Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Dershowitz, while he agrees with us often, is a moron and a tool.

"You want to have a cannon," he told Higbie. "Well, according to the Constitution, if want to have a cannon, you should join the militia. The Second Amendment says, you know, it's about a militia. It doesn't give you the right to have a cannon or nuclear weapon. It may give you the right to have a handgun or a hunting weapon. These are debatable issues. But, you know, the Second Amendment is not as clear as it could have been."
Click to expand...

Honestly???? How clear does it have to be? He's making crap up. Taking shortcuts.

Isn't Dershowitz the guy that argued that there is nothing evil, only good? Sort of like there is no cold, only heat. ?????
 
Dennis in MA said:
Dershowitz, while he agrees with us often, is a moron and a tool.



Honestly???? How clear does it have to be? He's making crap up. Taking shortcuts.

Isn't Dershowitz the guy that argued that there is nothing evil, only good? Sort of like there is no cold, only heat. ?????
Click to expand...
For completeness, he was also on Lolita Express....


1633368408308.png
 
Dennis in MA said:
Dershowitz, while he agrees with us often, is a moron and a tool.



Honestly???? How clear does it have to be? He's making crap up. Taking shortcuts.

Isn't Dershowitz the guy that argued that there is nothing evil, only good? Sort of like there is no cold, only heat. ?????
Click to expand...
There is no cold, only heat. Cold is the absence of heat, not the presence of cold.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Dershowitz, while he agrees with us often, is a moron and a tool.



Honestly???? How clear does it have to be? He's making crap up. Taking shortcuts.

Isn't Dershowitz the guy that argued that there is nothing evil, only good? Sort of like there is no cold, only heat. ?????
Click to expand...

Yeah Dersh is not a big fan of 2A but he's still very interesting to read/listen to. I enjoy listening to his thoughts on free speech, section 230 issues and privacy.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Alan Dershowitz thinks that SCOTUS will update the Heller decision by stating that carrying of weapons both open carry and concealed will be expanded due to the current crime wave.


www.newsmax.com

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Supreme Court Won't Overrule or Affirm Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court will most likely "split the difference" rather than either wholly affirming Roe v. Wade precedent or completely overruling it, legal expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax.
www.newsmax.com www.newsmax.com
Click to expand...
"The Supreme Court, while ruling on the restrictive abortion laws coming from states like Texas and Mississippi, will most likely "split the difference" rather than either wholly affirming Roe v. Wade precedent or completely overruling it, legal expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax."

Splitting the baby seems to be the whole Solomonic question - but in utero and at what gestational age. If any man has a castle, it’s his Mother’s womb.
 
MaverickNH said:
Splitting the baby seems to be the whole Solomonic question - but in utero and at what gestational age. If any man has a castle, it’s his Mother’s womb.
Click to expand...
At what point in the eyes of the law does a person become a person and thus be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the protection of the Constitution/Natural Law? (conception? heartbeat? ability to feel pain? consciousness? viability outside the womb?) That is the question the court has been reluctant to have to answer.
 
Waher said:
At what point in the eyes of the law does a person become a person and thus be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the protection of the Constitution/Natural Law? (conception? heartbeat? ability to feel pain? consciousness? viability outside the womb?) That is the question the court has been reluctant to have to answer.
Click to expand...
Indeed - as the technology to raise babies in test tubes progresses from science fiction to reality, we confuse ability with morality.
 
MaverickNH said:
"The Supreme Court, while ruling on the restrictive abortion laws coming from states like Texas and Mississippi, will most likely "split the difference" rather than either wholly affirming Roe v. Wade precedent or completely overruling it, legal expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax."

Splitting the baby seems to be the whole Solomonic question - but in utero and at what gestational age. If any man has a castle, it’s his Mother’s womb.
Click to expand...
There's no way that the Texas law is going to be overturned otherwise the government that says that it can't inject itself between 2 individuals having a private conversation will do exactly that especially doctor/patient information. They can't have it both ways. In any case, I don't even see there be any standing for the government in the Texas law unless the people fighting it are fishing around for a friendly left wing judge.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
There's no way that the Texas law is going to be overturned otherwise the government that says that it can't inject itself between 2 individuals having a private conversation will do exactly that especially doctor/patient information. They can't have it both ways. In any case, I don't even see there be any standing for the government in the Texas law unless the people fighting it are fishing around for a friendly left wing judge.
Click to expand...
I don't parse this. The TX law does inject the government into private conversations. The suits against TX are to take the state out of the private conversation.

Also, in litigating against the government, the party bringing the suit is the one who needs standing, not the defendant.

The secondary, but very important, issue is deputizing private citizens and partisan orgs to enforce the law through "I'm offended" litigation.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I don't parse this. The TX law does inject the government into private conversations. The suits against TX are to take the state out of the private conversation.

Also, in litigating against the government, the party bringing the suit is the one who needs standing, not the defendant.

The secondary, but very important, issue is deputizing private citizens and partisan orgs to enforce the law through "I'm offended" litigation.
Click to expand...
*Cough* The Americans with Disabilities Act violations are largely enforced this way *cough* /which raises an interesting potential consequence of a SCotUS ruling in the case gutting the outsourcing of ADA enforcement
 
Dennis in MA said:
The Titted One (that's the rough translation, right?) isn't wrong. Historically, towns and states have had rights to restrict gun ownership and use.

Of course, historically blacks didn't have rights as humans and we could segregate and all that. Prior to the late 60's, cops could beat you and obfuscate your rights when interrogating you. Close to 200 years of court rulings supported it.

