Its always another excuse with them. They got to show me that they're pro 2a and have some balls, till then they're waiting to f*** us.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Guns are on Supreme Court's agenda days after mass shootings
- Thread starter Coyote33
- Start date
Its always another excuse with them. They got to show me that they're pro 2a and have some balls, till then they're waiting to f*** us.
im with you if they punt in the next few years. With Barrett, Alito, Thomas, gorsuch and Kavanaugh should believe they have a reliable 5th and take 2A cases. Until Barrett they had no faith in Roberts and Kennedy. If they took an AWB or mag limit case or carry case and Roberts joined the liberals, it would be precedence setting and would be difficult to take other cases and would signal to the lower courts to restrict 2A
With Barrett they have no excuses
But if @Hoover is right, and I think he might be, then it's an excellent excuse.
SCOTUS decisions set precedent for 25-50 years, at least. Sometimes forever. If I'm Clarence Thomas and I believe in 2A and I'm looking for a case, and I already have a good idea how my colleagues will vote, why would I push to grant cert to a case that might get struck down and/or be so limited in its scope that it amounts to pissing away that one-in-ten-years opportunity to reshape 2A policy?
If I and my right-thinking colleagues did that, and it got struck down and in the process set 2A back for another generation, then you'd be howling for my head. I'm wiser holding my fire until a better case comes along.
strangenh
NES Member
Look, the 2A has a very weird history in the courts. There was no dispositive modern case on it at all. The 1920s Miller case was more procedural with a hint of decision, but had zero precedential value. Liberal and conservative law profs through the mid 1990s taught there was no precedential 2A SCOTUS case out there at all. Then in the late '90s, the liberals realized they could intentionally misread Miller to be some kind of "collective right" case (which it isn't; it's kind of based on the 2A being the opposite of all the liberals want the 2A to mean, and it's still not of precedential value).
For the 2A to get to the jurisprudence level of the 1A, say, it needed several things.
1) A federal case without state complications interpreting its meaning (Heller)
2) A 14th A incorporation or P-or-I case to establish the states are subject to the 2A (McDonald)
3) A case setting the level of scrutiny the 2A receives (strict, intermediate, or rational basis) <- WE ARE HERE
4) Cases applying the 2A with that level of scrutiny to various laws, arrests, actions, etc., dismantling or countermanding the violations thereof
The conservative justices are - as the court does in all such situations - handling cases where the lower courts flat out ignore Heller and McDonald where its worth smacking them down, while waiting for the circuit courts to weigh in on the scrutiny level in appeals from state and district court cases. They ideally get a split so they can chose among the cases, bring better than a barebones majority onto the decision, and unify on a rationale. Remember, Thomas "concurred" in McDonald because he did not like the whole incorporation approach and preferred the plain language Privileges or Immunities clause approach (which would have been a different approach than for basically any other enumerated right). Ideally they want to solidify a 6-3 decision, or at least have a rationalle-unified majority for the next step, which is KEY. I can't emphasize how important nailing down strict scrutiny for the 2A is. Anything lower than strict scrutiny on this enumerated right would not only twist a knife in the Second Amendment, but such a decision could put every other enumerated right into a "hey, let's see if the level of review really is stuck at 'strict' here" blender.
So they are waiting. We actually have a much better Court overall for originalism and plain language than the one that decided Heller, a case the NRA thought "we" would lose. Be patient. It took a good hundred years to go from "if you say bad things about the President during war, we can jail you" - and that was THE FOUNDERS - to the notion that the 1A actually might mean that's not cool.
For the 2A to get to the jurisprudence level of the 1A, say, it needed several things.
1) A federal case without state complications interpreting its meaning (Heller)
2) A 14th A incorporation or P-or-I case to establish the states are subject to the 2A (McDonald)
3) A case setting the level of scrutiny the 2A receives (strict, intermediate, or rational basis) <- WE ARE HERE
4) Cases applying the 2A with that level of scrutiny to various laws, arrests, actions, etc., dismantling or countermanding the violations thereof
The conservative justices are - as the court does in all such situations - handling cases where the lower courts flat out ignore Heller and McDonald where its worth smacking them down, while waiting for the circuit courts to weigh in on the scrutiny level in appeals from state and district court cases. They ideally get a split so they can chose among the cases, bring better than a barebones majority onto the decision, and unify on a rationale. Remember, Thomas "concurred" in McDonald because he did not like the whole incorporation approach and preferred the plain language Privileges or Immunities clause approach (which would have been a different approach than for basically any other enumerated right). Ideally they want to solidify a 6-3 decision, or at least have a rationalle-unified majority for the next step, which is KEY. I can't emphasize how important nailing down strict scrutiny for the 2A is. Anything lower than strict scrutiny on this enumerated right would not only twist a knife in the Second Amendment, but such a decision could put every other enumerated right into a "hey, let's see if the level of review really is stuck at 'strict' here" blender.
