Armed Polite Society

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

R.I.P. Scout26

Author Topic: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry  (Read 577 times)

MillCreek

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,765
  • APS Risk Manager
SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« on: April 26, 2021, 10:27:50 AM »

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-public-new-york-be5e3fe54da4eb3b9ca2337665974716

Well, this will be an interesting decision.  Will the Court take the opportunity to make a sweeping decision pro or con, or decide it only on narrow technical grounds that establish no expansion or contraction of the right to carry?
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,761
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2021, 10:35:32 AM »

It seems that every time we hope for a big Heller type decision, it never happens so I am not going to get my hopes up.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,944
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2021, 10:38:46 AM »

It seems that every time we hope for a big Heller type decision, it never happens so I am not going to get my hopes up.

Same.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,466
  • I am not a cat
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2021, 10:40:56 AM »

Yep
I've pretty much given up on any sanity coming from within the borders of DC
Never Underestimate The Power Of The Stupid Side

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,164
  • like a tree planted by rivers of water
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2021, 11:09:58 AM »

Supreme Court = always expect the worst

 
The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.

Who can escape their own cognitive biases?

Jim147

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2021, 01:40:33 PM »

I'm hoping since it a case regarding NY law, Roberts won't be able to screw the rest of us over.
Sometimes we carry more weight then we owe.
And sometimes goes on and on and on.

BAH-WEEP-GRAAAGHNAH WHEEP NI-NI BONG

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,349
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2021, 01:48:11 PM »

Also on SCOTUS Blog:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/court-to-take-up-major-gun-rights-case/

Quote
After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

So the justices want to keep the scope as narrow as possible. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm cautiously optimistic that it could be a good thing in that a narrow case gives the anti-gun side less to snipe at.

PEfarmer

  • friends
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2021, 02:02:34 PM »

I read on another source that a likely outcome is that Roberts, once seeing that the other 5 "conservative" justices are going to side for gun rights, will switch his vote to that side so he can assign himself the opinion (his right as chief justice) and the opinion will be written as narrowly as humanly possible to still gain concurrence of the remaining justices.  Seems par for his MO this far.

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,349
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2021, 12:03:08 AM »

I read on another source that a likely outcome is that Roberts, once seeing that the other 5 "conservative" justices are going to side for gun rights, will switch his vote to that side so he can assign himself the opinion (his right as chief justice) and the opinion will be written as narrowly as humanly possible to still gain concurrence of the remaining justices.  Seems par for his MO this far.

That would not surprise me. It's okay with me if it plays out like that. First off, that would make it a 6-3 decision rather than 5-4, which will make it more difficult for the other side to proclaim that it's "wrong." Second, not all football games are won with 75 yard bombs; a lot of games are won by churning out 3 or 4 yards per carry. The other side has gotten us to where we are today by chipping away -- I'm okay if we start chipping back.

230RN

  • Personally, I think we ought to UNPACK the Supreme Court.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,387
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2021, 01:41:22 AM »

I would have bet on the "narrow technical grounds" decision," like "only in Central Park during a full moon" with some weasel-wordy wordy wordy "explanation" as to why.

But perhaps the balance of the Court has changed to blackrobes who can read plain English and write plain English.

I'd love to have had a listening device near their water cooler in the last eight months or so.

Terry
The funny thing is, people don't get mad at me because I'm wrong.  They get mad at me because I'm right.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,761
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2021, 09:01:33 AM »

I am hopeful for a positive decision.  I am not expecting a home run, just something positive.  If they just affirm the right to bear arms it will be a good thing.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,164
  • like a tree planted by rivers of water
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2021, 10:08:38 AM »

My current take, always subject to modification...

If it goes our way I'd be concerned the decision was similar to sacrificing a pawn to set up a better position for the major attack on the 2nd.

Of course in the panopticon, having guns doesn't really do you any good, politically anyway.

To me, guns are good to protect you from the random Orc attacks but politically it actually puts you on the enemies radar. 

