Is this what we have been waiting for? Updated 4/26

[ladder13]

The SCOTUS is in discussion to see if there is currently a case making its way through the lower courts that will advance our 2A rights.
A case in NY may be the one they make take. It involves the need to show a “actual and articulable” need to conceal carry in that state.
I believe we will never have a court like this one in the foreseeable future.

Supreme Court to discuss case that could expand Second Amendment rights - CNNPolitics

 

[moosedog]

I'm praying.

 

[Nedroe]

Sadly, I doubt the current court will do much for us. They have proven themselves to be spineless.
I will be absolutely shocked if they take any truly meaningful case, & even more so if they would actually do their jobs correctly.

Sorry, buddy, we have no help there.


Ned

 

[SMSgt]

Don't be surprised if the outcome is not what you hope for.

 

[fordson]

Don't be surprised if the outcome is not what you hope for.

My thoughts also. I hope to be proven wrong.

 

[delcrossv]

Haven't shown much spine to date, so I'm not holding my breath hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[robertrwalsh]

hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Here is a link to the Supreme Court Docket for the case:

Supreme Court of the United States

The question presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

 

[Buzzzer]

hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Hope for the best, "expect" the worst...

 

[stansdds]

I am not holding my breath and there may be a reason they are jonesing for such a case to rule on.

 

[ladder13]

Wow.............

 

[bushmaster1313]

On March 29 2021 it was pushed to the Conference of April 1 2021

We know the Petition was not officially Denied
Anything else is speculation
We have no clue whatsoever whether SCOTUS will take the case

 

[glowe]

I am not surprised by the cases turned down so far by the Court. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has not yet been given a case that can impact the issue regarding suppressing the 2nd Amendment on a National basis. I feel that individual state cases will never be accepted by the Court, since they would result, at best, in affecting one state's laws. We need a case that can and will be leveraged across all states. Unfortunately, that would most likely be contesting a law passed by US Congress that negatively impacts our 2nd Amendment rights . . . just guessing.

 

[Johnrh]

For fun, read the brief by Neal Goldfarb about the linguistics used at the time of the Amendment. He argues the only interpretation of the Second applies to militia service. Funny how after that Amendment was approved there was no effort to remove all guns from people and even allowed guns to be carried for self protection all well into the 20 century. So linguistics aside, this argument doesn't hold water to the actual events that occurred. I guess you can make up anything you want to justify yourself. Problem is, will the Court accept it?

 

[fordson]

Not to sidetrack this important thread, but the “militia” argument just doesn’t hold water. All males 18-45 (in summary, except Quakers) were members of the militia. As such, they were required to bring their own weapons (rifles), shot and powder with them when called to duty. This was their personal property, it wasn’t issued to them by the government. Government shot and powder followed afterward. Upon aging out of the militia (at age 45+) did the government “buy back” their rifles? Were 45+ year olds no long able to “legally “ own a firearm? Were Quakers not allowed to own firearms at all, since they were not members of the militia?
Of course not. They kept their firearms, because the firearms were their personal property. They had a right to own them - a Constitutional Right, a Second Amendment right, an Individual right.
All this militia argument is hogwash, and I don’t want to disrespect hogs. Some talking heads will argue their point, regardless of how weak that argument is, just to make their point.
Now back to our regularly scheduled posting.........

 

[bushmaster1313]

I am not surprised by the cases turned down so far by the Court. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has not yet been given a case that can impact the issue regarding suppressing the 2nd Amendment on a National basis. I feel that individual state cases will never be accepted by the Court, since they would result, at best, in affecting one state's laws. We need a case that can and will be leveraged across all states. Unfortunately, that would most likely be contesting a law passed by US Congress that negatively impacts our 2nd Amendment rights . . . just guessing.

I think the above ^^^ is wrong.
The case out of New York would allow SCOTUS to decide two important nationwide issues:

1) Does the 2A protect a right to bear arms outside the home, and if so:
2) The level of scrutiny for laws infringing this right

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Thank you fordson for that brief but quite correct summary of the militia argument.

I won't be surprised to see SCOTUS duck this case because of it being local in nature.

 

[Racer X]

Not to sidetrack this important thread, but the “militia” argument just doesn’t hold water. All males 18-45 (in summary, except Quakers) were members of the militia. As such, they were required to bring their own weapons (rifles), shot and powder with them when called to duty. This was their personal property, it wasn’t issued to them by the government. Government shot and powder followed afterward. Upon aging out of the militia (at age 45+) did the government “buy back” their rifles? Were 45+ year olds no long able to “legally “ own a firearm? Were Quakers not allowed to own firearms at all, since they were not members of the militia?
Of course not. They kept their firearms, because the firearms were their personal property. They had a right to own them - a Constitutional Right, a Second Amendment right, an Individual right.
All this militia argument is hogwash, and I don’t want to disrespect hogs. Some talking heads will argue their point, regardless of how weak that argument is, just to make their point.
Now back to our regularly scheduled posting.........

honestly, this went back to medieval times. the freemen owned their own weapons, with family swords handed down through the generations. Bowmen owned their bows. When not at war, they provided food for their families.

 

[Racer X]

For fun, read the brief by Neal Goldfarb about the linguistics used at the time of the Amendment. He argues the only interpretation of the Second applies to militia service. Funny how after that Amendment was approved there was no effort to remove all guns from people and even allowed guns to be carried for self protection all well into the 20 century. So linguistics aside, this argument doesn't hold water to the actual events that occurred. I guess you can make up anything you want to justify yourself. Problem is, will the Court accept it?

imagine the second Civil War in 1866 if they dissarmed everyone who served before they returned home? I have the family 1858 Remington Army my ancestor carried. That wouldn't be possible if a "well armed militia" only existed in war time, and everything was either returned or confiscated.

 

[WuzzFuzz]

Hmmmm...I don't know, but, so far the assumption is or has been for the concealed carry outside the home..correct?

However, does that not discriminate against the homeless people from carrying concealed, since they have no home????

Is living in a tent considered a home?

Must a home have a address?...A mobil home only has a lic plate, only registered to a address...

Also, in some cities, or it used to be, to be considered to even be able to carry a gun, it was required to show that it was necessary, such as carrying large sums of money from their place of business to the bank.

However, is not my life more valuable than money?

It puzzles me, if the 2nd amendment says says I have the right to possess a gun, but does not stipulate under what conditions I may posses it, my thinking goes, if it does not say specifically I cannot, therefore I can.


Just wondering out loud..


WuzzFuzz