User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/28/2014 9:51:33 AM EDT
[#1]
From a NYF post...
Kachalsky and Woollard questioned the law itself, specifically if the "good cause" requirement could be part of the law. Peruta (and possibly Drake also - I am not sure) present a slightly different question - if the law says "good cause", is a general desire for self protection enough to be "good cause".
In a legal sense, saying that a state cannot require a person to show cause before granting a license to carry is not quite the same thing as saying that a state can require a person to show cause, but the state must accept a general desire for self protection unless they have a valid reason to deny the license. One is a question of the content of the law itself, the other is a question of how the law is applied. Possibly the reason... And I don't see how the court could say the the 2nd amendment is for self protection in Heller / Mcdonald...then rule in Drake that self protection is not a good cause for a CCW permit. But we shall see...hopefully it doesn't get relisted for months (years?) like some cases have been. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2014 12:09:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that had held Chicago's gun ban valid. In that case, it was McDonald and the NRA (consolidated cases) that were the petitioners. The conservative side of the Court really does want to solidify and define the 2A right. They have shown that. There is so much politics and maneuvering involved in granting and denying cert, though, and the margin of pro-2A justices is so thin that it is impossible to predict what is going on behind the closed doors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. One case has 19 relists. But I will stick to the fact that SCOTUS doesnt care about the 2a unless a state appeals a decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that had held Chicago's gun ban valid. In that case, it was McDonald and the NRA (consolidated cases) that were the petitioners. The conservative side of the Court really does want to solidify and define the 2A right. They have shown that. There is so much politics and maneuvering involved in granting and denying cert, though, and the margin of pro-2A justices is so thin that it is impossible to predict what is going on behind the closed doors. McDonald was not a 2A ruling, as much as you, I, and the 2A groups would like to think it was. It was the application of an enumerated constitutional right as an individual right, like they all are. If you want it was a smack to the 7ths Pee-Pee for trying to play funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2014 1:31:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Stone kicked down the road further.............DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 2, 2014.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2014 3:25:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
McDonald was not a 2A ruling, as much as you, I, and the 2A groups would like to think it was. It was the application of an enumerated constitutional right as an individual right, like they all are. If you want it was a smack to the 7ths Pee-Pee for trying to play funny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. One case has 19 relists. But I will stick to the fact that SCOTUS doesnt care about the 2a unless a state appeals a decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that had held Chicago's gun ban valid. In that case, it was McDonald and the NRA (consolidated cases) that were the petitioners. The conservative side of the Court really does want to solidify and define the 2A right. They have shown that. There is so much politics and maneuvering involved in granting and denying cert, though, and the margin of pro-2A justices is so thin that it is impossible to predict what is going on behind the closed doors. McDonald was not a 2A ruling, as much as you, I, and the 2A groups would like to think it was. It was the application of an enumerated constitutional right as an individual right, like they all are. If you want it was a smack to the 7ths Pee-Pee for trying to play funny.  
Of course McDonald was a 2A ruling. It incorporated the 2A into the 14A so that the 2A doesn't just apply to the federal government but to the states and municipalities as well. Not sure what your point is, but McDonald is most certainly one of the most important 2A opinions that SCOTUS has ever issued and would be critical if the unSAFE Act is ever to be overturned. Maybe I am misunderstanding you and you are misunderstanding me? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 6:39:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course McDonald was a 2A ruling. It incorporated the 2A into the 14A so that the 2A doesn't just apply to the federal government but to the states and municipalities as well. Not sure what your point is, but McDonald is most certainly one of the most important 2A opinions that SCOTUS has ever issued and would be critical if the unSAFE Act is ever to be overturned. Maybe I am misunderstanding you and you are misunderstanding me? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did a little looking around regarding other cases, if you read some of the articles on Scotus blog you will see that relisting is very common and is seen as a sign that the Justices are researching the case. Some cases were relisted many, many times before being heard. I think this is a good sign that shows SCOTUS knows the ramifications of the case and wants to make sure this is the right one to review. One case has 19 relists. But I will stick to the fact that SCOTUS doesnt care about the 2a unless a state appeals a decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that had held Chicago's gun ban valid. In that case, it was McDonald and the NRA (consolidated cases) that were the petitioners. The conservative side of the Court really does want to solidify and define the 2A right. They have shown that. There is so much politics and maneuvering involved in granting and denying cert, though, and the margin of pro-2A justices is so thin that it is impossible to predict what is going on behind the closed doors. McDonald was not a 2A ruling, as much as you, I, and the 2A groups would like to think it was. It was the application of an enumerated constitutional right as an individual right, like they all are. If you want it was a smack to the 7ths Pee-Pee for trying to play funny.
Of course McDonald was a 2A ruling. It incorporated the 2A into the 14A so that the 2A doesn't just apply to the federal government but to the states and municipalities as well. Not sure what your point is, but McDonald is most certainly one of the most important 2A opinions that SCOTUS has ever issued and would be critical if the unSAFE Act is ever to be overturned. Maybe I am misunderstanding you and you are misunderstanding me? My point was that while McDonald was "pro-2A" because it ensured that the 2A was an individual right, there should have been no need of the decision if it weren't for lower courts trying to get around the Heller decision. Much like the current crop of carry cases. No other portion of the BoR needed a decision that the right was individual, not collective. In other words, while the case was a 2A case and the decision was a 2A decision the ruling itself was merely a court-led administrative clarification for all intents and purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 5:00:07 AM EDT
[#6]
Let's see if we hear anything today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 5:33:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's see if we hear anything today. Yep. Cert has been denied :( |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 5:33:35 AM EDT
[#8]
Denied cert
Edit: damn, beat by 6 seconds! Edit: FU SCOTUS, and FUAC ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 5:45:13 AM EDT
[#9]
As predicted.
Scotus has been compromised. No chance of unSAFE act getting to scotus if a clear cut case like this can't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 5:45:20 AM EDT
[#10]
So what's the next case to watch and wait for?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 5:52:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's the next case to watch and wait for? What's the point anymore? We have no chance in the courts...Zero. Meaning unSAFE is hear to stay forever. Let's focus on voting the right people into office in NY so we don't lose any MORE rights. Remember...they still want microstamping...limiting gun owners to 2 mags per gun...confiscation of all AWs...banning future semi auto's with detachable mags...1 gun every 90 days...etc. We have lost a lot...but we still have A LOT to lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 6:07:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As predicted. Scotus has been compromised. No chance of unSAFE act getting to scotus if a clear cut case like this can't. Yep. We're screwed. It absolutely blows my mind. What did I expect....I know I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 6:22:55 AM EDT
[#13]
FUSC
 FUSC
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 6:50:30 AM EDT
[#14]
Hey, cheer up!
SCOTUS delivered its opinion in the town of Greece case and said it was ok to open the town meetings with a prayer ! 
Thank goodness they are taking care of the important issues of the day! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 6:59:26 AM EDT
[#15]
I wish I could say I was surprised and my post on page 2 wasn't accurate. Oddly enough I'm not even upset. They met my expectations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 7:29:04 AM EDT
[#16]
Kind of saw this coming from a mile continent away. No expectations, no disappointments.
ETA: Mis-judged length of measurement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 7:43:16 AM EDT
[#17]
Note that they have not accepted any 2A cases since this happened.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-scolds-supreme-court-ruling-on-election-law/blog-248017/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 8:01:49 AM EDT
[#18]
As I and several others have stated. I am not completely disappointed. No ruling is still better than an unfavorable ruling. If Drake did go to SCOTUS and the liberal wing got their way, concealed carry would basically be unprotected for all time. At least we have the option to move to a free state and exercise our rights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 8:02:24 AM EDT
[#19]
I don't believe "the fix is in," but I wonder what kind of Kiddie Porn they have John Roberts watching....
I think the Peruta case is the next one up. Maybe Scalia could not get enough votes for Drake so he decided to drop it rather than a bad ruling? Here's to hoping for a Rand Paul / Ted Cruz presidency and the death of one or two liberal justices! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 8:59:56 AM EDT
[#20]
While I have little faith in SCOTUS at this point, I am wondering if they are waiting for one of the 2013 AWB cases to come knocking, since those arguably represent a much greater infringement than any of recent cert denials.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 7:13:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I have little faith in SCOTUS at this point, I am wondering if they are waiting for one of the 2013 AWB cases to come knocking, since those arguably represent a much greater infringement than any of recent cert denials. I think you are rationalizing their decision. I thought the same thing, but in reality, that's probably not the case. That it took the 3rd conference for them to deny cert indicates the votes weren't there for us. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
