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
  #1161  
Old 10-20-2021, 1:53 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,318
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
Paladin, do you mind reiterating where you saw that oral arguments will be livestreamed?
Quick Links at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 10-20-2021, 3:07 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
this is what I found,

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...n-its-homepage

I guess it's new as of 2021.
With respect to the livestream, I'm eager to hear what Justice Kagan says. Say what you want about her, but she is wicked smart, and if there a chance this case results in an opinion that doesn't advance gun rights, it will come from her.
Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 10-20-2021, 4:34 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 533
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Thank you sir!
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 10-21-2021, 8:48 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/20-843.html
Quote:
Oct 21 2021 Amicus brief of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence submitted.
Late submission I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #1165  
Old 10-21-2021, 12:20 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
One that starts off right away by referencing NOT DC v. Heller, but Robertson v. Baldwin 1876.

Late . . . yes . . . but actually addresses the question taken up on cert.

=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
  #1166  
Old 10-21-2021, 1:36 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
One that starts off right away by referencing NOT DC v. Heller, but Robertson v. Baldwin 1876.

Late . . . yes . . . but actually addresses the question taken up on cert.

=8-|
The material cited in Robertson v. Bldwin is entirely dicta as not within the scope of the issues presented, argued or decided, and is not binding precedent, nor is any authority cited for the proposition that a ban on concealed carry does not violate the 2A.:

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the ‘Bill of Rights,’ were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people *282 to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 627, 16 Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial."

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281–82, 17 S. Ct. 326, 329, 41 L. Ed. 715 (1897)

Moreover, at the time, there were no recognized restrictions on the right to carry openly, while here, NY bans open carry. As Heller discusses, the state cases have allowed a ban on concealed carry as long as open carry is permitted. The current case thus arises in a circumstance where the only permissible avenue of "to bear" for the average citizen is with a concealed carry permit. The old cases from the 19th century therefore arise in a distinguishable circumstance (open carry allowed) that is not present in NY at the current time, and are not binding on SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #1167  
Old 10-21-2021, 3:59 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yea and the brief somehow fails to cite Moore v Madigan or Wrenn v DC. That alone should disqualify it from being taken seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 10-21-2021, 5:10 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The material cited in Robertson v. Bldwin is entirely dicta as not within the scope of the issues presented, argued or decided, and is not binding precedent, nor is any authority cited for the proposition that a ban on concealed carry does not violate the 2A.:

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the ‘Bill of Rights,’ were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people *282 to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 627, 16 Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial."

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281–82, 17 S. Ct. 326, 329, 41 L. Ed. 715 (1897)

Moreover, at the time, there were no recognized restrictions on the right to carry openly, while here, NY bans open carry. As Heller discusses, the state cases have allowed a ban on concealed carry as long as open carry is permitted. The current case thus arises in a circumstance where the only permissible avenue of "to bear" for the average citizen is with a concealed carry permit. The old cases from the 19th century therefore arise in a distinguishable circumstance (open carry allowed) that is not present in NY at the current time, and are not binding on SCOTUS.
Wasn't aware that you are a SCOTUS justice who has the authority to issue authoritative publications on 2A jurisprudence and state publicly what applies and what doesn't - and what is just off-cuff commentary.

So, which one are you?



Oh, and Heller did not make the contingency argument. A justice should know their own publications. Right?



=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
  #1169  
Old 10-22-2021, 10:44 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post


Oh, and Heller did not make the contingency argument. A justice should know their own publications. Right?



=8-|
Unlike you, I am an attorney with thirty five years of experience who knows dicta when he sees it, and knows what dicta means. Heller never ruled on concealed carry. It was not an issue in the case, no matter what you, who is neither an attorney nor a Supreme Court justice, thinks. Nor was it an issue in Robertson, it undoubtedly was never briefed and certainly not argued. The Robertson court is merely analogizing, essentially saying that because other cases have allowed restrictions/bans on other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, we can restrict rights in this case here.

Perhaps you should answer the same question you pose: "Wasn't aware that you are a SCOTUS justice who has the authority to issue authoritative publications on 2A jurisprudence and state publicly what applies and what doesn't - and what is just off-cuff commentary.

So, which one are you?"
Reply With Quote
  #1170  
Old 10-22-2021, 1:27 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mrabbit is hopeless. No matter how many time do you lay out in front of him just how clueless his interpretation and misunderstanding of what he read is, it does not sink in.
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 10-22-2021, 3:45 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

His issue is that he is absolutely stuck on Robertson and doesn’t see that the Peruta dissent basically put a fork in that reasoning.
Reply With Quote
  #1172  
Old 10-22-2021, 4:22 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Guys...doesn't matter if you're an attorney.

YOU are not the authority on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. NOR ARE YOU the authority on what has been published by SCOTUS as the authoritative public record.

So folks like TruOil can spend all day proclaming: "That's not dicta!"

The value?

Hot air.

So everyone outside SCOTUS is left with two things:

1. Personal opinion.
2. Referencing SCOTUS published authoritative publications.

YOUR interpretations IF you make them carry NO AUTHORITY.

Like it or not...SCOTUS highlighted OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right - and highlighted many precedents in which bans or convictions on open carry were struck or remanded.

Like it or not...SCOTUS made a short list in Section III of lawful limitations - recognizing that states may regulated concealed carry and that prohibitions thereon are lawful.

Like it or not, when highlighting OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right, SCOTUS highlighted the major drawback of CONCEALED CARRY thus providing the major basis for the scrutinizing concealed carry.

But SCOTUS also noted in doing so where the right resides - with the States - explained as Polities in DC v. Heller.

You can spend all your time getting bent out of shape trying to argue it away . . . to no avail - an utter waste of time.

Or you can acknowledge it - and deal with it. Something that too many of the so called "dream team" lawyers just seem unable to do - most particular in the case of NYSRPA v. Bruen - as revealed by the poor amicus briefs.

=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
  #1173  
Old 10-22-2021, 4:30 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Guys...doesn't matter if you're an attorney.

YOU are not the authority on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. NOR ARE YOU the authority on what has been published by SCOTUS as the authoritative public record.

So folks like TruOil can spend all day proclaming: "That's not dicta!"

The value?

Hot air.

So everyone outside SCOTUS is left with two things:

1. Personal opinion.
2. Referencing SCOTUS published authoritative publications.

YOUR interpretations IF you make them carry NO AUTHORITY.

Like it or not...SCOTUS highlighted OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right - and highlighted many precedents in which bans or convictions on open carry were struck or remanded.

Like it or not...SCOTUS made a short list in Section III of lawful limitations - recognizing that states may regulated concealed carry and that prohibitions thereon are lawful.

Like it or not, when highlighting OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right, SCOTUS highlighted the major drawback of CONCEALED CARRY thus providing the major basis for the scrutinizing concealed carry.

But SCOTUS also noted in doing so where the right resides - with the States - explained as Polities in DC v. Heller.

You can spend all your time getting bent out of shape trying to argue it away . . . to no avail - an utter waste of time.

Or you can acknowledge it - and deal with it. Something that too many of the so called "dream team" lawyers just seem unable to do - most particular in the case of NYSRPA v. Bruen - as revealed by the poor amicus briefs.

=8-|
If our opinions are just hot air, so are yours. So I will feel free to ignore yours, and you can feel free to ignore ours. In fact, since you seem to be a lonely voice in the wilderness with whom no one seems to agree, why don't you keep your opinions to yourself and allow us to enjoy our discussions and prognostications. We are all well aware that there is only one opinion that counts, that of the Supreme Court, but it is fun trying to figure out where the court will come out.
Reply With Quote
  #1174  
Old 10-22-2021, 5:09 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What if Mr. Rabbit is right? And, the only reason the Supreme Court took this case at this time was to strike down any notion that there is a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. Perhaps, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brennan wanted to write that opinion, and Roberts, for whatever reason, perhaps to appease those wanting to pack the Supreme Court, granted cert just to do that. All of them knowing all they needed to do was pick off one more Justice (Kavanaugh?) for a win.
Reply With Quote
  #1175  
Old 10-22-2021, 5:45 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Article. IV.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States."

Amendment II.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Amendment IX.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment XIV.
Section 1. " All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States."


Enumerations-the action of mentioning a number of things one by one. ^^^ the things mentioned.

Construed-interpret (a word or action) in a particular way.

Deny-to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of

Disparage- regard or represent as being of little worth. aka downgrade

Infringe-act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on-encroach-intrude on (a person's territory or a thing considered to be a right).

