New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

[Karl-just-Karl]

Well, just thought saw it on the news that RvsW has been struck down now too. So...I guess we'll see where it goes from here. More people shouting for a 15 person SCOTUS?

 

[IndyTom]

Who knows, maybe the soul-crushing nature of living in NYC will result in some Wild West situation…oh, wait, there are already gun battles on the street in broad daylight.

Maybe this will improve things there when law abiding citizens are able to protect themselves. Whodathunk

 

[jamil]

Well, just thought saw it on the news that RvsW has been struck down now too. So...I guess we'll see where it goes from here. More people shouting for a 15 person SCOTUS?

Yeah. If R's take over the Senate, that's not happening.

 

[MCgrease08]

6 Takeaways From The Supreme Court Decision Protecting Americans’ Right To Self-Defense

A pretty solid breakdown of what the SCOTUS decision says and does for gun right moving forward.

 

[jbombelli]

This, right here, this decision, is why I voted for Trump.

 

[MCgrease08]

Talk about a kick in the teeth. The attorneys for the plainiffs who argued this case before SCOTUS (and won), have resigned from their law firm after being told they wouldn't be allowed to take on any more pro gun cases.

Attorneys Who Won Supreme Court Gun Case Forced To Quit Law Firm | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the lawyers who successfully argued against New York’s law restricting conceal-carry gun permits, were told by Kirkland & Ellis they had to stop representing Second Amendment plaintiffs or find another firm. In a Wall Street Journal article, the duo explained how their celebration was cut short.

“Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm,” they wrote. “There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.”

 

[Expat]

I wonder how much of that comes from the firm being afraid of the woke mob coming after them?

 

[chipbennett]

6 Takeaways From The Supreme Court Decision Protecting Americans’ Right To Self-Defense

A pretty solid breakdown of what the SCOTUS decision says and does for gun right moving forward.

I love Margot Cleveland's analysis. She's one of my favorite follows on Twitter.

A seventh takeaway: the implication to analysis of infringements on all other constitutionally protected rights. Bruen imposes a higher standard than even strict scrutiny, which she addresses with respect to 2A. But there is no reason that the same reasoning cannot and should not be applied to rights protected by 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, etc. No longer should there be an analysis of, "yes, it is an infringement of the constitutional protection, but..." for any enumerated right. The "but..." - i.e. strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis - for upholding a law that infringes upon an enumerated right is now gone.

 

[chipbennett]

Talk about a kick in the teeth. The attorneys for the plainiffs who argued this case before SCOTUS (and won), have resigned from their law firm after being told they wouldn't be allowed to take on any more pro gun cases.

Attorneys Who Won Supreme Court Gun Case Forced To Quit Law Firm | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Woke lawfirm disavowing a landmark SCOTUS win, because of wokism.

 

[KG1]

It's ironic that they would place restrictions on those attorneys from representing any further 2A cases after they won a landmark decision in favor of 2A rights against restrictions.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I love Margot Cleveland's analysis. She's one of my favorite follows on Twitter.

A seventh takeaway: the implication to analysis of infringements on all other constitutionally protected rights. Bruen imposes a higher standard than even strict scrutiny, which she addresses with respect to 2A. But there is no reason that the same reasoning cannot and should not be applied to rights protected by 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, etc. No longer should there be an analysis of, "yes, it is an infringement of the constitutional protection, but..." for any enumerated right. The "but..." - i.e. strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis - for upholding a law that infringes upon an enumerated right is now gone.

Yeah. I wanna see somebody a "but" on the 4th 5th or 8th.

Yeah, we searched his car with no probable cause and found something REALLY bad. But its OK because it was REALLY bad stuff. He deserved it.*

Yeah, he was found not guilty but.... Lets try him again. The jury got it wrong.

Yeah, he was tortured, but... its OK. It was REALLY important to get that confession.

*Though another overlooked case this past month is chilling. They held that if you are not properly mirandized and confess leading to evidence, that evidence can still be used even though it was acquired illegally. Bad precedent IMHO.

 

[JEBland]

6 Takeaways From The Supreme Court Decision Protecting Americans’ Right To Self-Defense

A pretty solid breakdown of what the SCOTUS decision says and does for gun right moving forward.

