Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:17 pm



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Supreme Court to Hear Major Gun Case on Concealed Firearms 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Unincorporated Rural Pierce County
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020
Posts: 1804
MadPick wrote:
Nice. Let’s get it done quickly while we still have nine justices!

Next session isn't until October.

DrNoWay wrote:
ZERO faith in the USSC

I don't have any faith that SCOTUS will do the right thing. My money is on them kicking it back to a lower court.

_________________
Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.

I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.


Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:01 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Pierce County
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018
Posts: 1980
Real Name: Shane
It's worth noting that SCOTUS substantially limited the scope of what they're deciding. The only question they're taking up is whether NY denying concealed carry licenses violates the second amendment. I'm not going to hold my breath, given that it won't be decided until next year and we could have 15 justices by then, but I don't see how any court can find that carry of a firearm isn't protected by the second amendment.
Alpine wrote:
Fuck Roberts, we don't need him. 5-4 is just as binding as 6-3.

Roberts will absolutely side with the majority, that means he gets to choose who writes the opinion.
Gman wrote:
I don't have any faith that SCOTUS will do the right thing. My money is on them kicking it back to a lower court.

It's coming before the SCOTUS on a motion to dismiss, guaranteed they will make their ruling (I suspect establishing shall-issue permits nationwide) and kick it back to the lower court to make a decision based on the new requirement.

_________________
Posts not legal advice.


Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Issaquah
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020
Posts: 1033
They re-wrote the question from

"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense"

to

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

So they are likely planning some sort of narrow ruling. This wording sidesteps questions about constitutional carry and open carry, what you can carry, what conditions can be on the permit, and what conditions may be imposed on getting one (other than specifically "the petitioner") -- so no discussion of what is "law abiding" (does it include minor crimes). The original question challenged the need to have a permit at all, whereas this narrowly limits it to whether one should have been issued.

So they may be angling to assert that all states must be "shall issue" states and avoid ruling on anything else.


Last edited by martin248 on Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:45 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2688
Real Name: Phill
martin248 wrote:
They re-wrote the question ...

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

...

So they may be angling to assert that all states must be "shall issue" states and avoid ruling on anything else.


Which wouldn't be a bad thing. A universal "shall-issue" rule across all states would be a stone's throw away from reciprocity.

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:50 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Issaquah
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020
Posts: 1033
Pvanderzee wrote:
martin248 wrote:
They re-wrote the question ...

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

...

So they may be angling to assert that all states must be "shall issue" states and avoid ruling on anything else.


Which wouldn't be a bad thing. A universal "shall-issue" rule across all states would be a stone's throw away from reciprocity.


This has the potential to be much bigger than Heller, even narrowed like this. Basically, everyone has a right to carry, provided they aren't <mumble>.


Last edited by martin248 on Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:53 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Pierce County
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018
Posts: 1980
Real Name: Shane
Pvanderzee wrote:
martin248 wrote:
They re-wrote the question ...

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

...

So they may be angling to assert that all states must be "shall issue" states and avoid ruling on anything else.


Which wouldn't be a bad thing. A universal "shall-issue" rule across all states would be a stone's throw away from reciprocity.
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.

_________________
Posts not legal advice.


Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:53 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Issaquah
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020
Posts: 1033
scrid2000 wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
martin248 wrote:
They re-wrote the question ...

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

...

So they may be angling to assert that all states must be "shall issue" states and avoid ruling on anything else.


Which wouldn't be a bad thing. A universal "shall-issue" rule across all states would be a stone's throw away from reciprocity.
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.


Yeah I wish they would do more, but out of all the things they could rule on, this is the most impactful.

Consider someone in California who is stuck with a 10 round pistol, can't get an "assault weapon", and can't even carry their 10 round pistol outside their home. Which ruling benefits that person most? If it's me I'd rather be able to carry that 10 rounder with me everywhere, than have an AR and a 17 rounder that can't leave my house.

But yeah, I wish they would add on at least a magazine capacity ruling and ideally rule on an assault weapon ban.


Last edited by martin248 on Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:58 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2688
Real Name: Phill
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:59 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Issaquah
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020
Posts: 1033
Near as I can tell right now the best way to support this case is to join the FPC and donate to them. Like the NRA, donations are not tax deductible. However, this is likely the biggest case of our time - so I am all in.