Shall-expressing an instruction or command.

Not-used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word

Abridge-curtail (a right or privilege)-Curtail-reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.

Privileges-a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. - we are the group.

Immunities-protection or exemption from something
__________________

Last edited by TMB 1; 10-22-2021 at 5:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old 10-22-2021, 5:48 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mr rabbit is not right and know nothing that he opines about.
That does not mean that he can not guess outcome of this case as the Court can do whatever they want. It would be not for the reasons that mr rabbit is uninformed about.
Reply With Quote
  #1177  
Old 10-22-2021, 6:36 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
...Like it or not...SCOTUS highlighted OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right - and highlighted many precedents in which bans or convictions on open carry were struck or remanded.

Like it or not...SCOTUS made a short list in Section III of lawful limitations - recognizing that states may regulated concealed carry and that prohibitions thereon are lawful.

Like it or not, when highlighting OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right, SCOTUS highlighted the major drawback of CONCEALED CARRY thus providing the major basis for the scrutinizing concealed carry.

But SCOTUS also noted in doing so where the right resides - with the States - explained as Polities in DC v. Heller.

You can spend all your time getting bent out of shape trying to argue it away . . . to no avail - an utter waste of time.

Or you can acknowledge it - and deal with it. Something that too many of the so called "dream team" lawyers just seem unable to do - most particular in the case of NYSRPA v. Bruen - as revealed by the poor amicus briefs...
If you go back, I quoted the pages from Heller YOU cited as your evidence and told you all you needed to do was highlight those portions which say what you claim they say and that NONE of the rest of us can see. You never did.

We've been round and round this barn and it is YOU who is offering interpretation instead of literally reading the text; something I and others have repeatedly shown as opposed to your opaque "read Heller." Ultimately, YOUR INTERPRETATION (or whomever's it is) may ultimately prove to be what SCOTUS adopts. But, as of now, what you have to "deal with" is that it's not what you claim it is and Heller doesn't say what you claim it does.

What people get "bent out of shape" over is that your continuous haranguing of this section over "open carry is the right/concealed carry is not" comes across to many/most as near habitual trolling. You have been repeatedly called on this, including by moderators, and you have 100% failed to document how you derived your interpretation... every time. As I just noted, even when you finally offered specific pages where your 'proof' supposedly exists, I quoted those pages and asked you to highlight what no one else can see in them. You did not.

Your obtuseness is right in what I quoted. You note that SCOTUS has 'declared' that concealed carry can be regulated and, therefore, is not the right. Then rather than note that open carry can and has also been regulated, you throw "open carry" out there as a lead-in to why you think SCOTUS said that concealed carry is scrutinized. Yet, BOTH forms of carry are regulated, scrutinized, and banned in certain instances. But, that's the point.

As you have been repeatedly told and as has been repeatedly documented for you, the instances you declare SCOTUS 'saying' that concealed carry is evil and therefore not the right is NOT the reason they highlighted those cases in Heller... period. Yes. For now, it is up to the States to regulate the form of carry which is acceptable in a given circumstance. But, that is the 'hope' which has been imbued to this case; i.e., that SCOTUS will... finally... acknowledge that CARRY is the right (which is what they did note in Heller) and, thus, some form must be allowed in most, though not necessarily all, circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 10-22-2021, 7:36 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
What if Mr. Rabbit is right? And, the only reason the Supreme Court took this case at this time was to strike down any notion that there is a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. Perhaps, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brennan wanted to write that opinion, and Roberts, for whatever reason, perhaps to appease those wanting to pack the Supreme Court, granted cert just to do that. All of them knowing all they needed to do was pick off one more Justice (Kavanaugh?) for a win.
I'll be completely honest...

...I can't really make up my own mind opinion-wise on why exactly they took this up with the question they created.

Was it to take the "dream team" ccw lawyers to task?
Was it to take New York to task on open carry?
Was it to take New York to task equal protection-wise on ccw?
All the above?
Something else?

And furthermore, who were the Justices that voted for cert and the question they raised?

You could be right, it could be the Justices you listed as wanting to tackle this. Imagine if it were Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts, Breyer and/or Alito that voted for this...

...NOT Kavanaugh, Thomas and Barrett.

Whoah nellie!

