given Peruta due consideration. If Roberts is inclined to let Thomas make his decision and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Alito agree, I think Roberts will be onboard.

• In reading the responses from NRA on the complaint, and De Blasio's stern rebuke of the action, De Blasio believes that NYC has the sovereign right to limit 2A to the home, and only one home. This flies in the face of a right to bear, a right to travel and transporting property (hello CA AWB!) and not only do I think we will see the court acknowledge that right to travel with a firearm, but I believe that there is a good chance because the step from a "premises" license, which is too restrictive, and a "carry" license, that is a unicorn in NYC, this will lead the court to not only strike down the NYC law but also declare that anything more restrictive than shall-issue permitting likely violates the right outside the home.

• Finally, I believe that the court will redefine scrutiny for the rights they have enumerated as strictly defined. The insubordination of the lower courts will not go unnoticed or unaddressed. They also likely have FOPA and Revell v. Port Authority in mind and will make it so that case can be re-argued or struck down and FOPA covering all travelers in NYC/NJ.

I could be very far off the mark, but if the ball is handed to Thomas and he runs with it, I feel this will be the outcome.
I hope you are right about Thomas retiring. He’s wonderful but he’s the weak link in the court changing going forward.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-25-2019, 11:20 AM
CSDGuy CSDGuy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,759
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

As I see it, this case is both a "keep" case and a "bear" case. NYC wants to limit the locations where you may keep firearms to only a single residence, that where you're permit/licensed to keep a firearm. It also wants to limit your ability to bear (carry) said firearm to only directly to/from an approved firing range and your single location where you're licensed to keep said firearm.

It's possible to forget that there are other places where someone may reside (even if temporarily) other than a primary residence. You do have the right to self-defense in those other places and NYC prohibits this in two ways: it only allows firearms to be kept in a single licensed location and it prohibits you from transporting firearms to another location, even if it's one where you temporarily reside.

While I think the actual ruling may be quite narrow, I don't think there's going to be an easy way they can adequately "get there" without going to strict scrutiny. I think that the end result is that they'll end up ruling that you have a right to have a firearm at any location where you reside, even if temporarily, and that you have a right to transport a firearm between any such location. They'll leave it up to the states as to "how" to accomplish this, whether it be via CCW, OC, or locked/secured but some manner of transport must be allowed. This is step 1. Step 2 may yet be up & coming out of Hawaii... and that could also reach SCOTUS fairly quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-25-2019, 11:37 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

SCOTUS released the 2019 March orals schedule. NYSRPA is not on it.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...lMarch2019.pdf

My *guess* is that means in late Feb they'll release the April orals schedule and we'll find out then, if not sooner, if NYSRPA will be heard this term.

This WashTimes article implies it will be heard this term.

Quote:
The Supreme Court ducked taking a major case involving the Obama-era DACA program but did agree Tuesday morning to hear a gun-rights case, in what legal analysts said could be the final word on the court’s schedule for this term.

<snip>

Normally, the justices would have firmed up the arguments for the rest of this year, legal experts said, with Tuesday’s list of cases being the final ones to make the cut.
More at: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ts-case-rejec/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-25-2019 at 11:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-25-2019, 12:11 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Here's my prediction:

• This opinion will be one of Thomas' last, if not his last, and he will want to go out with a bang. He already has made mention of the Second being a disfavored right in his dissents, and also opined that the court should have given Peruta due consideration. If Roberts is inclined to let Thomas make his decision and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Alito agree, I think Roberts will be onboard.

• In reading the responses from NRA on the complaint, and De Blasio's stern rebuke of the action, De Blasio believes that NYC has the sovereign right to limit 2A to the home, and only one home. This flies in the face of a right to bear, a right to travel and transporting property (hello CA AWB!) and not only do I think we will see the court acknowledge that right to travel with a firearm, but I believe that there is a good chance because the step from a "premises" license, which is too restrictive, and a "carry" license, that is a unicorn in NYC, this will lead the court to not only strike down the NYC law but also declare that anything more restrictive than shall-issue permitting likely violates the right outside the home.

• Finally, I believe that the court will redefine scrutiny for the rights they have enumerated as strictly defined. The insubordination of the lower courts will not go unnoticed or unaddressed. They also likely have FOPA and Revell v. Port Authority in mind and will make it so that case can be re-argued or struck down and FOPA covering all travelers in NYC/NJ.

I could be very far off the mark, but if the ball is handed to Thomas and he runs with it, I feel this will be the outcome.
#1 Nothing much to say really...

#2 Posting what YOU WANT (ccw) is not making a prediction.

We don't know what DeBlasio really believes. What we do know is the NYC thinks its controlling interest in a private person's private property under a licensing schema can be 100% without compensation. It's understandable if it's a department issued service weapon for an LEO, but here we're talking about a private person's private property - a firearm - being regulated via a licensing schema.

