New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

[jamil]

Now Delaware has jumped into the fray with both feet passing several soon to be unconstitutional gun control bills. Just more fodder to be litigated.

It's like a bunch of monkeys flinging poo in all directions now in defiance of SCOTUS.

I don’t think there are any sane democrats left. They’ve all been replaced with more radical democrats. And with renewed calls for stacking the courts it’s just really important that the senate be retaken by mostly sane people.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I don’t think there are any sane democrats left. They’ve all been replaced with more radical democrats.

There are almost no "Democrats" today among the elected (look no farther than the Mayor of Zionsville). What was once the Democratic Party is now the Communist Party of the United States.

Read the Democratic Party Platform. All the hallmarks are there, just in new flowery language. Confiscation (taxes), redistribution, class struggle, State managed economy (Build Back Better), disarmament, and authoritarianism.

Democrat Party = Communist Party, don't elect them, evict them.

The leadership of the Democratic Party are quite simply subversives working to undermine this nation as originally conceived.

 

[actaeon277]

This is what a dictator would say!
She needs to be taken out in the streets and stoned!
Just another democrat nut job who thinks they can do what they want.

Nothing more dangerous, than a government doing something for your own good.
A dictator may sleep.
But.. a zealot?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In the grand scheme, that is an even bigger win than the destruction of the may issue laws.

Best legal observation on INGO in a long time.

 

[KLB]

Best legal observation on INGO in a long time.

 

[MCgrease08]

State Reactions to the SCOTUS Ruling Against Discretionary Carry-Permit Laws Range From Compliance to Defiance

State reactions to the Supreme Court's ruling against discretionary carry-permit laws range from compliance to defiance.

reason.com

 

[Cameramonkey]

And I dont recall the ruling, but I believe that the other two branches have ignored SCOTUS rulings in the past. So a state not complying wouldnt be unique. I think it was during Andrew Jackson's term.
It quickly became a "yeah, we dont like the ruling. What are you going to do about it? Its not like you can MAKE us obey. You dont have an enforcement arm. So go to hell. We will continue to do what we want." And they did.

I dont recall the specifics, but I heard the story on NPR where they were talking about how fragile our government is, and that a lot of it relies on each branch honoring the others' actions.

 

[actaeon277]

And I dont recall the ruling, but I believe that the other two branches have ignored SCOTUS rulings in the past. I think it was during Andrew Jackson's term.
It quickly became a "yeah, we dont like the ruling. What are you going to do about it? Its not like you can MAKE us obey. You dont have an enforcement arm. So go to hell. We will continue to do what we want." And they did.

I dont recall the specifics, but I heard the story on NPR where they were talking about how fragile our government is, and that a lot of it relies on each branch honoring the others' actions.

Problem is, people calling for rulings to be ignored, ignore that if the Supreme Court has no authority, then THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Problem is, people calling for rulings to be ignored, ignore that if the Supreme Court has no authority, then THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY.

Exactly. As stated by one of the panelists. Like they said, VERY fragile.

 

[chipbennett]

And I dont recall the ruling, but I believe that the other two branches have ignored SCOTUS rulings in the past. So a state not complying wouldnt be unique. I think it was during Andrew Jackson's term.
It quickly became a "yeah, we dont like the ruling. What are you going to do about it? Its not like you can MAKE us obey. You dont have an enforcement arm. So go to hell. We will continue to do what we want." And they did.

I dont recall the specifics, but I heard the story on NPR where they were talking about how fragile our government is, and that a lot of it relies on each branch honoring the others' actions.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." - Andrew Jackson (apocryphal), in response to the SCOTUS decision in Worcester v Georgia (1832)

 

[KG1]

Problem is, people calling for rulings to be ignored, ignore that if the Supreme Court has no authority, then THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY.

They might want to reconsider what they are calling for. Those people are starting down a dangerous path toward lawlessness. If you don't recognize the Supreme Court's authority, then I don't have to recognize yours. Violence will most definitely increase exponentially resulting in a total societal breakdown.

