New York State rifle SCOTUS case granted certiorari

[bwframe]

 

[tbhausen]

NY Gun Case at Supreme Court Signals Uphill Battle to Defend Bad Laws

Arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen signal the state's uphill battle in defending its concealed carry permitting scheme.

www.dailysignal.com

TLDR translation:

New York can suck it.

Tell us how you really feel LOL

 

[jbusyc]

I was pleasantly surprised with Chief Justice Roberts comments, considering how much how much talk there has been that he would be a "swing vote" on gun rights cases.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Yesterday Guy mentioned Justice Kagan (of all people) asking the NY lawyers (paraphrasing) "What other Constitutional protection requires such stringent local control?" I mean if you've lost Elena Kagan...

With that said I would be shocked if this came back 7-2. She'll vote like an ideologue instead of judging the case on merits. From NYC, Princeton and Oxford, Harvard Law (student and Dean), White House Counsel under Clinton, on SCOTUS by Obama and replaced an anti, no way she's on the same side as, well, INGO.

I'll be happy if I'm wrong, but 6-3 looks most likely.

 

[KG1]

Yesterday Guy mentioned Justice Kagan (of all people) asking the NY lawyers (paraphrasing) "What other Constitutional protection requires such stringent local control?" I mean if you've lost Elena Kagan...

With that said I would be shocked if this came back 7-2. She'll vote like an ideologue instead of judging the case on merits. From NYC, Princeton and Oxford, Harvard Law (student and Dean), White House Counsel under Clinton, on SCOTUS by Obama and replaced an anti, no way she's on the same side as, well, INGO.

I'll be happy if I'm wrong, but 6-3 looks most likely.

I know you said that you were paraphrasing but if she actually said "Constitutional protection" it's an admission that the 2nd Amendment is a protected Constitutional right the same as all other rights.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I know you said that you were paraphrasing but if she actually said "Constitutional protection" it's an admission that the 2nd Amendment is a protected Constitutional right the same as all other rights.

The mental gymnastics required to think the 2nd Amendment was adopted so our Military could be armed is simply astounding. Military has been synonymous with Armed Forces since they were armed with pointy sticks and clubs.

I'm sure the ghost of Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg will visit her and make sure she gets her mind right. Or she thought she was throwing them a softball question and would get a better response than, "UUUUHHHHHHH..."

 

[KG1]

The mental gymnastics required to think the 2nd Amendment was adopted so our Military could be armed is simply astounding. Military has been synonymous with Armed Forces since they were armed with pointy sticks and clubs.

I'm sure the ghost of Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg will visit her and make sure she gets her mind right. Or she thought she was throwing them a softball question and would get a better response than, "UUUUHHHHHHH..."

A Constitutionally protected right of the people should not be limited by the government based upon approval by the government of the need of the people to exercise it. Any SC vote to the contrary is ideological intellectual dishonesty and a betrayal of the SCOTUS's sole mandate to protect the Constitutional rights of the people.

It's pretty simple. The heart of the issue especially concerning this case is why should the government be allowed to require the people to prove that they need to exercise a protected Constitutional right before they are granted that right by the government? The Constitution grants us that right. Not the government. It's totally un-Constitutional. This should be a 9-0 decision in favor of the people.

 

[Cameramonkey]

And on a related note, I heard a rather unsettling bit on NPR yesterday as I ran around running errands. Something like "What if the supreme court's power was no longer recognized? I mean, they have power because we think they have power... kinda like fairy dust power. What if the two branches just stopped listening to them? And he gave examples in history where they actually did flat out ignore rulings, and nothing happened because the court's power derives solely from the other two branches being willing to listen to them. Nothing happens to them (exec/legislative) if they just ignore the ruling because SCOTUS has no actual enforcement mechanism. " (heavily paraphrased)

Its telling that someone would claim to be an intellectual and flat out suggest that there is nothing giving them power. Then again these are idiots that ignore the Constitution regularly because its antiquated and not so useful any more.

 

[tbhausen]

And on a related note, I heard a rather unsettling bit on NPR yesterday as I ran around running errands. Something like "What if the supreme court's power was no longer recognized? I mean, they have power because we think they have power... kinda like fairy dust power. What if the two branches just stopped listening to them? And he gave examples in history where they actually did flat out ignore rulings, and nothing happened because the court's power derives solely from the other two branches being willing to listen to them. Nothing happens to them (exec/legislative) if they just ignore the ruling because SCOTUS has no actual enforcement mechanism. " (heavily paraphrased)

Its telling that someone would claim to be an intellectual and flat out suggest that there is nothing giving them power. Then again these are idiots that ignore the Constitution regularly because its antiquated and not so useful any more.

Simple… the people should exercise the right being denied by simply ignoring the laws/restrictions government is leaving in place in defiance of SCOTUS’ ruling. The people should be urged to do so by those who brought the case (and similar advocacy organizations). I’m thinking in terms of a HUGE, defiant publicity campaign here—very direct in nature. I think this would fall squarely under the category “resistance to tyranny”. Can’t arrest ‘em all…

 

[rugertoter]

The lib’s are shakin’ in their boots over this one, folks!

The two newest Supreme Court justices could redraw the road map for the Second Amendment in courts | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could broaden gun rights nationwide and transform how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the United States.

www.cnn.com

Oh, say it ain't so! Bless their little pea picking hearts.

