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

[glowe]

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

Ok, but that the case is about a specific New York law, not a Federal law and I do not believe you can leverage a state law ruling across any other states. California and other anti-gun states will not be affected and even if the inference is that the law is unconstitutional, these states will not be adjudicated by a New York ruling.

 

[stansdds]

Ok, but that the case is about a specific New York law, not a Federal law and I do not believe you can leverage a state law ruling across any other states. California and other anti-gun states will not be affected and even if the inference is that the law is unconstitutional, these states will not be adjudicated by a New York ruling.

Except for the fact that states are prohibited from enacting laws that violate the constitution. So if NY's law is found to be unconstitutional, identical laws in other states would also be unconstitutional. At least in theory, but it seems that states, counties, and cities like to test such things and tie up the courts with litigation and re-litigation... at taxpayer expense, of course.

 

[bushmaster1313]

CORRECTED to say that the case finding that the 2A did not apply to bearing arms outside the home was out of the Ninth Circuit

Except for the fact that states are prohibited from enacting laws that violate the constitution. So if NY's law is found to be unconstitutional, identical laws in other states would also be unconstitutional. At least in theory, but it seems that states, counties, and cities like to test such things and tie up the courts with litigation and re-litigation... at taxpayer expense, of course.

The Supreme Court isn't set up to address individual state laws. Rather, the Supreme Court will use a dispute over a particular law in a particular state to set precedent for all courts in all states.

For example, in the Hawaii [New York] case, the Ninth [Second] Circuit held that the Second Amendment did not apply at all to an ordinary person bearing arms outside the home. If the Supreme Court took a [the] case and decided as a threshold issue that the Ninth [Second] Circuit was wrong on this point, then every court in the United States when considering any right to carry case would have to start from the position that the Second Amendment did apply to the right of an ordinary person to bear arms outside the home.

Also, in cases that hinge on whether a law violates the Constitution, after determining that the Constitution is relevant to the law, the court must decide what level of "scrutiny" to apply. In deciding the New York case the Supreme Court has three choices: 1) decide that the law violates the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; 2) decide that the law does not violate the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; or 3) decide what level of scrutiny applies and go on from there.

1) and 2) are simple and lead to a yes or no answer. If the Supreme Court proceeds under 3) to decide the level of scrutiny, the Supreme Court could apply this level of scrutiny to the state law and decide if it violated the Constitution, or the Supreme Court could order the case back to the lower courts to apply the level of scrutiny announced by the Supreme Court

 

[glowe]

Here's the rub with that logic.

The Supreme Court currently has no enforcement powers. The Supreme Court relies on the executive branch for enforcement of its decisions. So what happens to states depend highly on what President is in office at that time. Occasionally, even the President will simply ignore decisions. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

 

[Johnrh]

I was ready to argue your point but after researching your post I found you to be absolutely correct. Scary stuff.

 

[smithman]

Ballot box, jury box...

 

[bushmaster1313]

We will find out this morning at 9:30 AM ET if the Supreme Court is taking any action on this case following the Conference of March 29. In my humble opinion it’s about time for the Supreme Court to hear a Right-To-Carry case. But alas — my opinion carries little weight with the Justices.

 

[ladder13]

If they take it, imo, it’s good for us.

I don’t think Thomas and Alito, two known quantities, would wait this long to stick it to us.
ACB also has a pro 2A track record.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch appear to be originalists.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Very unusual
Today they did nothing at all
Did not even move it to the next Conference
My guess is that maybe they prefer the Hawaii case or maybe they want to consider them together before deciding what to do.

 

[llowry61]

Sometimes no news is good news. There is only one bite at this apple.

 

[YeshuaIsa53]

We, the people of the United States...
the pursuit of happiness

 

[bushmaster1313]

I have corrected post 23 to show that it was the Ninth Circuit which held that there is no right under the 2A to bear arms outside the home.

 

[bushmaster1313]

On April 12 it was redistributed for Conference of April 16

This does not mean anything of substance. All it means is that the question of whether to grant the Petition for Certiorari (i.e. decide to hear the case) was put on the Supreme Court's Calendar for the Conference of April 16.

We are still in wait and see mode. All we know is that the Supreme Court has not announced whether it will or will not hear this case. If the Supreme Court decides to not hear this case, the lower court ruling from the Second Circuit remains good law in the Second Circuit and the Supreme court could decide in the future to hear the right to carry question in another case. If the Supreme Court decides to hear this case -- it will be be off to the races and hold on to your hat!

 

[s&wchad]

Keep this discussion focused on the 2A.

Leave general political discussion, election rigging/stealing, etc... out of it.

 

[Bucher33]

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?

I thought District of Columbia vs. Heller decided once and for all the 2nd amendment applied to individuals regardless of militia service.

 

[Rolex28]

200 years ago the conditions under which the 2A was written were a whole lot different.. Imagine 200 years from now what the types of weapons available will be???? But no matter what safety, will always be a concern for many folks...

 

[Riverboys]

Roberts will never take the case. He is a coward.

 

[ggibson511960]

Chief Justice Roberts has shown himself to be guilty of the worst misstep imaginable by the judiciary, bowing to political pressure. His capitulation to the Democratic senator's open letter threatening re-structuring is abominable. President Biden has taken up the mantle of politically threatening the court. After repeatedly making campaign statements against court packing, he has buckled to party political pressure by appointing a commission to study the issue. This is how court intimidation works. Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing. He threatened court packing after his command-and-control economic policies were slapped down by the Supreme Court. FDR couldn't get court packing Congress, but the court buckled to political pressure and began letting FDR's New Deal programs pass constitutional muster. Roberts should heed Ruth Bader Ginsburg's regret when she bad-mouthed Donald Trump. Hope this post isn't too political, but the intrusion of politics into the judiciary is inflaming what ought to be a scholarly judicial reconciliation of constitutional rights.

 

[crankyoldlady]

200 years ago the conditions under which the 2A was written were a whole lot different.. Imagine 200 years from now what the types of weapons available will be???? But no matter what safety, will always be a concern for many folks...

Technology changes. Human nature does not. The genius of the founders was their understanding of power in human hands.

 

[bushmaster1313]

At today’s morning session of the Supreme Court there was no mention of this Petition

Later today the Petition was listed as being distributed for the Conference of April 23

Therefore, still in limbo