Back to chess, a material advantage is negated if your opponent is multiple moves ahead of you and controls more space on the board. The Queen (or any piece) is no good if it is all blocked in and unblocking it would cause a material bloodbath as well as a loss of control of more space. 

Heritage Americans are blocked in and at a space disadvantage, multiple moves behind, reacting not implementing.

The country was stolen while Heritage America was armed to the teeth, obsessed with being nice and wanting to be liked.

The USA is somebody else's turf now. Not American's.

Everything since Federalism became a dead man walking has been a mopping up exercise. The right is that many moves behind.



 

The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.

Who can escape their own cognitive biases?

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,844
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2021, 11:31:32 AM »

I suspect that it will be so narrowly focused as to be essentially meaningless to anyone but the actual parties involved.
It is also possible that the result will be a 2nd Amendment so badly gutted as to be nearly unrecognizable.
The possibility of a strong win for gun rights is beyond infinitesimally small.
 :mad:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,349
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2021, 11:45:49 AM »

I suspect that it will be so narrowly focused as to be essentially meaningless to anyone but the actual parties involved.
It is also possible that the result will be a 2nd Amendment so badly gutted as to be nearly unrecognizable.
The possibility of a strong win for gun rights is beyond infinitesimally small.
 :mad:

The way the district and circuit courts are "applying" Heller, the 2A is effectively gutted right now anyway. Multiple circuit courts have ruled that "Heller says" the RTKBA only applies within the home. We know that's NOT what Heller says -- anyone who can read at a sixth grade level knows that's not what it says -- but that's what the anti-gun circuits are claiming. So anything that gets us beyond that point, even if it only affects the "may issue, only for good cause" states (New York is not the only one), it's a step.

Here's an example of why we (pro-gun people) are our own worst enemies: over on The Firing Line, in the discussion of this case, one long-time member actually wrote: "This is all way above my pay grade but IMHO if this goes in our favor the judges will need to be activist judges , the very thing most of us rail against."

Really? The only way the SCOTUS can rule that the 2A means what it says is if they go "activist"? No wonder the anti-gun side is winning.

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,830
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2021, 10:52:22 PM »

Quote
limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

I don't like that the court appears to be addressing the legitimacy of the State acting as an impediment to the carrying of a firearm outside the home for self-defense.

It's not talking about concealed vs open carry, or shall issue vs may issue.  It's just addressing the very meat of the matter, of keeping a firearm in one's general possession in order to fend off a violent ne'er do well while going about daily tasks.

The fact that the 2A has the word "State" in it at all leads me to the most dismal of conclusions for a 21st century SCOTUS.  Grammar and sentence structure of the controversial article be damned ("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"), every one of them is an interpretive dancer when it comes to authoritarianism and they love to circle jerk around "regulated" and "Militia" and "State" while completely ignoring "People," "keep," "bear," and "shall not be infringed."

About the only coherent debate that could actually be had in regards to the 2A is the scope of the word "arms."  Did its colloquial usage at that time include artillery or other more advanced forms of crew served and platformed weaponry, or not?  Is a howitzer or a puckle gun an "arm?"

Everything else is simple and settled by the plain sentence structure.  Circle jerking interpretive dancers be damned.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

gunsmith

  • I forgot my mask!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,346
  • an aurora was seen on Uranus.
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2021, 01:03:14 AM »

no way can I visit my home town without packing, and I'm old now.
I want to go see old friends before I die/to old to walk around and meet nice young women in their fifties and sixties.
I need the court to throw a hail mary and win.
it would stink to get caught packing, its years in prison for every jhp
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".

Out where there are miles and miles of miles and miles.

MikeB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 824
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2021, 04:27:58 PM »

If Robert’s writes the decision it will say that the state has to issue a permit vs may issue. However nothing in this decision prohibits requiring a permit, or the permit not costing 1 million dollars, or hundreds of hours of training, or requiring insurance. Nor is the state or city denied creating exceptions to where and when someone is allowed to carry. Making literally everywhere except maybe the front stoop/porch/sidewalk of your home the only place outside the home you can actually carry.

