Young v Hawaii effect on Mass?

[MisterHappy]

I believe Chef was thinking of visiting DPRM, and wanted boots-on-the-ground intel as to whether he could be strapped.

If not, no problem....[virtual] travel broadens the mind.

 

[GlockJock]

Not to be mean or rude, but I am sure glad I don’t live in Mass. I would love to visit for historical reasons and to see the beauty of mass.

Sadly, if Idid live there, I would refuse theFID and take Mass to court, and request the feds for enforcement. If the police tried to take the guns from my house. Many would loose their lives! News would be national.Luckily for everyone I don’t live there, so it won’t happen! Lol

Its one reason why most Leo’s here in Texas are against any red flag laws! As well as most republican politicians. They know passing a red flag law would just cost a lot of lives to be lost. But this is Texas lol.

It is sad to see any state or locality totally disregard the constitution and the courts especially when the courts rule something unconstitutional. Sadly lately the courts have done nothing to enforce their findings, and no one else seems to continue to pursue.

If these suits started costing the states millions of dollars and bankrupting them, I think it would be a different story. (J

the NYC case, they could have sued for monetary damages against the city in the millions but failed to do so. SCOTUS ruled it was moot, but sent it back to lower courts for them to secure for damages. They dropped the case. Uggg.

Mass isn’t the only one that flagrantly disobeys federal laws and ruling. NY continually and still arrests people even when they follow FOPA. Why? Cause it generates revenue for the state even when they dismiss a case. Money for lawyers. Money for food and lodging for family that’s with the person arrested, money for bondsman, etc...

If we made it possible to sue the states for damages in federal court for these abuses, they might think twice. Most of the time it’s not possible without rare circumstances.

Yet another "Hello everyone! Nice to meet y'all...I'm from (somewhere else) and Massachusetts must really suck for gun owners to live there and..."
(As if we didn't already know this, but... Thanks - yet again - for the reminder).

Just sayin'

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Yet another "Hello everyone! Nice to meet y'all...I'm from (somewhere else) and Massachusetts must really suck for gun owners to live there and..."
(As if we didn't already know this, but... Thanks - yet again - for the reminder).

Just sayin'

Sorry , I am looking forward to visiting someday though, your state has a lot of history and beauty to enjoy. If I had no desire I would not be taking the time to get intel before I entered. Last thing I want to do is break any laws and get arrested. Not looking to be a test case.

I do sympathize though. I am hoping that current court Cases will soon be decided in a way to help out Mass and other states.

I do see hope though eventually in our favor.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I don't think Young will be granted cert. If it is and the court addresses a very narrow question, I don't think it will give us much to work with in Massachusetts.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I don't think Young will be granted cert. If it is and the court addresses a very narrow question, I don't think it will give us much to work with in Massachusetts.

It will all depend on how it’s ruled. It may not even make it to SCOTUS. A case out of Washington DC, was never pressed further up the courts because the anti-gun side was afraid of the outcome. The AG was pressured by Maryland, and New York not to take it further up the court. Same thing could happen with Hawaii and California with those cases. But I doubt California can be pressured to door not do anything.

Duncan v Becerra, rump v Becerra, Baird v Becerra, Rhodes v Becerra could all make big impacts if they make it to SCOTUS.

All we have now for anything outside of the 9th circuit is hope and speculation.

Then again like a few others here have pointed out Mass, and New York and even a few of the other states could just ignore the SC’s ruling and mandate as well. It’s not like there will be anyone around to force the states to comply.

 

[swatgig]

Who is going to make the state follow federal law?

Comm2a, SAF, GOAL, GOA, FPC, NRA, Pink Pistols, NSSF, to name a few.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Comm2a, SAF, GOAL, GOA, FPC, NRA, Pink Pistols, NSSF, to name a few.

I respect all of those organizations, yet all they can do are file more motions and lawsuits in the courts. It will take the courts to issue orders to various federal law enforcement agencies to enforce. If a state is illegally holding someone in jail, it will take the federal Marshall’s to come in and remove him from state or local jails if the state and local Leo’s refuse to follow the orders of federal courts.

As far as I know though, no state has refused to release anyone from jail or prison on federal court orders. However during the 60’s the national guard was used to force a school to take in black students. That was something that could be enforced a lot easier then preventing a state from arresting and charging someone with a firearms crime.

I would hope the states would follow the law. However we have all heard stories of NY not following FOPA. They still arrest and confiscate. Costing someone thousands of dollars spent in NY, before they finally dismiss the charges. I don’t know anyone who has recouped any of their expenses after the fact.

 

[MisterHappy]

Of course they have not. That's why the .gov has an edge, just like any other group with a fat bankroll to pay flesh-eating lawyers.

Hell, in an episode of the Sopranos, Tony and a black musician/gangsta were in dispute over ownership of a song. Even THEY went to the lawyers, not the mattresses!

To push for civil rights, you need:

1) belief in the righteousness of your cause
2) support of, if not the majority, at least a large enough minority, or a coalition, to be takes seriously
3) a long-term strategy that all in the group/coalition will stick to, at least in broad strokes
4) the willingness to take lumps, either real or figurative, for the cause....until you get the result you want

The gays did it right: 25 years ago, they stayed in the closet, mostly, or in "special" places like P-town. Then they started chanting, "We're here...we're queer....get used to it."

They believed that they were right; they got a coalition of people to join them; they kept at it; they kept marching, faced down the people that hated them, and the big bunch of people that are not gay, but also don't really care if you are said, "Meh."

It was the same playbook as the blacks used in the 60s...and they took real lumps.

Why won't it happen here, in the Gun Culture?

1) we're too fragmented - Fudds don't see that AR owners are the same, and vice versa
2) American culture is too sharply divided over guns - to be on Team Gat, you need one (generally), when with other causes, you can support without participating (lots of straight people marched with the gays), so a coalition is tough to build
3) the long term strategy is to bail, not sail the ship, as we're fighting a holding action
4) most gun owners have too much to lose, in their lives, to be test cases (witness the couple that stood outside their house, armed, while the "demonstraters" marched by. Most here see that as, if not prudent, then understandable...and they're in a pile of crap.

The real problem is that the majority of law-abiding gun people are too law-abiding to push the envelope.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Of course they have not. That's why the .gov has an edge, just like any other group with a fat bankroll to pay flesh-eating lawyers.

Hell, in an episode of the Sopranos, Tony and a black musician/gangsta were in dispute over ownership of a song. Even THEY went to the lawyers, not the mattresses!

To push for civil rights, you need:

1) belief in the righteousness of your cause
2) support of, if not the majority, at least a large enough minority, or a coalition, to be takes seriously
3) a long-term strategy that all in the group/coalition will stick to, at least in broad strokes
4) the willingness to take lumps, either real or figurative, for the cause....until you get the result you want

The gays did it right: 25 years ago, they stayed in the closet, mostly, or in "special" places like P-town. Then they started chanting, "We're here...we're queer....get used to it."

They believed that they were right; they got a coalition of people to join them; they kept at it; they kept marching, faced down the people that hated them, and the big bunch of people that are not gay, but also don't really care if you are said, "Meh."

It was the same playbook as the blacks used in the 60s...and they took real lumps.

Why won't it happen here, in the Gun Culture?

1) we're too fragmented - Fudds don't see that AR owners are the same, and vice versa
2) American culture is too sharply divided over guns - to be on Team Gat, you need one (generally), when with other causes, you can support without participating (lots of straight people marched with the gays), so a coalition is tough to build
3) the long term strategy is to bail, not sail the ship, as we're fighting a holding action
4) most gun owners have too much to lose, in their lives, to be test cases (witness the couple that stood outside their house, armed, while the "demonstraters" marched by. Most here see that as, if not prudent, then understandable...and they're in a pile of crap.

The real problem is that the majority of law-abiding gun people are too law-abiding to push the envelope.

I don’t disagree with you in the least bit.

It takes a million or more to fight a case to SCOTUS. Not to many that can afford to do that. Big gun groups have limited resources to fight these million dollar cases, so they have to be extremely choosy about which cases they take and which ones they don’t. They try to get cases they believe can win, over issues that they think they can win. Even then sometimes we still loose.

