SCOTUS 2A Case 2019

[Didnotcomply89]

Say what you will about Trump......... He saved the Supreme Court imo. That alone was worth my vote no matter what other stupid stuff he has done. It might be a low standard, but despite things like the bump stock ban Hillary would be doing much worse, and the court would be lost for generations.

This is my opinion- take it for what you will- realize that does not legitimize what Trump did, as it was unlawful and unconstitutional.

As for the topic... I don't think this will have broad reaching implications, but I am not a lawyer or scholar of SCOTUS; but it seems like their rulings can be narrow in scope. I'm not sure on this one, but for damn sure it's a 'dry run' so to speak. Hopefully it's a sopping wet pool noodle.

If you're in PA you're no longer under NY law and are protected by FOPA. But if you have an NYC permit and NYS law recognizes it with such stipulations, you aren't legally allowed to posses it in Albany.

For what it's worth... the "territories" of New York and New Jersey don't give two shits about FOPA. I don't have direct evidence readily available to support my claim, but I remember hearing years ago they will 'still' place you under arrest (within their jurisdiction), FOPA be damned. The territory of Maryland may be the same, can't say for sure on that one. I stay far away from them.

I did also read about this recently. I hope for ground to be broke, but am not expecting much.

[markshere2]

Roberts is the problem. They have big time dirt on him. Ginsburg isn't going to make the next session in my opinion.

BUT, Presidents don't replace SC judges in election years... so unless she gets off the court one way or another before the end of the year - we're Prolly Fcuked.

[markshere2]

It would be interesting if she were to go early in 2020. Would the Senate vote on a predecessor or follow the Biden Rule? I’ve read some Republican’s say follow the Biden Rule, but most recently it seemed like McConnell would move forward with a vote.

If Ginsberg were to announce her retirement in October of 2020 it would guarantee that this would become an election for the Supreme Court.

Btw..... I expect some if not all of the Democratic candidates to take a page out of Trumps book and come out with lists of who they would elect to the Supreme Court. I honestly think that Trump doing that is what got a lot of American who were on the fence about voting for him out to the polls in 2016.

Btw..... everyone is focused on Ginsberg..... but Breyer is 80. He may find himself in a realistic position where he may need to step down in the next 5 years also.

It’s kind of sad that so much focus is put on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for me at any rate, I don’t see Democrats electing people who will interpret the 2nd the way it was meant to (imo) and that is a big deal.

Them bastids has lotsa power, even if it is an unconstitutional creation.
If we don't focus on them, we lose, Bigly.

[Statkowski]

Getting back to the ORIGINAL SUBJECT MATTER, the NYSRPA filed suit, SCOTUS accepted the suit (without any arguments from New York City), New York City requested the suit be dropped because they might change their law, and SCOTUS refused to drop it.

What will be interesting will be the response that New York City must file with SCOTUS.

What Ginsburg or Roberts might or might not do is immaterial. They'll do what they do when they do it, and not before.

[GunLawyer001]

The Senate shouldn't confirm a USSC appointment in Year 8 of a president's terms, when he has "more flexibility" because the voters can't do squat to him anymore. That says nothing about Year 4 of his first term, when he's not a lame duck and is answerable to the voters for his nominee.

[105gunner]

The case could be an epic decision or a near meaningless on. SCOTUS could rule on the narrow issued raised or it could decide that issue with a broader 2A ruling. The Heller Decision did that. It ruled in narrow issue with a sweeping declaration on 2A and the nature of the rights it grants. In this NY case SCOTUS could rule on the immediate complaint or make a ruling on the power of states to regulate 2A. The latter would be earthshaking because it would limit the right of ant state tompervert the intent of 2A as defined in Heller. I am 77. I hope I live to see the outcome.

[Statkowski]

I am 77. I hope I live to see the outcome.

Well, it'll be heard this year and should well be over and done with by this time next year.

As a fellow septuagenarian, do the best you can.

[Qtrborecrazy]

Well, it'll be heard this year and should well be over and done with by this time next year.

As a fellow septuagenarian, do the best you can.

I need a few more months to become a septuagenarian. Why do you make me look up these big words, old fart ain’t good enough?

[coat4gun]

The case could be an epic decision or a near meaningless on. SCOTUS could rule on the narrow issued raised or it could decide that issue with a broader 2A ruling. The Heller Decision did that. It ruled in narrow issue with a sweeping declaration on 2A and the nature of the rights it grants. In this NY case SCOTUS could rule on the immediate complaint or make a ruling on the power of states to regulate 2A. The latter would be earthshaking because it would limit the right of ant state tompervert the intent of 2A as defined in Heller. I am 77. I hope I live to see the outcome.

Not to pick nits.... and I say this with all respect to you're greater age... but the 2nd doesn't "grant" anything, it protects our existing rights from government infringement. If the court is to apply the BOR properly, the 2nd protects our right to keep and bear arms and the 10th applies that protection against both the fed gov and the state. That's the way I read it anyway. I'm not some great scholar, but it really doesn't take a scholar to read this stuff and say, yeah, that's what it says.

[Walleye Hunter]

Not to pick nits.... and I say this with all respect to you're greater age... but the 2nd doesn't "grant" anything, it protects our existing rights from government infringement. If the court is to apply the BOR properly, the 2nd protects our right to keep and bear arms and the 10th applies that protection against both the fed gov and the state. That's the way I read it anyway. I'm not some great scholar, but it really doesn't take a scholar to read this stuff and say, yeah, that's what it says.

That must be one of those things that is a matter of opinion as I have heard others who feel the same way. But I disagree, the right to own and bear arms is no more a human right than the right to healthcare. If you have something that proves differently I would be happy to review it.