=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
  #1179  
Old 10-22-2021, 8:53 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,579
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Guys...doesn't matter if you're an attorney.
It does to those of us who are and those who seek our opinions.
Quote:
YOU are not the authority on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. NOR ARE YOU the authority on what has been published by SCOTUS as the authoritative public record.
More authority than non attorneys for sure!
Quote:
So folks like TruOil can spend all day proclaming: "That's not dicta!"
I thought he said it was dicta.
Quote:
The value?

Hot air.
But not as much hot air as comes from those who are not attorneys, who proclaim to tell those of us who are what the law is.
Quote:
So everyone outside SCOTUS is left with two things:

1. Personal opinion.
2. Referencing SCOTUS published authoritative publications.

YOUR interpretations IF you make them carry NO AUTHORITY.
Well there is one thing for certain. The opinions of non attorneys are even more useless!!
Quote:
Like it or not...SCOTUS highlighted OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right - and highlighted many precedents in which bans or convictions on open carry were struck or remanded.

Like it or not...SCOTUS made a short list in Section III of lawful limitations - recognizing that states may regulated concealed carry and that prohibitions thereon are lawful.

Like it or not, when highlighting OPEN CARRY as the natural exercise of the right, SCOTUS highlighted the major drawback of CONCEALED CARRY thus providing the major basis for the scrutinizing concealed carry.

But SCOTUS also noted in doing so where the right resides - with the States - explained as Polities in DC v. Heller.

You can spend all your time getting bent out of shape trying to argue it away . . . to no avail - an utter waste of time.
Highlighted is not the same as held. Listed is not the same as held. Noted is not the same as held. Held makes it binding authority on lower courts. Dicta, on the other hand, is not binding but may be persuasive but maybe not. We are not getting bent out of shape but need to expose attempts, especially by lay persons, to turn non binding dicta into binding authority in the minds of the readers.
Quote:
Or you can acknowledge it - and deal with it. Something that too many of the so called "dream team" lawyers just seem unable to do - most particular in the case of NYSRPA v. Bruen - as revealed by the poor amicus briefs.
Well there is a point on which we can agree. I too, was not impressed by many of the amicus briefs.

Last edited by BAJ475; 10-22-2021 at 9:01 PM.. Reason: correct typos
Reply With Quote
  #1180  
Old 10-23-2021, 4:12 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
I'll be completely honest...

...I can't really make up my own mind opinion-wise on why exactly they took this up with the question they created.

Was it to take the "dream team" ccw lawyers to task?
Was it to take New York to task on open carry?
Was it to take New York to task equal protection-wise on ccw?
All the above?
Something else? To rule on the existing circuit split

And furthermore, who were the Justices that voted for cert and the question they raised?

You could be right, it could be the Justices you listed as wanting to tackle this. Imagine if it were Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts, Breyer and/or Alito that voted for this...

...NOT Kavanaugh, Thomas and Barrett.


Whoah nellie!

=8-|
Probably won't know who voted to hear this but logically it points to conservatives. The libs on the court have no issue with the 2nd Circuits opinion on this, so why vote to hear it? We had identical cases denied cert over and over again and the only thing that changed was Barrett replacing RBG. This tells me with Roberts vote no longer needed, they are confident in a win and thus at least 4 voted to hear it.

Why the question was worded this way I don't know.It's a factual question for sure (it is for a CCW no doubt). Perhaps the court may be watering down all the questions in all cases right now?
Reply With Quote
  #1181  
Old 10-23-2021, 5:29 AM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Why the question was worded this way I don't know.
The original question would have tended towards Constitutional Carry as the enumerated right. The revised question tends towards Shall Issue.
Reply With Quote
  #1182  
Old 10-23-2021, 7:49 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
The original question would have tended towards Constitutional Carry as the enumerated right. The revised question tends towards Shall Issue.
The original question would have tended towards keep and bear as the enumerated right.

The revised question tends towards a review of the regulation of concealed carry as a State right.

Constitutional Carry is a lobbying / political marketing label that originated in 2010.

=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
  #1183  
Old 10-23-2021, 7:57 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 751
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
The original question would have tended towards Constitutional Carry as the enumerated right. The revised question tends towards Shall Issue.
I think that change makes it easier and more palatable to the general public for them to rule in our favor.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1184  
Old 10-23-2021, 11:13 AM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The original question would have tended towards keep and bear as the enumerated right.

The revised question tends towards a review of the regulation of concealed carry as a State right.

Constitutional Carry is a lobbying / political marketing label that originated in 2010.

=8-|
Keep - have or retain possession of. "return one copy to me, keeping the other for your files" · "my father would keep the best for himself" · "she had trouble keeping her balance"

Bear - (of a person) carry (someone or something). "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses" . "the warriors bore lances tipped with iron"

Keep and Bear are the peoples(citizens) right.

So, Constitutional carry originated when the 2A was added to the Constitution. To regulate how people/citizens carry/bear is an infringement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1185  
Old 10-23-2021, 1:57 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
Keep - have or retain possession of. "return one copy to me, keeping the other for your files" · "my father would keep the best for himself" · "she had trouble keeping her balance"

Bear - (of a person) carry (someone or something). "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses" . "the warriors bore lances tipped with iron"

Keep and Bear are the peoples(citizens) right.

So, Constitutional carry originated when the 2A was added to the Constitution. To regulate how people/citizens carry/bear is an infringement.
The right to keep and bear arms preceded the Constitution - the Constitution does not give us our rights - it merely recognizes them as amendments.

The right is preexisting and is not dependent upon a piece of paper.

Constitutional Carry is nothing more than a modern day circa 2010 political and lobbying label created by the people who won DC v. Heller - but didn't get the win they actually wanted.

=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
  #1186  
Old 10-23-2021, 4:25 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The right to keep and bear arms preceded the Constitution - the Constitution does not give us our rights - it merely recognizes them as amendments.

The right is preexisting and is not dependent upon a piece of paper.

Constitutional Carry is nothing more than a modern day circa 2010 political and lobbying label created by the people who won DC v. Heller - but didn't get the win they actually wanted.

=8-|
Does not matter if the right to keep and bear arms preceded the Constitution. The 2A being in the Constitution makes carrying however you want Constitutional carry. Until we can have what we want and carry however we want, our right to keep and bear arms is being infringed. As long as they can keep infringing on our rights we did not win.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1187  
Old 10-23-2021, 5:46 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
Does not matter if the right to keep and bear arms preceded the Constitution. The 2A being in the Constitution makes carrying however you want Constitutional carry. Until we can have what we want and carry however we want, our right to keep and bear arms is being infringed. As long as they can keep infringing on our rights we did not win.
...and another person who clearly has not read DC v. Heller (2008).

__________________
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
  #1188  
Old 10-23-2021, 6:06 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
...and another person who clearly has not read DC v. Heller (2008).

The important part is that we the people understand the definition of words that are in our Constitution and how they are used, not how politically appointed people and/or the people who appointed those people want us to understand them, so unless DC v. Heller says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States", it should be reason for revolt.


Revolt - 1. rise in rebellion. 2. cause to feel disgust.


The Constitution isn't that hard to understand.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1189  
Old 10-23-2021, 11:37 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,318
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The official countdown has begun!

10


__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1190  
Old 10-24-2021, 4:57 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The right to keep and bear arms preceded the Constitution - the Constitution does not give us our rights - it merely recognizes them as amendments.

The right is preexisting and is not dependent upon a piece of paper.

Constitutional Carry is nothing more than a modern day circa 2010 political and lobbying label created by the people who won DC v. Heller - but didn't get the win they actually wanted.

=8-|
Wrong, read Bliss v. Commonwealth:

Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted.
Reply With Quote
  #1191  
Old 10-24-2021, 5:09 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
The original question would have tended towards Constitutional Carry as the enumerated right. The revised question tends towards Shall Issue.
The original question seemed broader but also left room the issue to get punted perhaps:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

This leaves wiggle room for NY to say that petitioners can carry outside the home (in a few tiny spots) outside the home, thus no controversy here. A prohibition might essentially mean once the firearm goes to your home it never ever leaves.

The new question seems focused on the particular circumstances of the license denial; the NY scheme as a whole will have to be examined.
Reply With Quote
  #1192  
Old 10-24-2021, 9:11 AM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Are Respondents subtly pulling the same trick in Bruen they did last year?

After looking at the concessions made in their brief, Respondents may plan on winning by losing, just like they did in NYSPRA v. City of New York last year, albeit more subtly.

The question presented before the Supreme Court is:

“Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

The answer is simple. Respondents, with their statements, have effectively answered the question in the affirmative. And, having done so, they’ve left the Supreme Court no room to provide a meaningful opinion.

Respondents concede that “the Second Amendment embodies a right to carry arms outside the home for self-defense.” Respondents’ Brief, page 19. Moreover, Respondents have granted Petitioners licenses under New York Penal Code § 400.00(2)(f) to carry concealed handguns outside the home for self defense in some areas and while engaging in some activities. Respondents Brief, page 16.

Respondents then go on to assert that Petitioners do not have a right to carry handguns in areas frequented by the general public without “showing of a non-speculative need for armed self-defense.” Respondents’ Brief, page 19.

Despite having asserted that Petitioners do not have such a right, Respondents nonetheless state it is not a crime (not a felony, not a misdemeanor, not even a “minor public safety infraction, like speeding or jaywalking”) for Petitioners to carry concealed handguns in areas frequented by the general public with their restricted licenses. Respondents’ Brief, page 11.

However, New York asserts it may take away Petitioners’ restricted licenses, and thus, the only avenue Petitioners have under state law to exercise their conceded constitutional right to carry arms outside the home in at least some areas, if Petitioners engage in an activity that is not even a minor public safety infraction, much less a misdemeanor or felony. Respondents’ Brief, page 11 (citations omitted) stating “[w]hen a licensee violates the restrictions imposed by the licensing officer, purely administrative remedies apply, such as cancellation of the license."

In Heller, the Supreme Court described felons and the mentally ill as classes of persons who could be denied their Second Amendment rights. Notwithstanding Heller’s caveat that the list was non-exhaustive, whatever classes of persons may or may not be added, be it drug addicts, non-resident aliens, domestic abusers, stalkers, fugitives, or dishonorably discharged veterans, it is untenable that such classes of persons include people who only committed a non-violent administrative violation that doesn't even rise to the level of a minor public safety infraction.

As such, the Supreme Court could order, based exclusively on Respondents’ statements, that the licensing authority is estopped from revoking Petitioners licenses under New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f) on the grounds that Petitioners violated the restrictions placed on their licenses.

The Supreme Court could do this without deciding or holding that the Second Amendment embodies a right to carry arms outside the home for self-defense, be it in areas frequented by the general public or not, or based on a showing of need or not.

In other words, the Supreme Court could grant Petitioners relief without addressing any significant Second Amendment issues. Respondents have made it unnecessary to do so, and perhaps, this is how they intend to “win”.
Reply With Quote
  #1193  
Old 10-24-2021, 10:50 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,828
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
After looking at the concessions made in their brief, Respondents may plan on winning by losing, just like they did in NYSPRA v. City of New York last year, albeit more subtly.

The question presented before the Supreme Court is:

“Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

The answer is simple. Respondents, with their statements, have effectively answered the question in the affirmative. And, having done so, they’ve left the Supreme Court no room to provide a meaningful opinion.

Respondents concede that “the Second Amendment embodies a right to carry arms outside the home for self-defense.” Respondents’ Brief, page 19. Moreover, Respondents have granted Petitioners licenses under New York Penal Code § 400.00(2)(f) to carry concealed handguns outside the home for self defense in some areas and while engaging in some activities. Respondents Brief, page 16.

Respondents then go on to assert that Petitioners do not have a right to carry handguns in areas frequented by the general public without “showing of a non-speculative need for armed self-defense.” Respondents’ Brief, page 19.

Despite having asserted that Petitioners do not have such a right, Respondents nonetheless state it is not a crime (not a felony, not a misdemeanor, not even a “minor public safety infraction, like speeding or jaywalking”) for Petitioners to carry concealed handguns in areas frequented by the general public with their restricted licenses. Respondents’ Brief, page 11.

However, New York asserts it may take away Petitioners’ restricted licenses, and thus, the only avenue Petitioners have under state law to exercise their conceded constitutional right to carry arms outside the home in at least some areas, if Petitioners engage in an activity that is not even a minor public safety infraction, much less a misdemeanor or felony. Respondents’ Brief, page 11 (citations omitted) stating “[w]hen a licensee violates the restrictions imposed by the licensing officer, purely administrative remedies apply, such as cancellation of the license."