Your right about putting ourselves on the line because many of us are to law abiding. Many of us feel like we have to much other things that are more important to loose and thus truthfully will sacrifice our firearms before we will sacrifice those other things. Sadly like what has happened many times in history, once we loose our Guns, we will start loosing everything else. Many of us sadly forget that.

Your examples are right on target too. In some instances there were more “white” people protesting and supporting BLM in their protests then there were “blacks”.

On a more hopeful note, while we have had a few steps backwards here and there, nationwide we now have more gun and firearm freedoms to carry now then in 1981.

While we have seen some positive hope here and there, we are fighting a loosing battle.

Our country is polarized now then it has ever been. Soon this will come to head, and sadly I believe it will get worse before it gets better.

 

[Charles Nichols]

Young v. Hawaii
Mr. Young has two claims to be decided by the eleven-judge limited en banc panel.
There are three possible outcomes to his Second Amendment claim.
1.) The panel affirms the holding of the district court that the Second Amendment right is limited to the inside of one's home.
2.) The panel holds that the Second Amendment right to openly carry a handgun extends outside of the home but the government can require "good cause" for a permit.
3).) The panel holds that the Second Amendment right to openly carry a handgun extends outside of the home but the government can not require "good cause" for a permit.

Mr. Young does not challenge the $10 permit requirement. Mr. Young does not challenge the 2016 en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. If the panel opts for Door #2, which is the most likely outcome then the panel will have to decide whether or not to remand Mr. Young's appeal back to the district court to give him the opportunity to show that he has "good cause." I don't think his case will be remanded back to the district court.

Mr. Young also has a procedural due process claim which his attorney may or may not prevail in depending upon the outcome of his Second Amendment claim.

Gould v. Lipson
According to the Brief in Opposition filed by the state in Gould v. Lipson, Massachusetts defines and treats "firearms" similar to the State of New York. Rifles and shotguns are not firearms in the sense that they require a license to carry. If it is illegal to walk down Main Street, Massachusetts openly carrying a rifle or shotgun over one's shoulder than Gould should have said so in his reply brief, he did not.

"Under the Massachusetts licensing scheme as it continues today, individuals must obtain a license to carry a “firearm” in public. A “firearm” is “a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches[.]” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 121. The statute distinguishes a “firearm” from a “rifle” or “shotgun.” Id. Public carry of lawful rifles or shotguns, as defined, does not require a separate license to carry in Massachusetts; for these weapons, public carry is permitted for all holders of a required identification card, which the licensing authority “shall issue” to any applicant who is not a “prohibited person” (defined to include, for example, persons under 15 years of age and persons convicted of certain crimes). Id. § 129B(1); see id. § 129B(6); see also id. § 131(a)."

 

[Charles Nichols]

It will all depend on how it’s ruled. It may not even make it to SCOTUS. A case out of Washington DC, was never pressed further up the courts because the anti-gun side was afraid of the outcome. The AG was pressured by Maryland, and New York not to take it further up the court. Same thing could happen with Hawaii and California with those cases. But I doubt California can be pressured to door not do anything.

Duncan v Becerra, rump v Becerra, Baird v Becerra, Rhodes v Becerra could all make big impacts if they make it to SCOTUS.

If the en banc panel in Young v. Hawaii holds that the Second Amendment applies outside of the inside of one's home then I win my California Open Carry lawsuit, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al. I may even win if the en banc panel holds the Second Amendment is limited to the inside of one's home because SCOTUS has always held the curtilage of one's home is as protected as the inside of one's home. And I win even if the panel holds that "good cause" can be required for a license/permit to openly carry a handgun in public.

Mark Baird's lawsuit is still in the district court and his lawsuit is limited to handguns, which a decade of denials of cert petitions that were limited to handguns should have proven by now is never a good idea. There are 800 years of American and English laws and case law a court can cite to uphold prohibitions on the carrying of handguns and even the possession of concealable weapons. The same cannot be said of long guns. If the Second Amendment protects the right to bear any arm, it protects the right to bear a rifle.

Mr. Baird's First Amended Complaint was filed on September 21, 2020. An amended complaint resets the clock on a lawsuit. There will be a decision in my California Open Carry appeal before the district court judge issues her final judgment in his lawsuit. Mr. Baird amended his Complaint to include concealed carry. Given that neither Mr. Young nor I challenge the concealed carry decision in Peruta v. San Diego, Mr. Baird will lose the concealed carry half of his lawsuit. If I win my California Open Carry lawsuit then the other half of his lawsuit will be dismissed as moot. If I lose then Mr. Baird loses his entire case,

 

[AHM]

Gould v. Lipson
According to the Brief in Opposition filed by the state in Gould v. Lipson, Massachusetts defines and treats "firearms" similar to the State of New York. Rifles and shotguns are not firearms in the sense that they require a license to carry. If it is illegal to walk down Main Street, Massachusetts openly carrying a rifle or shotgun over one's shoulder than Gould should have said so in his reply brief, he did not.

General Laws » Part IV » Title I » Chapter 269 » Section 12D: Rifle or shotgun loaded with shells or cartridges; unloaded rifle or shotgun; carrying on public way prohibited; exceptions; punishment​

​

Section 12D.​

...​

(b) Except as exempted or provided by law, no person shall carry on his person on any public way an unloaded rifle or shotgun, unless such rifle or shotgun is enclosed in a case.​

...​

This subsection shall not apply to ((not you)).​

....​

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the carrying of a loaded or unloaded rifle or shotgun on a public way by (i) ((not you)); (ii) ((also not you)); (iii) ((also not you)); or (iv) a person who is lawfully engaged in hunting and is the holder of a valid hunting or sporting license issued pursuant to chapter 131. This section shall not apply to ((not you)).​

 

[Charles Nichols]

General Laws » Part IV » Title I » Chapter 269 » Section 12D: Rifle or shotgun loaded with shells or cartridges; unloaded rifle or shotgun; carrying on public way prohibited; exceptions; punishment​

​

Section 12D.​

...​

(b) Except as exempted or provided by law, no person shall carry on his person on any public way an unloaded rifle or shotgun, unless such rifle or shotgun is enclosed in a case.​

...​

This subsection shall not apply to ((not you)).​

....​

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the carrying of a loaded or unloaded rifle or shotgun on a public way by (i) ((not you)); (ii) ((also not you)); (iii) ((also not you)); or (iv) a person who is lawfully engaged in hunting and is the holder of a valid hunting or sporting license issued pursuant to chapter 131. This section shall not apply to ((not you)).​

All lawyers are professional liars, especially government lawyers. The burden was on Gould's lawyer to point out in his reply brief that the state was lying about the Open Carry of long guns. He did not. That makes him an incompetent professional liar.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Young v. Hawaii
Mr. Young has two claims to be decided by the eleven-judge limited en banc panel.
There are three possible outcomes to his Second Amendment claim.
1.) The panel affirms the holding of the district court that the Second Amendment right is limited to the inside of one's home.
2.) The panel holds that the Second Amendment right to openly carry a handgun extends outside of the home but the government can require "good cause" for a permit.
3).) The panel holds that the Second Amendment right to openly carry a handgun extends outside of the home but the government can not require "good cause" for a permit.

Mr. Young does not challenge the $10 permit requirement. Mr. Young does not challenge the 2016 en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. If the panel opts for Door #2, which is the most likely outcome then the panel will have to decide whether or not to remand Mr. Young's appeal back to the district court to give him the opportunity to show that he has "good cause." I don't think his case will be remanded back to the district court.

Mr. Young also has a procedural due process claim which his attorney may or may not prevail in depending upon the outcome of his Second Amendment claim.

Gould v. Lipson
According to the Brief in Opposition filed by the state in Gould v. Lipson, Massachusetts defines and treats "firearms" similar to the State of New York. Rifles and shotguns are not firearms in the sense that they require a license to carry. If it is illegal to walk down Main Street, Massachusetts openly carrying a rifle or shotgun over one's shoulder than Gould should have said so in his reply brief, he did not.

"Under the Massachusetts licensing scheme as it continues today, individuals must obtain a license to carry a “firearm” in public. A “firearm” is “a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches[.]” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 121. The statute distinguishes a “firearm” from a “rifle” or “shotgun.” Id. Public carry of lawful rifles or shotguns, as defined, does not require a separate license to carry in Massachusetts; for these weapons, public carry is permitted for all holders of a required identification card, which the licensing authority “shall issue” to any applicant who is not a “prohibited person” (defined to include, for example, persons under 15 years of age and persons convicted of certain crimes). Id. § 129B(1); see id. § 129B(6); see also id. § 131(a)."

Option 1 is highly doubtful, because in open arguments Hawaii did state that the concede that Open Carry outside the home is in fact a constitutional right. Hawaii did not dispute that claim.

Opetion 2 and Option 3 are highly likely. There is also a similar case pending the outcome of this case in California. So all is not entirely lost if MR. Young end up with option 2. Even then Young will appeal to the Supreme Court. Now who knows if SCOTUS will hear the case. Some say no because of Peruta, but some legal beagles have said that scotus denied hearing it for fear of Justice roberts riding the line. Now that we will soon have Justice Barrett that could change. We will see.

 

[Charles Nichols]

Option 1 is highly doubtful, because in open arguments Hawaii did state that the concede that Open Carry outside the home is in fact a constitutional right. Hawaii did not dispute that claim.

Opetion 2 and Option 3 are highly likely. There is also a similar case pending the outcome of this case in California. So all is not entirely lost if MR. Young end up with option 2. Even then Young will appeal to the Supreme Court. Now who knows if SCOTUS will hear the case. Some say no because of Peruta, but some legal beagles have said that scotus denied hearing it for fear of Justice roberts riding the line. Now that we will soon have Justice Barrett that could change. We will see.

Hawaii said that the en banc panel should "assume" that the Second Amendment extends outside of the home. Even if the en banc panel were to construe this as a concession by Hawaii, the court is not bound by concessions of law.

The only reason why Door #1 is the least likely is because choosing that door creates a SCOTUS Rule 10 split with every Federal circuit court of appeals. Door #2 is the most likely because that door minimizes the split between the circuits.

That "similar case" is my case, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al. My appeal has been fully briefed and argued. Once the Mandate drops in Young v. Hawaii, my appeal is once again under submission for a decision.

More importantly, my lawsuit is not limited to handguns.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Hawaii said that the en banc panel should "assume" that the Second Amendment extends outside of the home. Even if the en banc panel were to construe this as a concession by Hawaii, the court is not bound by concessions of law.

The only reason why Door #1 is the least likely is because choosing that door creates a SCOTUS Rule 10 split with every Federal circuit court of appeals. Door #2 is the most likely because that door minimizes the split between the circuits.

That "similar case" is my case, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al. My appeal has been fully briefed and argued. Once the Mandate drops in Young v. Hawaii, my appeal is once again under submission for a decision.

More importantly, my lawsuit is not limited to handguns.

In your opinion, assuming the MOST favorable outcome for Young, Yourself and Baird in their cases. What effect would this have on them if any do you think for a non-resident to obtain a license from any of the 9th circuit states?

 

[Charles Nichols]

In your opinion, assuming the MOST favorable outcome for Young, Yourself and Baird in their cases. What effect would this have on them if any do you think for a non-resident to obtain a license from any of the 9th circuit states?

Mr. Young did not challenge the restriction limiting the validity of a handgun "carry" license to his county, and so his success would not change that limitation, another lawsuit would have to be filed in Hawaii.

My lawsuit, Nichols v. Newsom, does challenge the residency requirement and so if I am successful then non-residents will be able to obtain a license to openly carry a handgun provided that it is legal for them to possess the handgun under both state and Federal law. Current California law does allow the issuance of a license to carry a concealable weapon to non-residents if "the applicant’s principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business."

If I win then the part of Mr. Baird's lawsuit that seeks to obtain a license to openly carry a handgun becomes moot and he loses the part that seeks concealed carry because neither I nor Mr. Young challenges the en banc concealed carry decision from Peruta v. San Diego. There is no right to concealed carry in the 9th circuit.

Our wins will only directly apply to the laws we challenge in our lawsuits. A published decision establishes a precedent that can be used in other cases but states and local governments are free to continue to enforce unconstitutional laws until either the laws are repealed or a court strikes them down.