Claiming a 19th century interpretation of 2A is probably wrong. We see rights in a much different way in
Click to expand...
Also the 2A was not incorporated against the states before the 14thA , and that unrecognized until Heller.
 
Waher said:
*Cough* The Americans with Disabilities Act violations are largely enforced this way *cough* /which raises an interesting potential consequence of a SCotUS ruling in the case gutting the outsourcing of ADA enforcement
Click to expand...
True, but at least the plaintiff has to allege some damage. I can't get financial damages just because the lack of a wide toilet door or handicapped spaces offends me, not can I get successfully sued damages for telling someone where they can get a dinner as a non-ADA compliant restaurant.
 
Last edited:
Waher said:
The entire Bill of Rights wasn't incorporated to extend the constraints placed on the federal government to state governments until the 14th A.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. And that not even recognized by the Court (though it was patently the intent of the 14th) before the 1920s, really. They completely backburnered the Privileges and Immunities Clause even so.
Rob Boudrie said:
And the 2A was not incorporated until McDonald.
Click to expand...
Yep - sorry, late post. You are correct - Heller recognized it formally as an ind. right; McDonald was the incorporation case.
 
Lank said:
So will may issue go away?
Click to expand...

It’s possible that it could fall in a national level but states, MA in particular, are preemptively working to counter any change with new legislative work arounds. There was story in the Glob yesterday about various approaches being considered.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I don't parse this. The TX law does inject the government into private conversations. The suits against TX are to take the state out of the private conversation.

Also, in litigating against the government, the party bringing the suit is the one who needs standing, not the defendant.

The secondary, but very important, issue is deputizing private citizens and partisan orgs to enforce the law through "I'm offended" litigation.
Click to expand...

If I had an abortion and both the doctor and I knew the fetus had a beating heart but did it anyways, then there is no controversy inf no one else knows. The state has no idea. The only way for their to be a controversy is if I told someone else and that person turned me into authorities. By the government simply suing over the law means there is no controversy.
 
Ha ha the gun grabbers are freaking out and know that the days of may issues are done so they are proposing a whole new set of regulations:


web.archive.org

Mass. must be proactive to protect public safety - The Boston Globe

The Supreme Court is expected to expand the right to carry guns in public. The state must limit the negative impact of this decision.
web.archive.org web.archive.org

Of course it doesn't hurt that the author worked for Giffords in the past. Well it's archived so that the the article can be read without a paywall in the middle.
 
MaroonedinMA said:
It’s possible that it could fall in a national level but states, MA in particular, are preemptively working to counter any change with new legislative work arounds. There was story in the Glob yesterday about various approaches being considered.
Click to expand...
Now that they put it in writing it is evidence for future legal challenges.
 
MaroonedinMA said:
It’s possible that it could fall in a national level but states, MA in particular, are preemptively working to counter any change with new legislative work arounds. There was story in the Glob yesterday about various approaches being considered.
Click to expand...

Extra special secret violate-the-federal-mandate laws????

Of course, this raises the fascinating observation here: There are a LOT of people here who think that states should be able to have a state pass a law ignoring any stupid federal gun laws. This issue cuts both ways. Either states have a duty to adhere to the Constitution and federal powers or they don't.

As I mentioned above, states can't pass a law that violates the 1st Amendment either.

Whatever the court recognizes as a federal right to pass laws and such (assuming they do) in this case, it will law of the land in 50 states. Good or bad. Hell, they could go off on some anti-AWB tangent in the ruling and F us all. This is not a binary situation. So be prepared to squinch your eyes when we finally get a determination. The odds of this going 100% our way are slim. Very slim.


Oh, and the Glob article - was an Op/Ed written by a Stahhhp Handgunzzz Violins type guy. He was just musing. The Legislature is NOT considering a damned thing. (And funny is that live fire and training and such are ALREADY part of the stupid mASS licensing procedures. But I digress. The man was a colossal moron.)
 
Dennis in MA said:
Oh, and the Glob article - was an Op/Ed written by a Stahhhp Handgunzzz Violins type guy. He was just musing. The Legislature is NOT considering a damned thing. (And funny is that live fire and training and such are ALREADY part of the stupid mASS licensing procedures. But I digress. The man was a colossal moron.)
Click to expand...
I agree that he is a moron and you're right about his position, but legislative often comes from jack holes such as him. A good example of this is Linsky. We all know he files ineffectual (silly) position legislation every year that isn't worth getting too upset about as it won't pass. In those situations, he's not a significant threat. However, when the state legislation is up in arms because they feel their 'Athoriae" is being usurped, radical voices such as his gain stature within the subsequent discussion and effect outcomes to a greater degree.
 
I'm excited for the outcome but even if they gut May Issue, I would put money on shitbox towns fighting, kicking and screaming all the way and maintaining that licenses they issued are restricted as written. We expect a ruling in June of 2022. Just about the time I will need to renew my LTC, finally out of the grubby mitts of Medford.
 
So has SCOTUS ever issued a ruling stating in part,
"X a civil right so absolute
that governments should not even think
that work-arounds like A, B, or C will pass constitutional muster."?

(We know that SCOTUS is not stupid enough in all instances
to refuse a case that's ostensibly been mooted during appeals
by the repeal of some law which a faithless government
shows signs of re-enacting as soon as the court's back is turned).
 
AHM said:
So has SCOTUS ever issued a ruling stating in part,
"X a civil right so absolute
that governments should not even think
that work-arounds like A, B, or C will pass constitutional muster."?
Click to expand...
Gay marriage becoming law of the land?
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
453
Mark from ?
M
Is it time yet for a "Why is there even a dealer classifieds" Megathread?
Replies
12
Views
266
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom