New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

defaultdotxbe

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 21, 2020
161
28
Griffith
My take.....

The Supremes will vote a majority supporting carry. This will set us up for the dems to cry foul and have a strong push to now pack the court. They will cry to the people about how their lives are in jeopardy now because Trump packed the court in his favor so now they need to protect us all by packing the court to give a more realistic and modern interpretation that reflects our society. They will argue that the 2nd was written for "then" and not now, thus their need to update courts to reflect today.

They will use fear and safety in order to get public support to pack it.
I'm sure they will try, but I don't think this is an issue that will change the minds of the senators currently holding out on filibuster/SCOTUS reform
 

snorko

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
322   0   0
Apr 3, 2008
6,688
83
Evansville, IN
This story is really taking hold. Even though it won't be until the next session, I heard the story covered on the international BBC news broadcast and it is the front page story in the local (USA Today affiliated rag) newspaper.
 

22ishplinkster

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 9, 2021
37
8
Indianapolis
Interesting read:


> In April 2020, the court sent a challenge to a New York City ban on carrying handguns outside the home back to the lower court without ruling, concluding the case was moot because the city had already changed the law.
> But in a concurring opinion at that time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh recommended that the justices take up another Second Amendment case soon, suggesting the lower courts might not be properly applying the Supreme Court's earlier gun rights rulings.
 

bwframe

Grayish Man
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
Feb 11, 2008
27,543
113
Monroe County
This one is a strong 2A case - should be an easy win. We will see...
Nothin's easy.

ANTIFA, BLM, and every other lib terrorist group will try to outdo each other doxing and threatening the judges down to their 8th cousins and kid's piano teachers.

And that's before we have a dozen psycho active shooters while waiting on the trial.
 
Last edited:

KG1

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
66   0   0
Jan 20, 2009
13,899
149
I said this in a previous thread about a 9th circus court ruling that decided there was no individual right to bear arms for self defense outside the home. How come is it that the 2A right to bear arms for self defense is the only right that ends at the doorstep at which time you lose that right to bear arms for self defense once you cross that threshold?

It's ludicrous to say that you have a right to bear arms for self defense (within the home) but you cannot bear an arm for the same outside the home.

Let's make it simple and start here. I'm sure the court would agree that you have a right to defend yourself outside the home just as you would within the home. But why is it that you can't use an arm to do so outside the home?

The bottom line is why is it an acceptable means for self defense within the home but not outside the home?

Self defense is self defense.
 

DoggyDaddy

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
73   0   1
Aug 18, 2011
43,901
77
Southside Indy
I said this in a previous thread about a 9th circus court ruling that decided there was no individual right to bear arms for self defense outside the home. How come is it that the 2A right to bear arms for self defense is the only right that ends at the doorstep at which time you lose that right to bear arms for self defense once you cross that threshold?

It's ludicrous to say that you have a right to bear arms for self defense (within the home) but you cannot bear an arm for the same outside the home.

Let's make it simple and start here. I'm sure the court would agree that you have a right to defend yourself outside the home just as you would within the home. But why is it that you can't use an arm to do so outside the home?

The bottom line is why is it an acceptable means for self defense within the home but not outside the home?

Self defense is self defense.
Exactly. It would be like saying that the government can't restrict your right to free speech, unless you leave your home. Then you have to STFU. :nuts:
 

Tombs

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
8,316
113
Martinsville
It'll never go our way.

You folks who keep shoveling your hope into the government haven't taken a look around in the past few years. Time to stop being in denial.
 

Twangbanger

Master
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Oct 9, 2010
4,522
113
Although I can't quite bring myself to be optimistic, I also have this feeling that I bet the liberals are privately having misgivings about the (failed) excoriation they gave to Kavanaugh, right about now.

That's two conservatives on the court who have been drug through the mud.

I think it really comes down to Alito. He will be the big deal-maker on this one. Bet 8 to 5 he will get to write the opinion.
 

KG1

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
66   0   0
Jan 20, 2009
13,899
149
Never? Heller was a bad decision?
The liberals on the court thought so. That decision barely squeaked by. Concessions were even made by Scalia to limit Heller because Stevens was trying like hell to get Kennedy to swing the other way.

They have been avoiding taking on a case like this like the plague to expand Heller ever since and you can bet the liberals on the court will be trying hard to get someone to turn squish and roll over to their side. We already know that we can't trust CJ Roberts so it's up to Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to hold the line.

The SC has lost my vote of confidence in today's climate. I cannot put my faith in them to do the right thing. Hope like hell I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:

KLB

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Sep 12, 2011
14,620
77
Porter County
Although I can't quite bring myself to be optimistic, I also have this feeling that I bet the liberals are privately having misgivings about the (failed) excoriation they gave to Kavanaugh, right about now.

That's two conservatives on the court who have been drug through the mud.

I think it really comes down to Alito. He will be the big deal-maker on this one. Bet 8 to 5 he will get to write the opinion.
I think Alito is a solid in favor of the 2nd. Still seems like Barrett is the unknown.

The key for any case will be that it is brought before the court in the right way, making the proper arguments. Sometimes we may think a case looks good, but the actual arguments being made are not right, or it is not setup in the correct manner. Those cases then fall to the side.
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
25,992
113
I think Alito is a solid in favor of the 2nd. Still seems like Barrett is the unknown.

The key for any case will be that it is brought before the court in the right way, making the proper arguments. Sometimes we may think a case looks good, but the actual arguments being made are not right, or it is not setup in the correct manner. Those cases then fall to the side.
Judging by her history, Barrett should be a safe bet. Introducing fears of having the court packed, facing a mob, or suffocating her own self on her pillow with no help whatsoever like Scalia, God only knows.
 

MCgrease08

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Mar 14, 2013
10,733
149
Earth
I think Alito is a solid in favor of the 2nd. Still seems like Barrett is the unknown.

The key for any case will be that it is brought before the court in the right way, making the proper arguments. Sometimes we may think a case looks good, but the actual arguments being made are not right, or it is not setup in the correct manner. Those cases then fall to the side.
This case will be presented and argued by Paul Clement, former US Solicitor General. Dude is like the Michael Jordan of Supreme Court cases. If the decision goes sideways, it won't be because it's argued poorly.

 

Site Supporter

INGO Supporter

Forum statistics

Threads
483,762
Messages
8,651,469
Members
47,428
Latest member
Jaren24
Top Bottom