 

[T-Unit]

Trump. Trump is going to win. And there will be all sorts of attacks against the sovereignty of America possibly including secession of a state or collective of states.

While it's been 28 years since the last time a President failed to get re-elected (due to Ross Perot) and 40 years since Carter failed, it's not a guarantee Trump is a lock to win.

IDK, I think CERN is firing up the particle accelerator for the first time in 5 years because they want to open a portal that transports the universe into the dimension where Biden wins.

But, let's say CERN fails to open the portal and Trump wins. The liklihood is that the West Coast states will attempt to succeed from the US and they may be sucessful because the Indian Chief politicians have sold out their people in those states to China and China will recognize the sovereignty of the People's Republic of the Pacific American Northwest (PROPAN) and deploy their military to stop "aggression" by the US military against the oppressed peaceful people of cities like Seattle, Portland, LA, and San Francisco.

Leads to war with China on the west coast and in the Pacific.

 

[T-Unit]

If I’m reading this correctly it was granted and the case heard in September. No decision yet:

Status of Pending En Banc Cases

www.ca9.uscourts.gov

No decision because it was heard a week after RBG died. They're stalling to see what happens to SCOTUS and who wins the election to see if the court will be packed by Biden/Harris or not.

 

[T-Unit]

Option 1 is highly doubtful, because in open arguments Hawaii did state that the concede that Open Carry outside the home is in fact a constitutional right. Hawaii did not dispute that claim.

Opetion 2 and Option 3 are highly likely. There is also a similar case pending the outcome of this case in California. So all is not entirely lost if MR. Young end up with option 2. Even then Young will appeal to the Supreme Court. Now who knows if SCOTUS will hear the case. Some say no because of Peruta, but some legal beagles have said that scotus denied hearing it for fear of Justice roberts riding the line. Now that we will soon have Justice Barrett that could change. We will see.

Eventually SCOTUS will have to rule on whether there is a right to carry a gun outside the home and I cannot see even Roberts believing there is no right to carry outside the home because then you start to get into the legality of hunting on public land.

But if the court gets packed none of this is going to matter because the Dems will put new justices on the court and we'll either have a 5-5-1 deadlock or a 6-7 liberal court that affirms every Anti gun law is constitutional.

 

[Climbnsink]

While it's been 28 years since the last time a President failed to get re-elected (due to Ross Perot) and 40 years since Carter failed, it's not a guarantee Trump is a lock to win.

IDK, I think CERN is firing up the particle accelerator for the first time in 5 years because they want to open a portal that transports the universe into the dimension where Biden wins.

But, let's say CERN fails to open the portal and Trump wins. The liklihood is that the West Coast states will attempt to succeed from the US and they may be sucessful because the Indian Chief politicians have sold out their people in those states to China and China will recognize the sovereignty of the People's Republic of the Pacific American Northwest (PROPAN) and deploy their military to stop "aggression" by the US military against the oppressed peaceful people of cities like Seattle, Portland, LA, and San Francisco.

Leads to war with China on the west coast and in the Pacific.

Trump is going to win, outside of the fake polls all signs point to a Trumpslide. You'll better still vote. Secession is a real possibility but it won't go well for them. If a governor declares their state not part of America what laws protect him from the people? State Troopers? They are just armed 'sort of noncitizens of anywhere' same as everyone else. If police stay on the job why wouldn't police chiefs declare themselves the true rulers of Massatopia? Despite the wargaming of dems nations dissolving end and the state shatters into tiny little city states. My guess is they think NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT, and ME can all be one happy country, not possible, it will never go down that way.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Eventually SCOTUS will have to rule on whether there is a right to carry a gun outside the home and I cannot see even Roberts believing there is no right to carry outside the home because then you start to get into the legality of hunting on public land.

But if the court gets packed none of this is going to matter because the Dems will put new justices on the court and we'll either have a 5-5-1 deadlock or a 6-7 liberal court that affirms every Anti gun law is constitutional.

We have been saying that for 10 years or more and each new term we're disappointed that SCOTUS doesn't fix an 'obvious' problem. I think it will be at least another couple of terms before SCOTUS grants cert for a substantial 2A petition, ACB's arrival on the court notwithstanding.

New justices tend to lay low during their first term or two on the court. The court likes to project an image of stability and continuity. Going full in on the 2A during ACB's first term belies that image. They also like to limit the number of headline grabbing, controversial cases they decide each term. With election, ACA, and Trump subpoena cases all in the offing, the Second Amendment is likely to stay on the back burner. What they don't want is headlines reading: "Newest justice ACB eviscerates 'gun safety' laws"..

The exception might be if a Democratic controlled Congress and Biden pass another AWB. But for reasons outside the scope of the thread, I think that's very unlikely.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Eventually SCOTUS will have to rule on whether there is a right to carry a gun outside the home and I cannot see even Roberts believing there is no right to carry outside the home because then you start to get into the legality of hunting on public land.

But if the court gets packed none of this is going to matter because the Dems will put new justices on the court and we'll either have a 5-5-1 deadlock or a 6-7 liberal court that affirms every Anti gun law is constitutional.

What everyone fails to understand is that to change anything about the supreme court requires a constitutional ammedment.

Cant add, or delete justices, or change their service time without an ammedment. It takes 34 states to ratify an ammendment. Democrats dont have enough control of enough states to get it ratified.

Any law that they try to make to pack the court would eb over ruled as unconstitutional by the current 6-3 court now.

So while everyone is worried about it, it is extremely unlikey.

There would be huge protests and riots and maybe even states secceding before an ammendment can be ratified.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Trump is going to win, outside of the fake polls all signs point to a Trumpslide. You'll better still vote. Secession is a real possibility but it won't go well for them. If a governor declares their state not part of America what laws protect him from the people? State Troopers? They are just armed 'sort of noncitizens of anywhere' same as everyone else. If police stay on the job why wouldn't police chiefs declare themselves the true rulers of Massatopia? Despite the wargaming of dems nations dissolving end and the state shatters into tiny little city states. My guess is they think NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT, and ME can all be one happy country, not possible, it will never go down that way.

I dont think you would get Vermont, NH or Maine to follow suit with NY CT RI Ma etc....
Those 3 states are constitutional carry states, total OPPOSITE to NY, NJ, Ma, MD Ri and CT where even owning a gun is a major effort to get and getting A LTC/CCW is almost or at least very close impossible.

Eapecially vermont who has always been constitutional carry since day 1!

While many states may want to claim they can seceede. Legally speaking they cant. Now that doesnt mean the Federal government would try to stop them like they did in the 1860's. But legally they have no ground to stand on.

Only Texas has a legal right to seceede from the Union. Why? Texas was the ONLY state to be it's own country prior to joining the union. Alaska was owned by russia prior to becomeing a part of the usa. Hawaii was owned by the British till they turned it over. Both were Territories before beoming a state.
Texas has NEVER been a Territory of the USA.

Even so....

For any state to secede from the Union would have devestating consequences for both the state and the country. None of which would be good.

 

[alan226]

What everyone fails to understand is that to change anything about the supreme court requires a constitutional ammedment.

Cant add, or delete justices, or change their service time without an ammedment. It takes 34 states to ratify an ammendment. Democrats dont have enough control of enough states to get it ratified.

Any law that they try to make to pack the court would eb over ruled as unconstitutional by the current 6-3 court now.

So while everyone is worried about it, it is extremely unlikey.

There would be huge protests and riots and maybe even states secceding before an ammendment can be ratified.

I don't think that is correct. The numbers of Justices changed 6 times before settling on the current number of nine. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the numbers of justices
The Democrats would have to control both the House and Senate as well and the President would have to sign into law.
Doubtful it could happen, but theoretically possible.

Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the Supreme Court's size, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of Congress to change it.

 

[Picton]

The liklihood is that the West Coast states will attempt to succeed from the US and they may be sucessful because the Indian Chief politicians have sold out their people in those states to China and China will recognize the sovereignty of the People's Republic of the Pacific American Northwest (PROPAN) and deploy their military to stop "aggression" by the US military against the oppressed peaceful people of cities like Seattle, Portland, LA, and San Francisco.

Leads to war with China on the west coast and in the Pacific.

Whoah.

I don't know what you're smoking, but I want some.

What everyone fails to understand is that to change anything about the supreme court requires a constitutional ammedment.

Cant add, or delete justices, or change their service time without an ammedment.

Totally untrue.

The constitution says VERY little about SCOTUS, which has left the rest of the .gov with broad latitude to determine its makeup and responsibilities. And not just the legislature and the presidency, either; the Court itself went off the reservation and grabbed judicial review for itself, just because nothing in the Constitution said it couldn't.

 

[T-Unit]

What everyone fails to understand is that to change anything about the supreme court requires a constitutional ammedment.

Cant add, or delete justices, or change their service time without an ammedment. It takes 34 states to ratify an ammendment. Democrats dont have enough control of enough states to get it ratified.

Any law that they try to make to pack the court would eb over ruled as unconstitutional by the current 6-3 court now.

So while everyone is worried about it, it is extremely unlikey.

There would be huge protests and riots and maybe even states secceding before an ammendment can be ratified.

Amending the constitution to create a set number of SCOTUS justices would be a way to prevent court packing, but it's practically impossible to get 34 state legislatures to agree on anything, even something as big as that and there is ZERO chance of getting 67 Republican senators or getting any of the donks in the senate to agree to creating that amendment.

So, you're wrong because Congress sets the number of justices as there is nothing written in the constitution that sets that number. Congress could decide to reduce the number of justices, but it wouldn't mean that any of the justices could be removed until one died or retired or was impeached.

It is not extremely unlikely the Donks will try to pack the court, but after Obamacare I would hope millions of people would pack the streets in DC to protest, but generally people are more interested in going to their stupid jobs and too afraid to defend their liberty.

 

[Climbnsink]

I dont think you would get Vermont, NH or Maine to follow suit with NY CT RI Ma etc....
Those 3 states are constitutional carry states, total OPPOSITE to NY, NJ, Ma, MD Ri and CT where even owning a gun is a major effort to get and getting A LTC/CCW is almost or at least very close impossible.

Eapecially vermont who has always been constitutional carry since day 1!

While many states may want to claim they can seceede. Legally speaking they cant. Now that doesnt mean the Federal government would try to stop them like they did in the 1860's. But legally they have no ground to stand on.

Only Texas has a legal right to seceede from the Union. Why? Texas was the ONLY state to be it's own country prior to joining the union. Alaska was owned by russia prior to becomeing a part of the usa. Hawaii was owned by the British till they turned it over. Both were Territories before beoming a state.
Texas has NEVER been a Territory of the USA.

Even so....

For any state to secede from the Union would have devestating consequences for both the state and the country. None of which would be good.

From TX you have no idea how fallen VT is. The deal with VT is the lefties figured out they could do whatever they want as long as they left guns alone. And the conservenothingconservatards went along with it. Four R governors refused to sign the ACB support letter 3 of them were MA, VT, and NH. The R party in the Northeast is a fully owned subsidiary of the democratic party and barely pretends otherwise. A Texan with a house in Vermont once said that TX and VT were the only states that were once their own countries only Texas hasn't forgotten that. Don't be fooled by the letter R behind a politician's name especially a Northeastern one.
Edit to add: Mitt Romney was 'ahem' a R governor of Massachusetts you know the guy who invented Obamacare.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

From TX you have no idea how fallen VT is. The deal with VT is the lefties figured out they could do whatever they want as long as they left guns alone. And the conservenothingconservatards went along with it. Four R governors refused to sign the ACB support letter 3 of them were MA, VT, and NH. The R party in the Northeast is a fully owned subsidiary of the democratic party and barely pretends otherwise. A Texan with a house in Vermont once said that TX and VT were the only states that were once their own countries only Texas hasn't forgotten that. Don't be fooled by the letter R behind a politician's name especially a Northeastern one.
Edit to add: Mitt Romney was 'ahem' a R governor of Massachusetts you know the guy who invented Obamacare.

That’s just sad!

At some point we are going to have to stand up and do something to stop this, or we are eventually just going to have to accept that we are going to loose our guns and give them up.

We are going to have to put up or shut up.

 

[Waher]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1374819104025157636