We already have a right to travel with our property in general - that's a given.

Does the court have to strike down a licensing scheme that is more restrictive than "shall issue"? One word answer:

NOPE!

Concealed carry is not the right, and may be regulated to the point of prohibition, same for concealable firearms.

Can the court decide that NYC's controlling interest in the licensee's privately owned firearm is overreaching and prohibitive? One word answer:

YUP!

Can the court decide that requiring a license for a "non-concealable" handgun is not permissable? Short answer:

Dunno, and also depends on whether plaintiff's have asked that question. Did they?


#3 Crap shoot. Will they decide to establish a level of scrutiny? Or will they reassert what Scalia put forth - examine under a historical framework analysis?

Justice's have taken pot shots at lower courts and fellow justices before - like the quote from Thomas in my signature. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more justices on SCOTUS have something to say to the lower courts.


=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-25-2019, 12:12 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,825
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
It’s an interesting first case after standing down for 10 years. It’s an issue that affects very few; people who lives in Manhattan, but would like to bring their gun to their 2nd homes (i.e. people wealthy enough to have more than 1 gun). So, why such an esoteric case?
The one thing that stands out to me about this case is, there's no circuit split, because no other place has anything quite like NY's regulations.

On "bear" questions there's definitely a circuit split. DC and Illinois had to go shall-issue, while other circuits have not yet. Why didn't they take one of the "bear" cases to address this split, and instead it took this weird NY case about a law that seems quite unique?

Obviously they know there's a circuit split in many different ways and different circuits are making up their own "two step" tests, different levels of scrutiny, "core" rights, and so on, and they must be using this crazy NY law as a way to resolve these issues. They certainly don't just get involved in crazy state laws just because they're crazy. Imagine if NY has some crazy state law that they will tow and impound your car if you park on the north side of the street on Wednesdays when it's raining. It's not SCOTUS job to deal with laws like that, no matter how absurd it is. They only take the time to resolve broader issues.

Congratulations liberals in NY, you gambled on SCOTUS and lost and now SCOTUS is getting a chance to review NY's gun laws. They could have averted this whole thing by simply removing that bit of the law and let the small number of legal NY gunowners transport their cased, locked, unloaded guns to shooting ranges outside the city.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-25-2019, 12:26 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 168
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
On "bear" questions there's definitely a circuit split. DC and Illinois had to go shall-issue, while other circuits have not yet. Why didn't they take one of the "bear" cases to address this split, and instead it took this weird NY case about a law that seems quite unique?

Obviously they know there's a circuit split in many different ways and different circuits are making up their own "two step" tests, different levels of scrutiny, "core" rights, and so on, and they must be using this crazy NY law as a way to resolve these issues. They certainly don't just get involved in crazy state laws just because they're crazy. Imagine if NY has some crazy state law that they will tow and impound your car if you park on the north side of the street on Wednesdays when it's raining. It's not SCOTUS job to deal with laws like that, no matter how absurd it is. They only take the time to resolve broader issues.
I agree. Inf Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS determined that "keep" and "bear" are individual rights and due the same protections as the rest of the Bill of Rights (both are defined, examined and found to be an individual right). The issue to be looked at isn't the goofy NY permit or limitation, it is how the lower courts came to the decision that the goofy NY permit and limitation were constitutional devoid of any factual evidence of need. Clearly, this hasn't been limited to this case and widespread interpretation and misinterpretation of Heller has been the norm, not the exception. SCOTUS shouldn't let that situation persist or it will have similar issues with the remainder of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights.

Last edited by ritter; 01-25-2019 at 12:28 PM.. Reason: formatting
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-25-2019, 12:27 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
The one thing that stands out to me about this case is, there's no circuit split, because no other place has anything quite like NY's regulations.

On "bear" questions there's definitely a circuit split. DC and Illinois had chose to go shall-issue, while other circuits have not yet. Why didn't they take one of the "bear" cases to address this split, and instead it took this weird NY case about a law that seems quite unique?

Obviously they know there's a circuit split in many different ways and different circuits are making up their own "two step" tests, different levels of scrutiny, "core" rights, and so on, and they must be using this crazy NY law as a way to resolve these issues. They certainly don't just get involved in crazy state laws just because they're crazy. Imagine if NY has some crazy state law that they will tow and impound your car if you park on the north side of the street on Wednesdays when it's raining. It's not SCOTUS job to deal with laws like that, no matter how absurd it is. They only take the time to resolve broader issues.

Congratulations liberals in NY, you gambled on SCOTUS and lost and now SCOTUS is getting a chance to review NY's gun laws. They could have averted this whole thing by simply removing that bit of the law and let the small number of legal NY gunowners transport their cased, locked, unloaded guns to shooting ranges outside the city.
Corrected...

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:47 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.