So they are waiting. We actually have a much better Court overall for originalism and plain language than the one that decided Heller, a case the NRA thought "we" would lose. Be patient. It took a good hundred years to go from "if you say bad things about the President during war, we can jail you" - and that was THE FOUNDERS - to the notion that the 1A actually might mean that's not cool.
Excellent points. Now vs when heller was decided Souter was replaced by sotomayor that’s a push, stevens was replaced by kagan she’s very liberal but may be slightly less than stevens who was Uber liberal. Gorsuch replaces Scalia, on 2A they’re probably similar, Kav replaced Kennedy, definitely an upgrade towards 2A and Barrett is a complete 180 to Ginsburg. The court is significantly better than it was 12 years ago.
There’s also a lot of behind the scenes stuff we never see or hear about. I am optimistic the current court will build off heller
I think they had plenty of good cases last summer when they denied cert on 9 or 10 2A cases but Alito, gorsuch, kav and Thomas don’t trust Roberts especially after Obamacare where it’s believed he voted to overturn Obamacare but flipped during the opinion writing process. I think they trust Barrett.
Last edited:
Lokdog
NES Member
Kavanaugh voted in October that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to change election laws but then in February voted the complete opposite way by saying no to picking up the very same case. That ass clowns credibility is out the window for people who cherish freedom and the constitution so I really don't trust that Robert's junior to do anything good for Americans
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
The laws in MA suck. The entire state sucks.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
I don't trust SCOTUS. They twist words like all the rest.
Every part of the constitution is important.
But.
Every part is written differently, spells out different principles, is held to a different level of legal scrutiny, and (more to the point here) has completely different bodies of law and precedent controlling its interpretation.
So, no. It doesn't hold up. Because you can't, as a judge, "apply the same arguments or rationale." That's not the way common-law systems work. If you want it differently, move to France or Louisiana. They've got statute law systems there; enjoy.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,167
- Likes
- 33,124
Come and take it! There only needs to be one ruling and it's all over. OVER. Like Roe vs Wade. All. Over. Get me a ruling that says Shall Not means SHALL FREAKING NOT and it's all over. I know it seems radical, but it could be settled in one case. Once. All the talk from the Left of getting enough justices will be like the talk from the Right about getting enough justices to overturn Roe. We've got an alleged 6-3 majority and no overturning or even reasonable adjustment (which would make MASSIVE sense 50 years of medical science later) to Roe.
Did you guys even notice there are 2 new justices? Hello.
Yes. This.
Beretta92FS
NES Member
You mean those two losers that didn’t even want to hear any cases related to the biggest election fraud in US history? Those two? Yeah I’m sure those two morons can be trusted to do the right thing.
Any decisions from the Supreme court right now won't be good and will have very long effect.
Guns are on Supreme Court's agenda days after mass shootings
WASHINGTON (AP) — A possible expansion of gun rights is on the Supreme Court's agenda, days after mass shootings in Colorado and Georgia.www.pressrepublican.com
Also:
Massachusetts Gun Laws Could Change With Supreme Court Decision
Massachusetts is one of eight states that make it virtually impossible for people to get permits to carry guns in public.patch.com
mothybee
NES Member
That's what they needed. why give Ma, Ny, Cal, etc. 120% for Biden?
AHM
NES Member
FTFY (which makes it even worse).
This didn't happen in a random and uncoordinated fashion.
Those dumpster-fire cities were told what to do in advance,
from the Donk National Committee.
It's gotta be true that the situation remains ripe for some pissed-off red state DA
to flip some sack-of-sh¡t poll workers who got nothing more for their crimes
than a fourth slice of pizza that night and unwind the conspiracy all the way up the food chain.
The footsoldiers are nothing more than moonlighting DMV clerk-types;
there's no way that they're going to jail to protect some state committee chair
that was in on the conference call with Pelosi, et. al.
It may never happen,
but the bottom of that pyramid remains at exquisite legal risk.