In Heller, the Supreme Court described felons and the mentally ill as classes of persons who could be denied their Second Amendment rights. Notwithstanding Heller’s caveat that the list was non-exhaustive, whatever classes of persons may or may not be added, be it drug addicts, non-resident aliens, domestic abusers, stalkers, fugitives, or dishonorably discharged veterans, it is untenable that such classes of persons include people who only committed a non-violent administrative violation that doesn't even rise to the level of a minor public safety infraction.

As such, the Supreme Court could order, based exclusively on Respondents’ statements, that the licensing authority is estopped from revoking Petitioners licenses under New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f) on the grounds that Petitioners violated the restrictions placed on their licenses.

The Supreme Court could do this without deciding or holding that the Second Amendment embodies a right to carry arms outside the home for self-defense, be it in areas frequented by the general public or not, or based on a showing of need or not.

In other words, the Supreme Court could grant Petitioners relief without addressing any significant Second Amendment issues. Respondents have made it unnecessary to do so, and perhaps, this is how they intend to “win”.
Longhorn, Bob, (2021). Howto Guide for Dummies: Defending a States Concealed Carry Policy Before the Supreme Court of the United States. California: Calguns Internet Press, 1st Ed.

=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
  #1194  
Old 10-24-2021, 12:41 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,938
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Like it or not...SCOTUS made a short list in Section III of lawful limitations - recognizing that states may regulated concealed carry and that prohibitions thereon are lawful.
And with this, you prove that you haven't actually read the decision.

Regulation of concealed carry was not included in their list of lawful limitations. This is their list of lawful limitations:

Quote:
Originally Posted by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 at 2816-2817
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."
Go ahead. Tell me where in the above you see concealed carry. Well?


Instead, it was an example they used to show that that the right was historically regarded as "not unlimited", and it says that right above the passage I quoted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 at 2816
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
Heller doesn't say in the above that it regards concealed carry as being subject to prohibition, it says that previous state courts regarded it that way, and that this supports the notion that the right was historically understood to not be unlimited. The latter conclusion is the only thing that you can say that Heller actually said on the subject.

The claim that Heller actually says that concealed carry can be forbidden is made up by you, because there is nothing in the Heller decision itself where the Supreme Court itself actually says anything of the sort.


Now, it may be that the Court in this case will bring that historical understanding into the present, and say that it's prohibitable today in the same way it was historically. There isn't anything that prevents the Court from doing that. But similarly, there isn't anything that prevents the Court from deciding (e.g., as Bliss v Commonwealth did) that concealed carry is part of the protected right. It could go either way, and there's nothing in Heller that says otherwise.
__________________
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; 10-24-2021 at 2:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1195  
Old 10-24-2021, 2:04 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post


At 2 minutes 25 seconds.

Notice even Kavanaugh calls out Heller as identifying concealed carry as expressly regulatable in Heller.

You have to argue with Kavanaugh regarding concealed carry.
Reply With Quote
  #1196  
Old 10-24-2021, 4:02 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 533
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
You have to argue with Kavanaugh regarding concealed carry.
Can you repost? Link seems to be gone for me
Reply With Quote
  #1197  
Old 10-24-2021, 4:17 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,062
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
Can you repost? Link seems to be gone for me
https://youtu.be/KIkvdQahThs

I'd guess you have a browser that wants HTML5, which Calguns does not support for youtube. Known problem, no fix in sight.
Reply With Quote
  #1198  
Old 10-24-2021, 4:19 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
Can you repost? Link seems to be gone for me

https://youtu.be/KIkvdQahThs


ETA .... OOPS, Librarian beat me to it. Pretty quick for an old codger.
Reply With Quote
  #1199  
Old 10-24-2021, 6:18 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

https://casetext.com/case/dist-of-columbia-v-heller-3

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1998)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

Even in her published dissent of the Heller ruling.

RBG, admitted that "Bear" means :

Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”
Reply With Quote
  #1200  
Old 10-24-2021, 6:36 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
You have to argue with Kavanaugh regarding concealed carry.

If Kavanaugh is correct in his loose paraphrasing.

Why has the rabbit man found it impossible to find and present a " Heller quotation, to that effect"? It is either in the text of Heller, in black and white, or it isn't.

18 yrs of reading those 157 pages, that he claims nobody has read. And still no cite.

How many dozens, maybe hundreds of times has he, or anyone, been invited to support their premise?
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 1:45 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical