United States Supreme Court “relisted” the Jackson v. San Francisco petition for cert
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Joined
·
605 Posts
Results of yesterdays conference wont be announced until Monday. Normal court schedule.
I don't believe the judges are concerned about setting a poor precedent, i think they are more afraid of the chaos that would ensue ... The liberal mindset doesn't remotely represent the country ... States are ready to fight the feds and i mean that literally, go to war over it. Gun owners in the states listed are being sacrificed to keep the peace. Not prevent gun control to snowball through the entire country.
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
I have gone full cynic, we ONLY need four justices to grant cert., these "Conservative" justices are a sorry excuse for "Conservatives."
They are actually corporatists more often than "Conservative," they enjoy helping corporations screw consumers and injured plaintiffs.
As Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Pat Buchanan, Matt Drudge etc., have stated, after the GOP passes Obama's amnesty and unfair trade deals (TPP), why would anyone vote GOP??????? Oh' that is right b/c they "protect" our gun rights, well sometimes anyway.
If the US Supreme Court settles the gun issue, the GOP will lose another 25%-40% of its voters.
They are actually corporatists more often than "Conservative," they enjoy helping corporations screw consumers and injured plaintiffs.
As Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Pat Buchanan, Matt Drudge etc., have stated, after the GOP passes Obama's amnesty and unfair trade deals (TPP), why would anyone vote GOP??????? Oh' that is right b/c they "protect" our gun rights, well sometimes anyway.
If the US Supreme Court settles the gun issue, the GOP will lose another 25%-40% of its voters.
Unbelievable. Even if they didn't want to deal with the scrutiny issue, the law was in clear violation of their previous rulings. SCOTUS has officially declared that they don't care if the circuit courts don't follow their rulings.
Joined
·
605 Posts
Unbelievable! (Well, unfortunately not really)
Six page dissent from Thomas and Scalia- that's probably why the 5 time relist.
Edit: Reading it now. Dissent starts on pg 11
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060815zor_8m58.pdf
Six page dissent from Thomas and Scalia- that's probably why the 5 time relist.
Edit: Reading it now. Dissent starts on pg 11
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060815zor_8m58.pdf
Joined
·
2,774 Posts
Gentlemen... at a certain point you have to just say truck it and not follow these cockamamie laws. Mass non-compliance of ALL unconstitutional laws is the only way to invalidate them. These d-bags are NOT interested in giving the constitution the respect it deserves.
Joined
·
644 Posts
Seems Thomas really wants to kill the 2 step intermediate crap we've been seeing. We can only hope the lower courts will take this dissent in mind when ruling in the future. So far its the only thing near guidance SCOTUS has come up with.
Could you explain the two step process, again? Seen it used so many times but never a good explanation.
Joined
·
605 Posts
That only goes so far. At some point non-compliance simply is not an option (at least not one under your own control). For example, its not possible to simply not comply with NY states handgun permit process because you cannot purchase a handgun without one. The level of non compliance needed is much higher than just the permitting scheme. Not complying with the "AW" registration if you already owned an affected rifle is very different than trying to not comply thru purchasing one now.
These laws need to be challenged and changed. Not to mention that the Supreme Court establishes the interpreted definition of the very right itself.
Joined
·
644 Posts
1. Does the law burden 2A?
2. If so, what level of scrutiny do we apply? Strict or Intermediate?
Basically the courts keep saying that yes this law burdens 2A. But not in such a manner as to demand strict scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny as long as the state has a compelling interest the law is constitutional. The state's compelling interest is peace and safety so the law gets to stand. It doesn't even have to be a perfect fit, just as long as the state claims it does some thing in furthering its interest.
The process is not compatible with the Heller decision but SCOTUS won't take a case to say so. Its giving the lower courts the freedom to basically ignore Heller for everything short of an outright ban. So things like assault weapon bans, locked storage requirements, may issue carry permits, hollow point ammo bans etc etc are being upheld.
Figured that's what it was, thank you. Read the dissent from Thomas and it was pretty amazing.
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
The circuits will keep the dissent in mind, namely noting that only 2 justices cared enough to publish or concur. SCOTUS has basically rubber stamped the circuits to allow passage of laws that do anything and everything short of put a complete ban on some broad category of gun, and even then that only applies in the home.
States are free to pursue policies that (almost) completely ban carry outside the home, and only allow a very small subset of handgun and long guns to be possessed in the home only after spending considerable time and money to secure mandatory state licenses. Once the gun is in the home, the state can impose any number of restrictions on the storage and use of that gun.
After all the high hopes, Heller and McDonald did not really mean much at all.
Joined
·
326 Posts
It takes 4 justices to grant cert, so out of the 4 known conservative justices and Kennedy being the independent, but leans conservative, who are the communist judges that need slapped around? I will respect the Government when they deserve it, and that will happen when they return to working for the people.
A denial of cert in a case like this makes me think the unSAFE Act will never be heard beyond the 2nd Circuit.
A denial of cert in a case like this makes me think the unSAFE Act will never be heard beyond the 2nd Circuit.
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Unreal. This was the court's best chance to stand up and defend the 2A and they FAILED. Heller and McDonald mean NOTHING. "Shall not be infringed" means NOTHING. Lower courts now have carte blanche to do as they please. Why would liberal courts take a dissent from two judges into consideration when they've just been handed the freedom to basically erase the 2A from the Bill of Rights?
I have absolutely zero faith in the court's ability to defend our rights. This is an embarrassment.
I have absolutely zero faith in the court's ability to defend our rights. This is an embarrassment.
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
The court is basically saying WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT. I am floored that they would let lower courts spit in their faces and deny millions of Americans their rights. I am embarrassed for this country. There won't be a better case than this in our lifetimes.
"The Court's refusal to review this decision is difficult to account for in light of its repeated willingness to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of other constitutional rights."
"We warned in Heller that "[a] constitutional guaranteesubject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness isno constitutional guarantee at all." 554 U. S., at 634. The Court of Appeals in this case recognized that San Francisco's law burdened the core component of the SecondAmendment guarantee, yet upheld the law. Because of the importance of the constitutional right at stake and the questionable nature of the Court of Appeals' judgment, Iwould have granted a writ of certiorari."
"The Court's refusal to review this decision is difficult to account for in light of its repeated willingness to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of other constitutional rights."
"We warned in Heller that "[a] constitutional guaranteesubject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness isno constitutional guarantee at all." 554 U. S., at 634. The Court of Appeals in this case recognized that San Francisco's law burdened the core component of the SecondAmendment guarantee, yet upheld the law. Because of the importance of the constitutional right at stake and the questionable nature of the Court of Appeals' judgment, Iwould have granted a writ of certiorari."
Joined
·
2,647 Posts
People elect control freaks to govern them and then rely on control freaks in courts to save them. Not going to happen.
You either get good laws through a legislative branch of your State Government or you get it with guns.
Pick one.
You either get good laws through a legislative branch of your State Government or you get it with guns.
Pick one.
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Join the discussion