 

[actaeon277]

And on a related note, I heard a rather unsettling bit on NPR yesterday as I ran around running errands. Something like "What if the supreme court's power was no longer recognized? I mean, they have power because we think they have power... kinda like fairy dust power. What if the two branches just stopped listening to them? And he gave examples in history where they actually did flat out ignore rulings, and nothing happened because the court's power derives solely from the other two branches being willing to listen to them. Nothing happens to them (exec/legislative) if they just ignore the ruling because SCOTUS has no actual enforcement mechanism. " (heavily paraphrased)

Its telling that someone would claim to be an intellectual and flat out suggest that there is nothing giving them power. Then again these are idiots that ignore the Constitution regularly because its antiquated and not so useful any more.

Hitler once asked how many Divisions the Pope had, implying the Pope had no power.
Yet..

 

[jwamplerusa]

"What if the supreme court's power was no longer recognized? I mean, they have power because we think they have power... kinda like fairy dust power. What if the two branches just stopped listening to them? And he gave examples in history where they actually did flat out ignore rulings, and nothing happened because the court's power derives solely from the other two branches being willing to listen to them. Nothing happens to them (exec/legislative) if they just ignore the ruling because SCOTUS has no actual enforcement mechanism. "

Well, the individuals and organizations advocating such a position would be domestic enemies. As stated in the Constitution and contemporaneous works, and so eloquently spoken in the declaration of Independence "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

These ***hats need a history lesson. I don't think they want to go there!

 

[Cameramonkey]

Well, the individuals and organizations advocating such a position would be domestic enemies. As stated in the Constitution and contemporaneous works, and so eloquently spoken in the declaration of Independence "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

These ***hats need a history lesson. I don't think they want to go there!

And those same half-wits in the camp of the person I quoted, would call you a domestic terrorist for suggesting it. Even though it is called for in the constitution. SMH

 

[tbhausen]

Liberal tears are delicious!

MSN

 

[manifest destiny]

Liberal tears are delicious!

MSN

The author of this article, Saul Cornell, is a zealot. He believes 2a was written to allow the state to create gun control laws. From another of his writings:

" with 240 million guns in America and without an individual right written into the 2nd Amendment...."

Nut. Bag.

 

[DragonGunner]

I was pleasantly surprised with Chief Justice Roberts comments, considering how much how much talk there has been that he would be a "swing vote" on gun rights cases.

Is this the same Roberts that said he did not agree with Obamacare, right up until the time of the vote and then shocked everyone by voting for it? The man can be bribed, thats his record.

 

[DragonGunner]

And on a related note, I heard a rather unsettling bit on NPR yesterday as I ran around running errands. Something like "What if the supreme court's power was no longer recognized? I mean, they have power because we think they have power... kinda like fairy dust power. What if the two branches just stopped listening to them? And he gave examples in history where they actually did flat out ignore rulings, and nothing happened because the court's power derives solely from the other two branches being willing to listen to them. Nothing happens to them (exec/legislative) if they just ignore the ruling because SCOTUS has no actual enforcement mechanism. " (heavily paraphrased)

Its telling that someone would claim to be an intellectual and flat out suggest that there is nothing giving them power. Then again these are idiots that ignore the Constitution regularly because its antiquated and not so useful any more.

100%....this is already happening, The democrats have gone nuts, they own ATF, FBI, CIA...we the people have no allies in Government that have a ounce of power. And it has happened many times in the past including when Lincoln had the Governor of Ohio thrown into jail, he could care less what SCOTUS had to say. He had all the power. Biden and his followers are doing as they please, they could care less about SCOTUS, its evil times, and the evil have the power.

 

[tackdriver]

Just a few gems I plucked from the comment section of the LAT article. Enjoy!


-A shotgun for home protection and a single acton bolt rifle for hunting is all one needs. Anything beyond that should not be allowed. Men walking around in public armed look ridiculous. If you are that much of a ‘fraidy cat, lock yourself in a closet and stay there. There is no need for anyone to walk around armed but to illustrate one’s cowardice.

-Actually, being able to vote out a tyrannical government made the 2nd amendment completely moot and it should be repealed immediately. Our government currently has a standing army that would decimate any armed militia or an armed individual. So, there's no reason to be armed to overthrow our government (the original idea for the 2nd amendment). our armed forces have tanks and ships and planes and nuclear bombs. No armed citizen or militia is going to win any type of war. Besides, all American citizens have something a billion times more powerful than any gun or nuclear weapon to fix our government. It's called a vote. With a vote, you and your fellow citizens can simply replace any government you don't like and replace it with one you do like. Every 4 years or so. So, once again, repeal the 2nd amendment as it is completely useless in today's society.

-"Well regulated militia" refers to slave patrols.
The 2nd Amendment is about protecting slavery, not freedom.

Wow - they just don't get it, can't get it, never will get it... come and get it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Actually, being able to vote out a tyrannical government made the 2nd amendment completely moot and it should be repealed immediately.

Somebody get this guy a dictionary. Help him find the "T" words.

Our government currently has a standing army that would decimate any armed militia or an armed individual.

It's not like a militia could a loosely organized group of illiterate goat-herders with 70 year old weapons or anything.

I'll stop now before my blood pressure goes up more.

 

[actaeon277]

Somebody get this guy a dictionary. Help him find the "T" words.

It's not like a militia could a loosely organized group of illiterate goat-herders with 70 year old weapons or anything.

I'll stop now before my blood pressure goes up more.

And let's not forget, there are more combat trained veterans, than there are active duty troops.