I am looking into whether it's possible to donate to NYSPRA, but they make it hard - they want you to sign up, give your birthdate, address, phone number, before you can even get to a donate link, and I don't know if they would prioritize funds for this case.

If anyone knows of a better way to support this, let me know. As of now I'm going to make a big donation to FPC and explicitly mention support for this case to them. I urge everyone to do the same, unless someone knows of a legal fund more directly tied to the case.


Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:00 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012
Posts: 7649
Pvanderzee wrote:
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

The demonrats are already beginning a campaign to emergency pack the court before this case is heard and specifically FOR this case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... carry.html

_________________
If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto).
If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/
Quote:
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.”

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738
Quote:
[Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"


Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:56 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Everson, WA
Joined: Sun Jan 6, 2013
Posts: 28149
Real Name: Ace Winky
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

The demonrats are already beginning a campaign to emergency pack the court before this case is heard and specifically FOR this case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... carry.html


This is what they believe?

Quote:
The stakes are high: laws guaranteeing a right to concealed carry are associated with a significantly higher rate of handgun-related homicide. And the court’s move gives Democrats a clear choice between two concrete options: Stand by as the conservative justices invalidate state and local gun regulations in the midst of endless mass shootings—or expand the court.


Liberals are idiots.

_________________
Why does the Penguin in Batman sound like a duck?

Because the eagle sounds like a hawk.


Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:14 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Kansas City
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012
Posts: 2790
Real Name: Brad
“We’ve come so far to try to keep guns out of the hands of New Yorkers, particularly young people, and the Supreme Court, it looks like they’re working overtime to put guns right back in those hands,” de Blasio said Monday. “That really worries me.”

The way de Blasio states this, it sounds like they have actively been trying to keep guns out of everybody's hands. I wish some people could see that as a big of a danger as the government trying to take your guns...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/my-heart-sank-states-fret-as-high-court-eyes-gun-laws-reach/ar-BB1g6jiG?ocid=msedgntp


Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:25 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Issaquah
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020
Posts: 1033
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

The demonrats are already beginning a campaign to emergency pack the court before this case is heard and specifically FOR this case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... carry.html


They can't. They would either need 60 votes in the Senate, or they would need to eliminate the filibuster. The idea of eliminating the filibuster died and no way they get ten Republican senators on board with packing the court. They can introduce House legislation and make headlines but they can't get this done.

So this issue is going to be decided by the court, and if we get a good decision it's going to end the horrific gun policies of California and New York, and end the WA Democrat's dream of eventually rolling back "shall issue".

The right to carry a firearm for self defense is where the rubber meets the road. Ten rounds versus twenty five is irrelevant if you are unarmed. Owning an AR doesn't matter if you have to lock it up so that it can't be used.

This is the most important supreme court case on gun rights in a century, it's about the most fundamental issue of all: can you be armed? Or not?


Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:12 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Everson, WA
Joined: Sun Jan 6, 2013
Posts: 28149
Real Name: Ace Winky
So glad Trump got elected. This would be cringe worthy had batshitcrazy been elected.

_________________
Why does the Penguin in Batman sound like a duck?

Because the eagle sounds like a hawk.


Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:56 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2688
Real Name: Phill
martin248 wrote:
Alpine wrote:
Pvanderzee wrote:
scrid2000 wrote:
National shall-issue would be a great thing, just not as great of a thing as SCOTUS should do.abolishing the NFA, deeming the ATF's existence unconstitutional, and declaring Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security


I agree.
But I'll take a win when I can get it.

The demonrats are already beginning a campaign to emergency pack the court before this case is heard and specifically FOR this case.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... carry.html


They can't. They would either need 60 votes in the Senate, or they would need to eliminate the filibuster. The idea of eliminating the filibuster died and no way they get ten Republican senators on board with packing the court. They can introduce House legislation and make headlines but they can't get this done.



Unless Biden decides to simply nominate judges anyway, and challenge the law that limits the number to nine. Confirming them may be problematic, but he's likely able to nominate as many as he wants.

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:20 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 1.706s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]