Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Elected Democrats have even turned the attack on Heller into a political assault on the Court itself. Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Senators filed an extraordinary amicus brief in August warning the Justices to drop the New York case—or run the risk of Congressional retribution.


“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” said the brief. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.” If Donald Trump wrote that, Democrats would call it extortion.
Click to expand...

[rofl] [rofl] [rofl]

Young Sheldon needs to STFU. LOL. What a moron. "I've decided this, so I'm going to scold you to be shown this to be true and you to be false."

That's not how rights work, Shelly. And I mean that EXTRAORDINARILY!

Congressional retribution. What a total toolbag. He should run for President. If only to spend the coffers of another clueless liberal. "We're gonna pass a law that supersedes your ruling." That's not how it work Shelly. Their ruling is if the law-in-question is constitutional in the first place. Make whatever law you want - it'll STILL get struck down. Hell, Kagan will vote against you on that one. How does that look, Shelly????
 
I could write this in 2 sentences. Shall not be infringed means no person wether in any official capacity or not, shall not infringe on another person’s right to own or bare arms in defense of their personal property or lives; as a God given right guaranteed by the 2 Amendment. Any attempt to do so, no matter how small, shall be punishable by a minimum sentence of 25 years in a Federal Prison with no hope of reduced sentence.

Perhaps freshen it up with legal speak but the meaning should be understandable and clear.
 
If SCOTUS doesn't do anything then what the hell are we doing voting for these republicans? They're worse than the democrats. At least democrats tell me to my face that they want my guns, republicans will stab me in the back and then grab my guns right after they liberate money from my wallet.
 
The fact they admit the state isn't safer with law change seems to be a death knell for NYs case. Their entire argument for supporting was it somehow made the city safer.
 
T-Unit said:
At that point we have a lawless nation and mob rule, which we essentially have right now because half the country and an entire political party has been decreed illegitimate by the media and the opposition party.

I just wish that the Republicans had the same willingness to go to the mattresses against the Democrats when they take power like the Dems do when they're out of power. Instead we have wimps like Boehner, McConnell, and Ryan running the show who are nothing more than go along, get along country club Republicans.

It's not politics as usual like it was in the 80s and 90s, today we have a resurgent Progressive movement coming from the Democrat party that is attacking the founders and foundation of the United States, the majority ethnic group of the United States, the majority religion of the United States, etc.

It is a full on revolution, just there are no bullets flying... yet.
Click to expand...
you are correct, the Dems and the media have declared us irredeemable cretins who must be defeated and never to be in position to disrubt their conquest of America. Barry started it with his BS declaration that he was elected to "fundamentally change America." The sheeple bought that line and have taken it to extremes.
 
I didn't know much about John Robert's before Kennedy retired but it seems like this guy stands for nothing and has no beliefs. He votes with the conservative side when Kennedy was the spineless pushover but now he steps into that role perfectly. Says alot about a person doesn't it.
 
"And if I could emphasize, I think it would send a very important signal to the lower
courts to say that when a regulation like this is inconsistent with text and has no analogue in
history or tradition, it is unconstitutional, full stop. The way the lower courts have
interpreted Heller is like text, history, and tradition is a one-way ratchet.

If text, history, and tradition sort of allow this practice, then they'll uphold the
law. But if text, history, and tradition are to the contrary, then the courts proceed to a
watered-down form of scrutiny that's heightened in name only.

And I think this Court should reaffirm that text, history, and tradition essentially is
the test and can be administered in a way that provides real protection for Second Amendment
rights."
Click to expand...
 
Dennis in MA said:
[rofl] [rofl] [rofl]

Young Sheldon needs to STFU. LOL. What a moron. "I've decided this, so I'm going to scold you to be shown this to be true and you to be false."

That's not how rights work, Shelly. And I mean that EXTRAORDINARILY!

Congressional retribution. What a total toolbag. He should run for President. If only to spend the coffers of another clueless liberal. "We're gonna pass a law that supersedes your ruling." That's not how it work Shelly. Their ruling is if the law-in-question is constitutional in the first place. Make whatever law you want - it'll STILL get struck down. Hell, Kagan will vote against you on that one. How does that look, Shelly????
Click to expand...

All I needed to know was that Senator Richard Blumenthal signed that brief. He's one of the reasons my wife and I left Connecticut.
 
Gak44 said:
I just do not trust Roberts to do anything for us.
Click to expand...
It's all about Roberts not allowing the court to swing far left or right. He doesn't want his legacy to be a radical conservative because he knows that if the repressives ever get total power they will pack the court or just ignore it.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
If SCOTUS doesn't do anything then what the hell are we doing voting for these republicans? They're worse than the democrats. At least democrats tell me to my face that they want my guns, republicans will stab me in the back and then grab my guns right after they liberate money from my wallet.
Click to expand...

These would be the same Republicans that had more then enough votes to pass CCW reciprocity (it had already been passed by the the house) but couldn’t be bothered to call it for a vote.

Bob
 
usp45ct said:
Here are the oral argument transcripts

Arguments Transcripts

www.supremecourt.gov
Click to expand...


Within minutes of Clement beginning:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: "But, Mr. --Mr. Clement, the city has now been blocked by a state law, and the state has not been party to these proceedings. The state says: City, thou shalt not enforce the regulations. So what's left of this case? The Petitioners have gotten all the relief that they sought. They can carry a gun to a second home. They can carry it to a fire --to a practice range out of state."
 
...and Kagen equating transporting firearms, unloaded in a locked container, with ammunition locked in a separate container, as a form of "carrying" - as though to keep arms in your home is one thing and to bear arms is satisfied by this doubly-locked up gun and ammunition contrivance - just hideous. She says 'No Justice Thomas - bearing arms isn't carrying them from the bedroom to the kitchen - it's transporting them unloaded and locked in a separate container from ammunition in a continuous and uninterrupted journey'.

To this end, the guy who drives the truck delivering shotguns to Bass Pro is "bearing arms"...
 
Last edited:
MaverickNH said:
...and Kagen equating transporting firearms, unloaded in a locked container, with ammunition locked in a separate container, as a form of "carrying" - as though to keep arms in your home is one thing and to bear arms is satisfied by this doubly-locked up gun and ammunition contrivance - just hideous. She says 'No Justice Thomas - bearing arms isn't carrying them from the bedroom to the kitchen - it's transporting them unloaded and locked in a separate container from ammunition in a continuous and uninterrupted journey'. I've seen the enemy...
Click to expand...
and she's wrong and she knows it. Liberals have no scruples in the fight to repeal the 2nd. She calls herself an unbiased Judge? Hardly!
 
SFC13557 said:
and she's wrong and she knows it. Liberals have no scruples in the fight to repeal the 2nd. She calls herself an unbiased Judge? Hardly!
Click to expand...
Gorsuch and Alito are arguing against mootness. Roberts seemed to be tipping his hand towards questions that might support mootness but appears unconvinced. He at least shut down Sotomayor from preventing Clement from making his points in the rebuttal.

This will be a crap-shoot behind closed doors... And so much internet banter from both sides will not percolate into the decision process, but *will* be beneficial if the case is rendered moot. The more ready to see a mootness decision as an affront to civil rights, the better in getting out the vote come November 2020. Ginsberg can't last another term...
 
They are continuing shouting "Moot" on the news.
Which does mean they are sweating it actually being heard.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Roberts will want to make up for the ungodly f*ck he threw into us with Obamacare.
On the other hand they probably still have the same pictures of him with a dead hooker or a live boy, so who knows.
 

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