71montess
NES Member
When will the bad guys lose their freedom over these unjust laws ?
Last edited:
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.
Another 50 year waitI think they will, but they will have to get slapped upside the head by SCOTUS a few more times.
Nah. I’d say 1-3 to get the current concealed carry stupidity mostly straightened out. The social media account BS won’t fly, the entire NYC as a “sensitive location”, etc. won’t fly. Both will have SCOTUS cocked and ready to smack them down. It wouldn’t surprise if a district court or appellate court did it for them.Another 50 year wait
I have a vision of an “activist” SCOTUS enjoining fedgov from providing any funding to NYS until they get in line. No disaster money, no highway money, no school money, no epa money.New York will NEVER accept any 2A ruling not in their favor. What can SCOTUS do about it?
Seems to me any state can just ignore any ruling they do not agree with.
When has this ever happened in regards to the 2nd Amendment?Well… sure, until your lawyer files a habeas corpus writ in the nearest US court.
You’d be sent straight home, where you could ask that same lawyer to file a lawsuit against NYS.
I have a vision of an “activist” SCOTUS enjoining fedgov from providing any funding to NYS until they get in line. No disaster money, no highway money, no school money, no epa money.
When the people are staring at flooded streets, bridges falling into the Hudson, no teachers because the schools (with ceilings caving in) have no money to pay them and undrinkable water, maybe, just maybe, they’ll burn Albany to the ground.
A boy can hope, right?
My predictions are not short term (<1 yr). I expect this intrastate f***ery to be quashed in 2-3 years with some form of interstate carry in the medium term (~5 years).Not holding my breath, but revoking QI and making the individuals liable is the only way this thing stops.
How many cops will enforce a law ruled unconstitutional if they know doing so will very likely result in multi-million dollars damage awards?
How many people in the executive branch will push the police chiefs to arrest people if they know it will result in conspiracy charges and even bigger awards?
Just because they know it won't stop them from doing what they are told. They are still working for the people who want this.Again, you've got to realize: this is a whole new landscape now. Bruen's legal tests and logic leave no room for this law to stand. There's no equivocation there. So an arrest on this new law is unconstitutional, which I suspect the LEOs of New York state know quite well:
You mean they will be in jail, without much voice, before the day is out?I find these points compelling, too.
Go to NYS. Break this law. Dare them to arrest you. If they do, you'll be the Gandhi of 2A before the day is out.
Exactly. That’s precisely what happened to Gandhi.You mean they will be in jail, without much voice, before the day is out?
Just because they know it won't stop them from doing what they are told. They are still working for the people who want this.
1983 said:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,
1985 said:in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
This is why the new lawsuit is necessary - We need to get a declaration defining the limits of sensitive places exceptions which have little standing in history, text or tradition.You mean they will be in jail, without much voice, before the day is out?
That's what right of center people of today don't understand. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc risked their lives and spent time in jail. People today can't spend an afternoon at a rally because they can't use a sick dayExactly. That’s precisely what happened to Gandhi.
Remember how that worked out in the end?
It's not spending a few hours, days in jail it's the legal consequences like having your LTC revoked and your firearms confiscated and you losing your job.That's what right of center people of today don't understand. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc risked their lives and spent time in jail. People today can't spend an afternoon at a rally because they can't use a sick day
I guess the point is people can't expect there to be a convenient, painless way of fighting the authoritiesIt's not spending a few hours, days in jail it's the legal consequences like having your LTC revoked and your firearms confiscated and you losing your job.
You are correct, the more we have/own the more painful fighting the govt. becomes and they know it.I guess the point is people can't expect there to be a convenient, painless way of fighting the authorities
Gandhi, Rosa Parks and MLK aren't normal people, though.I guess the point is people can't expect there to be a convenient, painless way of fighting the authorities
Well Rosa Parks was but Gandhi and MLK were leaders of a movement and had much support from their followers which meant they could afford to spend days/weeks in jail and come out a hero. Try that in Ma/NY and you'd be an anti-govt. MAGA semi-Fascist. You'd be front page news in the Globe/NY Times and lose your job, etc.Gandhi, Rosa Parks and MLK aren't normal people, though.
So was MLK - 2/3 is not a good track record for survivability.Ghandi was assassinated, so, I'm not sure how well that worked out for him in the end....
Gandhi, Rosa Parks and MLK aren't normal people, though.
OK, now can you translate what this means for us in regards to this particular decision, and our firearms rights in states other than, but also including, New York?SCOTUS decisions are binding except where prohibited by law.
OK, now can you translate what this means for us in regards to this particular decision, and our firearms rights in states other than, but also including, New York?
What or who is bound, and to what, exactly?
By way of example:It means SCOTUS decisions can be ignored or subject to bogus interpretation for a long period of time and there is almost nothing that can be done about it.
Agree the only recourse a person has against the state ignoring SCOTUS is an appeal to the state until SCOTUS decides they are sufficiently wronged that they take up the issue.It means SCOTUS decisions can be ignored or subject to bogus interpretation for a long period of time and there is almost nothing that can be done about it.
Unusual in that the judge seems to favor the plaintiff's position but denied the injunction based on standing.