SCOTUS takes up major 2A case

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

As stated in the title the Supreme Court has granted cert to a significant 2A related case, again out of New York.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/26/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment-case/index.html

The fear of the anti 2A crowd, and the hope of the pro side, is that any major 2A case will grant the court room to expand on, and clarify, the Heller decision. This case is certainly significant enough to do exactly that and with a reliable 5-4 balance in favor of the 2A on the court this could absolutely become that opportunity.

The really interesting thing will be if Chuck Schumer threatens the court again if they seem inclined to vote the "wrong way".


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

[Au165]

I think it's very likely the New York law gets struck down because their language is overly broad and subjective. I think they limit their ruling to such rather than tackling a previously held position that states do have the right to regulate carry.

[Belsnickel]

It will be interesting to see what happens. Most of the limiting language in Heller was added to gain Kennedy's vote, so with the conservative shift on the court it is highly likely to see some of those limitations pushed aside. That being said, the language of the cert, itself, points to the court being of a limited mind on this:

BREAKING: The Supreme Court agrees to take up a major gun rights case. In NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett, the justices will consider the extent to which the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense. pic.twitter.com/0uGurWn46r

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) April 26, 2021

I fully expect the NY law to be overturned, but I have to wonder what the broader impacts of the ruling will be.

[masonbengals fan]

Heard a discussion about it on the radio his morning.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2021, 12:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think it's very likely the New York law gets struck down because their language is overly broad and subjective. I think they limit their ruling to such rather than tackling a previously held position that states do have the right to regulate carry.

It really depends who rights the majority decision.  The scope of the language used can have a major impact, especially if it references Heller and expands on the meaning of that decision.

I do find it interesting that we can all agree that the Ney York law is blatantly unconstitutional, as was the NYC law that they defended tooth and nail until the SCOTUS granted it cert.  It's disturbing that people who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution would pass laws that blatantly violate it.

(04-26-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It will be interesting to see what happens. Most of the limiting language in Heller was added to gain Kennedy's vote, so with the conservative shift on the court it is highly likely to see some of those limitations pushed aside. That being said, the language of the cert, itself, points to the court being of a limited mind on this:

BREAKING: The Supreme Court agrees to take up a major gun rights case. In NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett, the justices will consider the extent to which the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense. pic.twitter.com/0uGurWn46r

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) April 26, 2021

I fully expect the NY law to be overturned, but I have to wonder what the broader impacts of the ruling will be.

That is the exact fear that anti-2A people have and the hope that the pro 2A people have.  The language that had to be used to secure the Kennedy vote will no longer be needed.  I agree with you both, this will be interesting.

[Au165]

(04-26-2021, 03:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's disturbing that people who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution would pass laws that blatantly violate it.

This is common in politics. Abortion bills that are literally clones of ones that have already been truck down keep getting recycled for political points. In reality, what both sides are looking for is for SCOTUS to break precedent and re-shape the way forward.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2021, 03:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is common in politics. Abortion bills that are literally clones of ones that have already been truck down keep getting recycled for political points. In reality, what both sides are looking for is for SCOTUS to break precedent and re-shape the way forward.

Very true.  Although, and I know the Roe v. Wade affirmed it as one in a roundabout way, the second amendment is much more clear about the constitutional right to own firearms.  It was so important to the Framers that they made an amendment specific to it.

I do agree with your general point though.

[Au165]

(04-26-2021, 03:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very true.  Although, and I know the Roe v. Wade affirmed it as one in a roundabout way, the second amendment is much more clear about the constitutional right to own firearms.  It was so important to the Framers that they made an amendment specific to it.

I do agree with your general point though.

Sure, and that is where precedent matters and why I think we end up in a weird place when people try shopping for the right SCOTUS groups to change precedent. The only reason the system works is because SCOTUS recognizes precedent and tries to keep to it, if everyone just starts ditching it then we are in a real constitutional crisis and that is what my real fear is.

[fredtoast]

(04-26-2021, 03:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  the second amendment is much more clear about the constitutional right to own firearms. 

 Correct.  It says it only applies to members of the militia.

[*Nately120*]

Can we amend the 2nd amendment to take out the word regulated? The concept of government regulation seems pretty unpopular with the pro 2A crowd.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2021, 05:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Can we amend the 2nd amendment to take out the word regulated?  The concept of government regulation seems pretty unpopular with the pro 2A crowd.

Not necessary.  As used in the context of the 2A as written "well regulated" means "in good working order".  Much as the militia, as clarified by SCOTUS precedent not long after the Civil War, refers to all men of fighting age. A rather key bit of that decision here; It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States.  Even if that were not the case the Heller decision definitively stated that being part of a militia is not necessary to exercise your 2A rights.  Both of these points of debate have been settled long ago and are only disputed by extreme anti 2A types.

[*Nately120*]

(04-26-2021, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not necessary.  As used in the context of the 2A as written "well regulated" means "in good working order".  Much as the militia, as clarified by SCOTUS precedent not long after the Civil War, refers to all men of fighting age. A rather key bit of that decision here; It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States.  Even if that were not the case the Heller decision definitively stated that being part of a militia is not necessary to exercise your 2A rights.  Both of these points of debate have been settled long ago and are only disputed by extreme anti 2A types.

That stills contains a lotta qualifiers the government is supposedly making the call on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2021, 05:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That stills contains a lotta qualifiers the government is supposedly making the call on.

How so?

You addressed a frequently (and erroneous) used argument about the term "well regulated".  I pointed out what this was intended to mean.  Sure, there is some wiggle room in what "in good working order" entails, but when added to an almost century and a half old decision that flat out declared that the militia is all citizens (although certainly that meant, at that time, only men) of fighting age are the militia.

Now, if you want to get into what the Framers meant by the types of firearm's private citizens could own, this is surprisingly easy to verify, as one need only look at what was legal to own at the time.  The standard rifle owned by a private citizen was light years more deadly than the muskets issued to standing armies at that time.  So, one can logically conclude that owning a better firearm than a standard infantryman of the time was not only acceptable to the Framers, but preferable.

So, let's move on to the newest inane trope of the anti gun faction, the "weapons of war" talking point.  Aside from the facts above, which already defeat that argument, it is a fact that private citizens, if they were wealthy enough, could own a warship armed in exactly the same fashion as those commissioned by the Navy.  So, one can again logically infer that if the Framers had zero issue with a private citizen owning a warship, that they wouldn't bat an eye about a man portable rifle.

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2021, 05:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How so?

You addressed a frequently (and erroneous) used argument about the term "well regulated".  I pointed out what this was intended to mean.  Sure, there is some wiggle room in what "in good working order" entails, but when added to an almost century and a half old decision that flat out declared that the militia is all citizens (although certainly that meant, at that time, only men) of fighting age are the militia.

Now, if you want to get into what the Framers meant by the types of firearm's private citizens could own, this is surprisingly easy to verify, as one need only look at what was legal to own at the time.  The standard rifle owned by a private citizen was light years more deadly than the muskets issued to standing armies at that time.  So, one can logically conclude that owning a better firearm than a standard infantryman of the time was not only acceptable to the Framers, but preferable.

So, let's move on to the newest inane trope of the anti gun faction, the "weapons of war" talking point.  Aside from the facts above, which already defeat that argument, it is a fact that private citizens, if they were wealthy enough, could own a warship armed in exactly the same fashion as those commissioned by the Navy.  So, one can again logically infer that if the Framers had zero issue with a private citizen owning a warship, that they wouldn't bat an eye about a man portable rifle.

What's interesting in all of this is that the support is strong for an armed citizenry when it comes to long guns in the home and the ability to use them if the need arises. However, there is precedent going back to the beginning of our country where the very authors of our Constitution supported laws that prohibited the carrying of handguns by the general public or any firearm in certain public areas. This is more me just playing devil's advocate, here, because those historical issues could (but likely won't) influence the case in this thread.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2021, 06:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What's interesting in all of this is that the support is strong for an armed citizenry when it comes to long guns in the home and the ability to use them if the need arises. However, there is precedent going back to the beginning of our country where the very authors of our Constitution supported laws that prohibited the carrying of handguns by the general public or any firearm in certain public areas. This is more me just playing devil's advocate, here, because those historical issues could (but likely won't) influence the case in this thread.

That's a very interesting point which I hadn't really given a lot of thought.

[Belsnickel]

If anyone is interested, here is a pretty good read on the history of gun laws in the country.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp

Oh, and one of the source documents for that is open source!

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2200991

[*Nately120*]

(04-26-2021, 05:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How so?

You addressed a frequently (and erroneous) used argument about the term "well regulated".  I pointed out what this was intended to mean.  Sure, there is some wiggle room in what "in good working order" entails, but when added to an almost century and a half old decision that flat out declared that the militia is all citizens (although certainly that meant, at that time, only men) of fighting age are the militia.

Now, if you want to get into what the Framers meant by the types of firearm's private citizens could own, this is surprisingly easy to verify, as one need only look at what was legal to own at the time.  The standard rifle owned by a private citizen was light years more deadly than the muskets issued to standing armies at that time.  So, one can logically conclude that owning a better firearm than a standard infantryman of the time was not only acceptable to the Framers, but preferable.

So, let's move on to the newest inane trope of the anti gun faction, the "weapons of war" talking point.  Aside from the facts above, which already defeat that argument, it is a fact that private citizens, if they were wealthy enough, could own a warship armed in exactly the same fashion as those commissioned by the Navy.  So, one can again logically infer that if the Framers had zero issue with a private citizen owning a warship, that they wouldn't bat an eye about a man portable rifle.

I just think it's easier to let everyone own guns. 

[fredtoast]

The pro 2A justices have done some mental gymnastics to determine that "regulated" really means "unregulated" and that in order to have a strong militia people have to be allowed to carry their guns out in public when not doing anything even closely connected to being in a militia.

They call themselves "constructionists" yet they insist that we ignore the clear language that ties gun ownership to being a part of a militia.

What really cracks me up is when they claim that authors of the Constitution wanted to protect citizens ability to commit treason at the same time they made treason punishable by death.

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2021, 07:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The pro 2A justices have done some mental gymnastics to determine that "regulated" really means "unregulated" and that in order to have a strong militia people have to be allowed to carry their guns out in public when not doing anything even closely connected to being in a militia.

They call themselves "constructionists" yet they insist that we ignore the clear language that ties gun ownership to being a part of a militia.

What really cracks me up is when they claim that authors of the Constitution wanted to protect citizens ability to commit treason at the same time they made treason punishable by death.

Yeah, I have to admit that when these conservatives jurists call themselves textualists or constructionists I cringe. Hard. Not only are they absolutely not what they claim to be, but it is absolutely ridiculous to apply that standard of interpretation to the law. I know that these jurists know this, too, but it plays well to the base.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2021, 07:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I have to admit that when these conservatives jurists call themselves textualists or constructionists I cringe. Hard. Not only are they absolutely not what they claim to be, but it is absolutely ridiculous to apply that standard of interpretation to the law. I know that these jurists know this, too, but it plays well to the base.

While I tend to agree, I find it amazing that Fred can still try and make arguments that have already been debunked with facts and sources in this very thread.  I just wish people like him were honest and just flat out stated they wanted to repeal the second amendment.  The endless parroting of debunked talking points is the very definition of banality.