I think her 6th point is rather lacking. It's a bit of a stretch to call Roberts and originalist. Certainly not solidly so. More like a Bohacek of the SCOTUS. Checks which way the wind is blowing, and votes accordingly.

*Though another overlooked case this past month is chilling. They held that if you are not properly mirandized and confess leading to evidence, that evidence can still be used even though it was acquired illegally. Bad precedent IMHO.

My understanding was that it was pretty similar to previous rulings in that suppose you have a violent suspect and the rights don't get finished being read at the scene or evidence before receiving the warning doesn't invalidate the incriminating speech. Was it different?

 

[Cameramonkey]

It's ironic that they would place restrictions on those attorneys from representing any further 2A cases after they won a landmark decision in favor of 2A rights against restrictions.

And it strikes me as partners that were ONLY in it for the money. They didnt think the case would succeed, and therefore was just a cash cow and nothing more.

When it did succeed, They were shocked and wanted to make sure those two didnt do any more "damage" to gun laws and allow us to be more free.

 

[Cameramonkey]

My understanding was that it was pretty similar to previous rulings in that suppose you have a violent suspect and the rights don't get finished being read at the scene or evidence before receiving the warning doesn't invalidate the incriminating speech. Was it different?

Not sure. The actual ruling was whether you could sue for them using ill gotten info in the trial. You cant. Commentators are concerned that now that there is no threat of harm to the officers or department from misusing evidence, that they will begin to purposefully abuse it. After all, if there is no chance of being punished for the misdeed, why not try it? If it works you got a conviction, if it fails, you cant be held accountable.

 

[JEBland]

Not sure. The actual ruling was whether you could sue for them using ill gotten info in the trial. You cant. Commentators are concerned that now that there is no threat of harm to the officers or department from misusing evidence, that they will begin to purposefully abuse it. After all, if there is no chance of being punished for the misdeed, why not try it? If it works you got a conviction, if it fails, you cant be held accountable.

Interesting. I need to find some synopsis/synposes of it and dig in a little.

 

[chipbennett]

Not sure. The actual ruling was whether you could sue for them using ill gotten info in the trial. You cant. Commentators are concerned that now that there is no threat of harm to the officers or department from misusing evidence, that they will begin to purposefully abuse it. After all, if there is no chance of being punished for the misdeed, why not try it? If it works you got a conviction, if it fails, you cant be held accountable.

I've not yet read the ruling. But, isn't there a difference between bringing a lawsuit (i.e. a civil remedy) and availing oneself of appropriate legal challenges in the criminal proceedings (such as appeal on the basis of conviction based on fruit of the poisoned well)?

 

[Cameramonkey]

I've not yet read the ruling. But, isn't there a difference between bringing a lawsuit (i.e. a civil remedy) and availing oneself of appropriate legal challenges in the criminal proceedings (such as appeal on the basis of conviction based on fruit of the poisoned well)?

Right. But how do you pay for those appeals? Civil remedy would help offset the cost of your defense. And if they wronged you by ignoring the law, shouldnt they be available to sue? (rhetorical)

 

[chipbennett]

Right. But how do you pay for those appeals? Civil remedy would help offset the cost of your defense. And if they wronged you by ignoring the law, shouldnt they be available to sue? (rhetorical)

That's a fair question, but it is not a matter of "gutting Miranda rights", as has been claimed. Besides, the right to competent defense still exists. I would assume such an appeal would be a fraction of the total legal costs incurred in that defense - whether paid for by the defendant or by the state to a public defender.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think her 6th point is rather lacking. It's a bit of a stretch to call Roberts and originalist. Certainly not solidly so. More like a Bohacek of the SCOTUS. Checks which way the wind is blowing, and votes accordingly.



My understanding was that it was pretty similar to previous rulings in that suppose you have a violent suspect and the rights don't get finished being read at the scene or evidence before receiving the warning doesn't invalidate the incriminating speech. Was it different?

The Bohacek of the SCOTUS… I LIKE IT!!!

 

[JEBland]

The Bohacek of the SCOTUS… I LIKE IT!!!