Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it incredibly ironic that we've seen more gun liberties being restored under the Biden administration than the entirety of Trump's, especially considering how hard they keep trying to push anti-gun legislation. First bump stocks and the latest is this.
That is because the establishment GOP is just a break bad, makes sweet whispers to its constiuency while doing nothing but delay and slow down wht the DNC. That combined with Trump not being a good executive. He did appoint some good justices though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niggergante
Driving is not a right enshrined in the constitution with the words “shall not be infringed”.
Actually interstate travel is one of the few rights recognized by the Supreme Court despite not being explicitly enumerated. It's under privileges and immunities. These are all related to the 14th Amendment and the "privileges and immunities clause" of the Constitution.

An unconstitutional abridgement of such rights would have constitutional dimension.
 
This ruling was a warning about what's about to come down, New York will fuck around thinking that SCOTUS won't take another gun case for 10 to 15 years.
They'll start taking more gun cases if appeals courts don't get in line.
New York is the obvious culprit who will invite a serious smackdown by openly defying this order. Tell me I'm not right.
 
Counter: Hawaii exists, as does the 9th circus.
They're lazy and fat there, they'll do it, but the 9th is the obvious source of a split between circuits, sometime 20 years or so from now.

One of the pseudo-fun things about the law is you at some point realize every single legal issue you care about will be decided well after you're dead.
 
Don't know the proper etiquette to request a poll but considering we a less than 24 hours away from the presumed Dobbs decision it may be a good time to make one.
 
Their warning was pretty legit-
Capture.JPG

Source

I don't think they yet have the balls to carry this out to its logical end, but if they did, few if any restrictions on arms could be legal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JohnDoe
I don't think they yet have the balls to carry this out to its logical end, but if they did, few if any restrictions on arms could be legal.
That's not true. Those that would pass strict scrutiny might. Okay, I'll give you that, because that's definitely "few if any."
 
Well lookee here:

“This case has been remanded back to the lower court but the important thing to note today is that nothing changes,” NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell said during a City Hall news conference.


New York City officials insisted Thursday that the US Supreme Court’s decision to ease the way for people to carry handguns for self-defense wouldn’t immediately affect the Big Apple — but officials acknowledged they’ll need to “use every legal resource available” to blunt its future impact.


“This case has been remanded back to the lower court but the important thing to note today is that nothing changes,” NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell said during a City Hall news conference.


“If you have a premises permit, it does not automatically convert to a carry permit. If you carry a gun illegally in New York City, you will be arrested.”


Around 16,000 New Yorkers now have permits that allow them to keep handguns in their city homes and 700 business owners have permits to have handguns where they work, according to the NYPD.

And some 3,500 people are allowed to carry guns because of their jobs while 2,400 security guards can be armed at work but can’t bring the weapons home with them.


When asked if the NYPD would step up its use of “stop and frisk,” random bag checks and employ “more direct measures” during public protests, Sewell said, “Nothing has changed as it stands now.”


“Obviously, we’ll look at the way we do civilian encounters when people are allowed to carry if that came to pass,” she added.


Mayor Eric Adams called the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision “appalling,” saying, “There is no place in the nation that this decision affects as much as New York City.”


“We will do everything in our power, using every legal resource available, to ensure that the gains we’ve seen during this administration are not undone and that New Yorkers are not put in greater danger of gun violence,” he said.
Adams said the city would start identifying the “sensitive locations” where gun possession can be banned and also review the application process for obtaining pistol permits “to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license.”


Adams’ chief counsel, Brendan McGuire, also said that “all options are on the table” in terms of how the city would respond to the ruling that struck down a 1913 state law that required people to show “proper cause” why they should be allowed to carry a handgun.


“This opinion does not foreclose all gun regulation, to be clear,” he said.

“I want everyone to know if you are a permit owner in the state, you are not automatically a concealed permit owner. That is not what the Supreme Court did today,” she said.

During a news conference in her Manhattan office, Hochul also said she would summon state lawmakers back to Albany sometime after the Fourth of July to consider new gun restrictions.

They could include requiring additional training to obtain a carry permit and banning concealed weapons in places of business unless the owner “affirmatively” allows them.

“I’m gonna not predetermine those, but I think they’ll just be what people would consider a common sense,” Hochul said.

It is abundantly clear that New York State and City officials will do all they can to make the permit application as onerous as possible. I understand NYPD has not even approved shotgun "licenses" since covid. Could be amother ten years before can enjoy their Second Amendment rights in practical terms, and by then the long-term ballot stuffing scheme of the Great Replacement will have vested.
 
What do you expect from this Court though? Based on text is still better than based on "penumbras" and "emanations."
From SCOTUS? I expect cowardice, and an unending defense of their image. But it looks like they may just be getting warmed up to get all medieval textualist on shit.
I just don't think anyone is expecting the Thomas Inquisition to go routing out heresy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot
technically, permitless carry of rifles but not handguns screwed him over.
because then he could have conceal carried and he likely wouldn't have attracted attention the way he did.
There were a lot of people open carrying rifles and pistols on both sides that weren't being attacked by the mob. Kyle was attacked because he looked like a vulnerable kid and he actively stepped in to stop the flaming dumpster from being pushed into the gas pumps. They (clearly) never gave a shit that he was armed because it didn't stop people from attacking him. His crime was having the balls to step in and help the community at large.

On topic, I disagree with Kavanaugh's opinion that states have the authority to require permits. Its always been unconstitutional. If that standard were applied to literally any other enumerated right, it would be the end of Our Democracy ™️.
 
I suspect that the DNC refrained from codifying Roe in some sort of national abortion law to use its overturning for fund-raising, talking points in campaigns, etc....
Nah they just didn't want to lose swing votes. One thing that applies equally to all politicians from all parties and all political leanings is they flatly refuse to ever plan past their next election.
 
I am trying to get through Bruen and ascertain what it will actually mean for NYC residents, I am guessing authorities there will recalibrate with more bullshit restrictions, thousands of dollars in applications. Ie, the victory in Bruen is transitory....

I will note in oral arguments that one of the justices asked if someone simply stated they live in a high crime area, work at night amd want to defend themselves, that the NYAG responded no because they don't have a specific threat. Sounds like they can still put people through the rigamarole, just cant deny licenses because an applicant cannot show a specific person who wants to harm him.

EDIT: I have read much of the decision, skipping past discussions on the history citizenry bearing arms in post meideival England, the Reconstruction Era, Western settlements etc.

The only thing this opinion does is strike down New York's "special need" requirement to obtain a pistol license, as it is also strikes down discretionary powers for an official to decline an application not based on objective criteria. Know New York officals will concoct a licensing regime just as onerous, with hundreds if not thousands of dollars in fees, etc.
I would think it would set the tone of gun restrictions going forward, but new york and california (that i've seen) have already said they'd ignore it. Not sure how that's going to go, but i'm honestly excited to see what happens if a state tells the scotus to suck their dicks. Does the scotus have any way to inforce things?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: NegerJäger
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back