View Single Post
 
Old 08-17-2021, 11:14 AM
bushmaster1313's Avatar
bushmaster1313 bushmaster1313 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,751
Likes: 477
Liked 16,759 Times in 3,314 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryS View Post
The NRA posted that it's scheduled to be heard on Nov. 3. Expect a decision in the spring.
Thank you for the update!

The November 3 argument date is on the Official Docket.

The Respondent Brief from New York State ("NYS") against the Right to Bear Arms is presently due September 14, 2021

Comment from OP:
The Respondent Brief from New York State against the right to Bear Arms will be curious to say the least. To get the three liberal Justices to vote against the Right to Bear Arms it is enough for NYS to simply argue as follows: "Guns are Bad. NYS can do whatever it wants to keep guns off the street and out of New York City subways." That gives the Anti's three votes. Therefore, the NYS Brief will be aimed at getting two of the Conservative Justices to vote against the Right to Bear Arms.

Chief Justice Roberts is the most likely of the Conservative Justices to be the fourth vote against the Right to Bear Arms. Based on my amateur reading of Justice Roberts' most controversial opinions, it seems to me that his philosophy is to keep the Court out of a political fight and not invalidate a law if it is at all reasonable to conclude that the government has the authority under the Constitution to regulate the conduct at issue. This is not a terrible philosophy because in the first instance it puts the People ahead of the Courts, and if the People are behaving civilly, this is the way it should be. If Justice Roberts believes that it is at all reasonable to conclude that keeping concealed carry guns off the streets and out of the subways is a political and not a Constitutional question he will vote to uphold the NYS law.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the other five Conservative Justices will be inclined to look at the "true" Constitutional issue, namely: The Constitution protects the Right to Bear Arms and the government cannot make this right contingent on a person showing that they have a special need to exercise this right. An analogy would be to ask an accused criminal: "What is so special about YOU and YOUR case that YOU need a lawyer or that YOU need to exercise YOUR right to keep silent."

So I expect a 5-1-3 decision, with 5 justices holding the NYS law is unconstitutional because you cannot make a person prove why he or she needs to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution, especially a right that is in the Bill of Rights. Roberts will join part but not all of the majority opinion, and three liberal Justices will join a small part of the Roberts opinion, but otherwise they will complain that guns are so dangerous that states should be able to do whatever is reasonably necessary to keep the number of guns in circulation at a minimum.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Last edited by s&wchad; 09-12-2021 at 07:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post: