New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • NewPerson556

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 28, 2021
    19
    3
    here
    this is the best they could muster to argue this case? this attorney is horrible. they are trapping him into the gun crimes argument. legal carry has nothing to do with restricting non-prohibited persons which Heller has already settled. a point this attorney has yet to make! this is going to go down 5-4 with Barrett siding with the other liberal judges. pathetic!

     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    They have been reluctant to cross this rubicon and extend the 2nd Amendment right beyond the threashold of ones doorstep. What other Constitutional rights have that kind of limitation? Is the 1st Amendment limited in such a manner that precludes one from speaking freely outside the home?
     

    tbhausen

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    83   0   0
    Feb 12, 2010
    4,927
    113
    West Central IN
    They have been reluctant to cross this rubicon and extend the 2nd Amendment right beyond the threashold of ones doorstep. What other Constitutional rights have that kind of limitation? Is the 1st Amendment limited in such a manner that precludes one from speaking freely outside the home?
    That’s the exact tack some of the justices took during oral arguments.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    That’s the exact tack some of the justices took during oral arguments.
    Rightly so. I've said in a number of previous posts that keeping and bearing arms for defense in ones home which Heller affirmed should be the same as bearing them outside the home for defense. Should your right to defend yourself by bearing arms stop at the doorstep? That is the question that needs to be decided.

    Hopefully the majority will have the collective guts to settle this by extending the rights beyond Heller's limitation this time which they have been trying to avoid since the decision was handed down.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,626
    113
    central indiana
    It's unfathomable that 2a could be interpreted as only inside one's home. But not impossible for squirmy judges to interpret that way (looking at your Robert's). I have my fingers crossed that common definition of common words are viewed with common sense.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,011
    77
    Porter County
    Rightly so. I've said in a number of previous posts that keeping and bearing arms for defense in ones home which Heller affirmed should be the same as bearing them outside the home for defense. Should your right to defend yourself by bearing arms stop at the doorstep? That is the question that needs to be decided.

    Hopefully the majority will have the collective guts to settle this by extending the rights beyond Heller's limitation this time which they have been trying to avoid since the decision was handed down.
    McDonald did that. There isn't a place in the country that has no provisions for carrying a gun. This is about how much they can restrict who actually gets to carry. I have a feeling that "may issue" will not pass muster. "Shall issue" will hopefully be the rule everywhere that requires a license or permit.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,626
    113
    central indiana
    Once we get the "shall issue" cleared up, we can start working on free travel from state to state with a firearm. If one is sane and worthy in Indiana he should be allowed to travel to another state with the same sanity, worth and firearm.
     

    jwamplerusa

    High drag, low speed...
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 21, 2018
    4,210
    113
    Boone County
    So I haven't tried trolling through the amicus briefs etc.

    Does anyone who has trolled through those documents, know if references were made to Commentaries on the Constitution by Judge Joseph Story? That tome has a wonderful description of the reason for the existence of the second Amendment.

    It is, quite honestly, all that I believe is ever needed to understand the reason and scope of the second amendment. That, and the Militia Act of 1792 (later superseded by the Militia Act of 1903)

    "§ 1 000. The next amendment is : "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​
    § 1001. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palla- dium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist, and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."​
    The above passage is one reason when writing to my representatives, I frequently demand that they impose a requirement for demonstration of proficiency with arms as an element of gaining full citizenship.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    Oral Arguments here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2021/20-843

    Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/20-843_8n5a.pdf

    Worst quote here:
    Justice Breyer: "... is it
    supposed to say you can carry a concealed gun
    around the streets or the town or outside just
    for fun? I mean, they are dangerous, guns. ..."

    But interesting listen/read
    Thanks for posting this. Reading this led me to look at Justice Breyer's biography. Since 1964 he has either been at Harvard, or in DC. I think that explains the disconnect between him and a significant amount of the US population.
     

    sliptap

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Jan 25, 2013
    307
    28
    Indianapolis
    Thanks for posting this. Reading this led me to look at Justice Breyer's biography. Since 1964 he has either been at Harvard, or in DC. I think that explains the disconnect between him and a significant amount of the US population.
    Agreed. It's like he doesn't know that there's millions of people who carry every day and nothing happens. On the contrary, one could argue Chicago is a city in chaos with gun violence but has really restrictive gun laws. His comment makes no logical sense at all in context of the real world for a majority of people outside of California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and DC lol.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    Agreed. It's like he doesn't know that there's millions of people who carry every day and nothing happens. On the contrary, one could argue Chicago is a city in chaos with gun violence but has really restrictive gun laws. His comment makes no logical sense at all in context of the real world for a majority of people outside of California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and DC lol.
    And I forgot to mention in my previous post: originally from San Francisco. Talk about the trifecta of liberalism.
     

    rebase

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Feb 25, 2019
    160
    28
    Indianapolis
    Agreed. It's like he doesn't know that there's millions of people who carry every day and nothing happens. On the contrary, one could argue Chicago is a city in chaos with gun violence but has really restrictive gun laws. His comment makes no logical sense at all in context of the real world for a majority of people outside of California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and DC lol.

    Whats interesting if you read the case and amicus brief, is that Mr. Clement (representing the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association) actually uses Chicago as an example of a place with shall issue laws that does not experience significant increase in gun violence. Goes against what I would have thought, but what do I know.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,011
    77
    Porter County
    Whats interesting if you read the case and amicus brief, is that Mr. Clement (representing the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association) actually uses Chicago as an example of a place with shall issue laws that does not experience significant increase in gun violence. Goes against what I would have thought, but what do I know.
    You think gun violence got worse after people were allowed to carry guns legally?
     

    rebase

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Feb 25, 2019
    160
    28
    Indianapolis
    I think the point was that there are better examples than Chicago if you want to show that crime goes down as permits go up.

    Nit, but the point for the case was to show difference between shall and may issue. Raw numbers of permits weren't addressed by the complainant to my knowledge
     

    rosejm

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 28, 2013
    1,775
    129
    NWI
    I really recommend the audio version of the arguments. There's tone and continuity that's missing from the transcript.

    While listening to them live, it was clear that Clement presented well both for the petitioners and against the respondents.
    As Underwood argued the State's position, it was not nearly as effective. Fletcher did his best to try and save the day, but was also less effective.

    When the court questioned these restrictions compared to 1st amendment restrictions (like special time & place) you could feel their balloons being deflated.
    The disdain for restricting a person's rights due to a lack of a specific reason to exercise that right was nearly palpable.

    IMO this is a slam dunk for the petitioners, and the only real question is how narrow the court's ruling will be and where they are split.
     
    Top Bottom