Any DA who wanted to could flip those clowns before tea time.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
That little shit should be JAMMING the constitution up their back side. After the shit they dragged him through, f***ing idiot
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Yeah but if they did pack the courts they need another case and then they would only be able to narrowly rule on whatever the issue is. If on the other hand they took a case with the idea of eliminating stare decisis (existing precedent) or making a broad sweeping decision then it would be like the left taking a poison pill and claiming they won because in the future when they lose control of the court and then all prior precedent would be out the window including their own. In any event the left is playing with dynamite and honestly I would let them blow themselves up. It would be comedy gold.
chuckules
NES Member
I don’t hope it succeeds...but if it does I too will be waiting for the fire they play with to burn them. Might be a long wait.
AHM
NES Member
Sez who?
The Supreme Court?
Congress? Where do they derive the power for their opinion on that to matter?
The Executive Branch? Where do they derive the power for their opinion on that to matter?
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
If the dems added 4 new justices today who were let's just say openly hostile to gun rights and said that the second amendment should be abolished, they would still need a case to weigh on. Let's take the Hawaii case that just went before the 9th circuit. Suppose it goes to a new leftie scotus. Now the new leftie scotus wants to really spank the people hard so they rule that there is no right to carry a weapon at all, whether in the home or out in public. Furthermore outside the home all you can carry is a musket. The court would be trampling on piles of existing precedent. Therefore if precedent doesn't matter then everything is up for grabs. That would be a very scary place.
Where does their power derive from?
Well lets say that congress passes a law that says privacy no longer exists and that cops are free to kick in anyone's doors at any time looking for bad things. So cops do this and kicks in some doors and some people end up in jail for something they were doing in the privacy of their own home. Where do the people in jail go to take their case when they feel that their constitutional rights have been violated? That's why we have 3 coequal branches of government. The courts are not an offshoot fo congress. They're not supposed to be legislators in robes.
So the FedEx shooting involved a kid who’s parents had called the local police on him and he was investigated, then called the FBI several times and even confiscated a weapon from him but yet he was able to pass a NICS check to buy 2 rifles? Meanwhile you’ve got false denials for people never in trouble in their lives. FBI and Law enforcement dropped the ball on this one....again.
Whutmeworry
NES Member
Couldn’t post the link, but the Epoch Times just reported that SCOTUS punted on two 2a cases today, including the NYRPA case.
inkdesigner
NES Member
They denied cert on 2 cases involving non violent felons and firearms. They relisted the NYPRA case.
SCOTUS Rejects Two Gun Cases, Holds On To Another
Two non-violent felons hoping to have their 2A rights restored were turned away from SCOTUS on Monday.
bearingarms.com
AHM
NES Member
Again; sez who?
What's to prevent them from issuing a ruling on some random case
(say, about non-uniformed volunteer school crossing guards violating someone's rights);
a ruling that says,
"non-uniformed volunteer school crossing guards
are entitled to Qualified Immunity, because Reasons.
Oh, and guns are illegal.
<Mic drop>".
What.
Law.
Prevents.
That?
The threat that Pelosi's House will impeach those Justices?
The threat that Upchuck Schumer's Senate will convict those Justices?
Can you point to the document outlawing the Trampling of Existing Precedent?
Sure, sure. Totally agree.
Scary for the people they pull that trick on.
Scary for the people who pull that trick.
The Bastille, Then and Now.
Not one stone atop another.
Last edited:
Hardwired
NES Member
When it suits "them" not the people. Meanwhile the plebes will have more rights infringed to the point of totalitarian rule.
SCROTUS sucks pure and simple.
The First, second, and Fourth have all been violated and compromised. Fraud king let on the throne and they would not even hear it. The message was sent...
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0MT3kuR3MLA
Whutmeworry
NES Member
So non-violent felons can be trusted among the gen pop to do everything except defend themselves. Got it.They denied cert on 2 cases involving non violent felons and firearms. They relisted the NYPRA case.
SCOTUS Rejects Two Gun Cases, Holds On To Another
Two non-violent felons hoping to have their 2A rights restored were turned away from SCOTUS on Monday.
AHM
NES Member
If anybody actually wanted to know WTF I was talking about there,
but couldn't figure it out - it was a sour image link.
Just fixed it by copying a download to NES.
Go look again.
Lokdog
NES Member
Man this 6-3 court sucks ass. Have these useless backstabber's rules positively on any cases that pertain to individual freedoms yet? Scalia must be spinning in his grave with how disappointing Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett have been
Similar threads