 

[Cameramonkey]

They might want to reconsider what they are calling for. Those people are starting down a dangerous path toward lawlessness. If you don't recognize the Supreme Court's authority, then I don't have to recognize yours. Violence will most definitely increase exponentially resulting in a total societal breakdown.

Yep, just like a board game. Its all fun and games until somebody decides they arent going to play by the rules anymore.

Edit: wait, is this the same rage quit dude?

 

[actaeon277]

Yep, just like a board game. Its all fun and games until somebody decides they arent going to play by the rules anymore.

Edit: wait, is this the same rage quit dude?

I bet if people started putting his head into a table a few times, he'd stop.

 

[BigRed]

There's a good chance that an end may be in sight to the California "assault weapons" ban.

There's been a motion filed on behalf of the plaintiff for the 9th circuit to lift the stay they imposed in Miller v. Bonta and to affirm the decision made in the case decided by Judge Benitez.

Judge Benitez ruled that the CA law banning "assault weapons" was unconstitutional based upon a one-step Constitutional analysis even before SCOTUS made it a thing

Judge Benitez originally issued a temporary stay on his own decision pending appeal. It was then bumped up to the 9th circuit on appeal where they extended a stay basically determining CA had a likelihood that the ruling would be overturned in their favor based on the merits. The problem is in determining that they used the old two step approach that they preferred which is no longer valid per the recent SCOTUS decision and the Benitez one step decision turned out to fall in line within SCOTUS guidelines.

The Miller v Bonta appeal has been on hold because of the Rupp v Bonta appeal but now that it has been remanded back down to the lower court by the 9th circuit it clears the path for Miller v Bonta to proceed.

Just as an added background note to those who may be unfamiliar with the two separate cases, they both involve the CA "assault weapons" ban. In the Rupp v Bonta case, the Judge ruled in favor of the State upholding the ban using a two-step approach.

Subsequently in Miller v Bonta the Judge in that case ruled against the State in favor of the plaintiff striking down the ban using the one-step Constitutional approach which is the current valid method recognized by the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Excellent video and well worth the watch. Thanks for posting it.

Between this and the EPA - WVa decisions, I am waiting to see what happens with that scum of scam commonly known as atf.

I wonder if any here have any thoughts / opinions/. speculations on what may come in that area.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Excellent video and well worth the watch. Thanks for posting it.

Between this and the EPA - WVa decisions, I am waiting to see what happens with that scum of scam commonly known as atf.

I wonder if any here have any thoughts / opinions/. speculations on what may come in that area.

Mark my words: Its going to take specific lawsuits to get them to comply. They arent gonna go "aw shucks..." and reverse all their mandates.

 

[BigRed]

Mark my words: Its going to take specific lawsuits to get them to comply. They arent gonna go "aw shucks..." and reverse all their mandates.

Is this where I should feign shock?

Hell, the mother******* kill a man's wife, child, and dog with impunity....Long road to go with those ***holes.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I will say while I like Thomas's opinion and it is the one with the teeth, Alito's concuring opinion is simply fire that roasts Breyer's dissenting opinion. In fact that is the only reason for it, as it states.

I join the opinion of the Court in full but add the following
comments in response to the dissent.

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dis-
sent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdic-
tions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see
fit. That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the
dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds
to do just that.

 

[KG1]

I will say while I like Thomas's opinion and it is the one with the teeth, Alito's concuring opinion is simply fire that roasts Breyer's dissenting opinion. In fact that is the only reason for it, as it states.

Basically, the three dissenting justices wanted to pretty much keep the two-step approach that a lot of lower courts were using to justify upholding bans and restrictions. Thomas backed up by Alito basically said that **** ain't gonna fly no more. The one step approach giving deference to the Constitution must be the only criteria.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Basically, the three dissenting justices wanted to pretty much keep the two-step approach that a lot of lower courts were using to justify upholding bans and restrictions. Thomas backed up by Alito basically said that **** ain't gonna fly no more.

To a degree yes, but IMO he went out of his way to roast Breyer and the dissent.

 

[KG1]

To a degree yes, but IMO he went out of his way to roast Breyer and the dissent.

He sure did. Alito looked to be fed up with Bryer's dissenting argument that flew in the face of Heller, and he let him have it.