This making the whole thing decision useless to us.

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,618
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2021, 06:19:34 PM »

I agree with MikeB.

Some areas still have obscene "permitting" processes to own handguns.  NYC permitting process takes months, costs hundreds of dollars, requires letters of reference etc.

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,466
  • I am not a cat
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2021, 10:08:11 AM »

OMG!!!! They could declare it a constitutional right! Oh the horror!

Quote
Allowing weapons at home for protection isn’t intrinsically unreasonable, but gun-safety advocates feared that declaring it a constitutional right would crack the door to more extreme arguments. And now it has.

OMG! The Supreme Court Might Rule the Second Amendment Means What it Says! OMG
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/omg-the-supreme-court-might-rule-the-second-amendment-means-what-it-says-omg/
Never Underestimate The Power Of The Stupid Side

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,349
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2021, 11:08:11 AM »

Quote
It wasn’t until 2008 that a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment — which on its face merely provides states the right to maintain militias (i.e., the Missouri National Guard) — also allows individuals to keep firearms in their homes.

Unclear on the concept -- and on English grammar. the 2A doesn't --on its face or any other way -- provide a right to maintain militias. It provides a right for "the people" to keep and bear arms.

Quote
Allowing weapons at home for protection isn’t intrinsically unreasonable, but gun-safety advocates feared that declaring it a constitutional right would crack the door to more extreme arguments.

What a novel concept -- declaring a right that has been in the Constitution for 230 years -- unchanged -- is a constitutional right.

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,618
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2021, 09:29:47 PM »


About the only coherent debate that could actually be had in regards to the 2A is the scope of the word "arms."  Did its colloquial usage at that time include artillery or other more advanced forms of crew served and platformed weaponry, or not?  Is a howitzer or a puckle gun an "arm?"

The Tx Supreme Court in English v. State explained that it does cover artillery like cannons and mortars:

The word “arms ” in the connection we find it in the
constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a
militia man or soldier , and t he word is used in its military
sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and
bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons , the sabre, holster pistols and
carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar,
with side arms.


Pg. 76 of this interesting article:

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2825&context=lawreview

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,618
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #21 on: May 03, 2021, 09:35:03 PM »

OMG!!!! They could declare it a constitutional right! Oh the horror!

OMG! The Supreme Court Might Rule the Second Amendment Means What it Says! OMG
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/omg-the-supreme-court-might-rule-the-second-amendment-means-what-it-says-omg/

Unfortately, that is basically impossible.  If they did, they would have to throw out all laws restricting ownership of military firearms... which is what any honest appraisal of the right would say.

The SC seems like it thinks the Second Amendment was created to protect the "right" to pay a fee to government to own a registered pistol with a ten round magazine to shoot criminals. 

French G.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,881
  • ohhh sparkles!
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2021, 12:09:41 AM »

no way can I visit my home town without packing, and I'm old now.
I want to go see old friends before I die/to old to walk around and meet nice young women in their fifties and sixties.
I need the court to throw a hail mary and win.
it would stink to get caught packing, its years in prison for every jhp

We just form a gang and go.
AKA Navy Joe   

I'm so contrarian that I didn't respond to the thread.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,761
Re: SCOTUS to review case on right to carry
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2021, 08:24:05 AM »

Unfortately, that is basically impossible.  If they did, they would have to throw out all laws restricting ownership of military firearms... which is what any honest appraisal of the right would say.

The SC seems like it thinks the Second Amendment was created to protect the "right" to pay a fee to government to own a registered pistol with a ten round magazine to shoot criminals.
"Hold on there.  We at the SC are only talking about the right to bear arms.  We didn't say you had the right to shoot criminals."


................
"Some people call politicians criminals.  Do you think we are crazy or something?  Maybe we need to address the right to carry ammo."
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge