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

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.