New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,234 Posts
Can you summarize? 20 mins is a long time unless I am sitting at work. I'll add this to the listening list for monday.
It's basically a discussion as to why the supreme court may be holding off on taking cases. The theory is that they are waiting to see how the states hash this whole thing out and that the results of the states may further define a consensus. If that is true, then that could explain why the states are going balls deep with the gun cases and legislation, both + and - .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,136 Posts
It's basically a discussion as to why the supreme court may be holding off on taking cases. The theory is that they are waiting to see how the states hash this whole thing out and that the results of the states may further define a consensus. If that is true, then that could explain why the states are going balls deep with the gun cases and legislation, both + and - .
Not arguing, why the hell does SCOTUS need to wait to see what the individual States are going to do?

The 2nd Amendment is not a state right! It is a right of a much higher level.

I am so damn sick of our elected officials as well as the appointed ones!

Enough of this crap!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,234 Posts
Not arguing, why the hell does SCOTUS need to wait to see what the individual States are going to do?

The 2nd Amendment is not a state right! It is a right of a much higher level.

I am so damn sick of our elected officials as well as the appointed ones!

Enough of this crap!
Apparently it would be easier to support a ruling if there was a consensus. At least that is the theory presented in the discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,131 Posts
Yes, a "consensus" might be nice but, as goperfect stated - SCOTUS (I suggest SCROTUM until they grow a pair) they neither need that, nor should they wait for it, since it is a US Constitutional issue, that is clearly defined in the BOR, as well as copious case law.

Further, with an Executive Branch (Obummer) and DOJ (HoldMyDick) more than willing to take unilateral, illegal, and unconstitutional actions, they are neglecting their oaths to uphold the US Constitution. But, unfortunately, the latter doesn't surprise me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
U.S. Constitution. 2nd Amendment - IGNORED
NY Civil Rights Law with stronger language than 2nd Amendment - IGNORED
Heller decision - IGNORED
McDonald decision - IGNORED

What do you expect to get from the Supreme Court that will reverse the above trend in NY state?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
maybe they are waiting for a shooting war to start instead of trying to avoid one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,778 Posts
Right now SCOTUS consists of 9 people, 4 of whom are, simply stated, pro-gun, 4 of whom are anti-gun, and one of whom is very slightly pro-gun, but could easily swing. Something I read here earlier this week and it made sense after a brief consideration, is that neither of the 8 people want to see another gun case right now because they are afraid of that swing vote and whether it will go their way or not.

The final big question is wither 2A grants right to carry outside the home, right? That is a massive question with huge consequences. All permits--if permits were even still allowed--would have to be must-issue, and no city could preclude them. All public spaces would have to allow guns, too, which I think would mean government offices, all parks, potentially schools as well. I assume a private entity (e.g. mall) could still prohibit, but it would be quite a far reaching decision. Alternatively if SCOTUS answered by saying the 2A doesn't grant that, the status quo is more or less maintained, with it going back to states to fight over. I can't help but wonder that the 2a does grant this, but the justices don't want to come out and state it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Well ill gladly take the laws of about 45 states so I think they are waiting for nothing majority has been there for a long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,136 Posts
Right now SCOTUS consists of 9 people, 4 of whom are, simply stated, pro-gun, 4 of whom are anti-gun, and one of whom is very slightly pro-gun, but could easily swing. Something I read here earlier this week and it made sense after a brief consideration, is that neither of the 8 people want to see another gun case right now because they are afraid of that swing vote and whether it will go their way or not.
And this is what pisses me off! Their job is to interpret the Constitution! Not to throw their personal feelings around. WTF is wrong with these people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,391 Posts
Fair enough. Still do not like the theory. I think it is an easy way for the Judges.
That is the intent of waiting. Gaining the consensus behind their vote .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
I think they're avoiding it like the plague -er, well, like Ebola to fit the times- because whichever way it goes it becomes a huge win AND a huge loss for both sides of the aisle. Certainly all nine Justices are awareness at this point in time that whichever way they rule on any 2A case they may take must have a direct impact on their ruling on any Voter ID or "undocumented" immigration cases (and vice versa- where Voter ID etc decisions impact their 2A interpretation) and are all rightfully fearful of the unintended consequences...

Hear me out- Let's say the SCOTUS rules that any mandates requiring ID to vote is an un-Constitutional infringement on our Civil Rights, and that all persons living within our borders are entitled to "all of the privileges and immunities" as us citizens, then none of the licensing or even Brady check requirements pass muster and must also be deemed un-Constitutional. Conversely, If licensing and restrictions on buying and carrying are allowed to stand- then in order to stay consistent they would HAVE TO allow laws requiring voters to preregister AND show ID to vote etc...

Neither side is willing to risk all that's at stake, so they may not be waiting for consensus as much as kicking the can down the road for another day so they don't have to deal with the fallout from both sides
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
...unfortunately, the Supremes will NOT consider the SAFE law. ....if you want relief, move out of NY. Andy and the NY pols are ruling NOT governing and the Supremes are going to sit on their hands.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Right now SCOTUS consists of 9 people, 4 of whom are, simply stated, pro-gun, 4 of whom are anti-gun, and one of whom is very slightly pro-gun, but could easily swing. Something I read here earlier this week and it made sense after a brief consideration, is that neither of the 8 people want to see another gun case right now because they are afraid of that swing vote and whether it will go their way or not.

The final big question is wither 2A grants right to carry outside the home, right? That is a massive question with huge consequences. All permits--if permits were even still allowed--would have to be must-issue, and no city could preclude them. All public spaces would have to allow guns, too, which I think would mean government offices, all parks, potentially schools as well. I assume a private entity (e.g. mall) could still prohibit, but it would be quite a far reaching decision. Alternatively if SCOTUS answered by saying the 2A doesn't grant that, the status quo is more or less maintained, with it going back to states to fight over. I can't help but wonder that the 2a does grant this, but the justices don't want to come out and state it.
What about the right to own an "aw" or a modern sporting rifle?
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top