LiveLife
Member
And district court judge Sinatra just issued preliminary injunction after granting temporary restraining order for Hardaway v Negrelli - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...-new-york-places-of-worship-handgun-carry-ban
And district court judge Sinatra just issued preliminary injunction after granting temporary restraining order for Hardaway v Negrelli - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...-new-york-places-of-worship-handgun-carry-ban
The case was Worcester vs Georgia, and it was about a state law requiring White men living among the Indians to have a state license. It had nothing to do with native lands, nor with removing the Indians to the Indian Territory. And Jackson made no such comment. Georgia refused to comply with the court ruling (to release Worcester and his companions from prison) and the Supreme Court did NOT ask Jackson for US Marshalls to enforce it's ruling.President Andrew Jackson refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision regarding native lands in Georgia, saying something to the effect of they've made their decision, let's see them enforce it. Are we on a similar path now?
It's not arithmetic, per se. It's more linguistic, which is "per le" in the law.I don't follow your arithmetic.
I never encountered this concept in my legal education. It's really quite simple -- a "minority" is anything less than 50% of the whole. If, say, gun owners represent 60% of the total adult population (a not-unreasonable assumption, at least in some parts of the country), then they're a majority. Now, giving due weight to identifiable interest groups -- whether they be minorities or majorities -- is another issue entirely.This is a crucial legal distinction in terms of majority rule and minority rights. Laws that only affect firearms owners have no effect upon non- firearms owners (histrionics to the contrary notwithstanding). Therefore the law must--in the proper spirit of legal interpretation--carefully examine how that minorities' rights are affected. Which is a key aspect of how the 14th Amendment is considered.
It's a little more complicated than that. In a given state, gun owners as a whole might be a majority, but activist, engaged gun owners (those that actually vote on the issue) might be a minority. Thus, you have to factor out the Fudds and the casual gun owners. Those casual gun owners get awakened only when confiscation of their guns is imminent.In states where anti-gun right laws are passed, representation of gun owners at state assembly/senate is minority hence why majority of law makers representing the population voted to pass anti-gun right laws.
So wherever anti-gun right laws are passed, it is majority imposing on minority gun rights in violation of the Second Amendment and why the SCOTUS ruled for Bruen and took away the two-step approch for the Second Amendment as it is not a "second class" right.
I listen to NPR and other "liberal" radio shows sporadically and the notion of "gun culture" for US changing, crossing party lines to where increasing number of gun ownership (over 20 to 36 million guns sold annually last few years on top of 100 million sold past decade) related perhaps to defunding of police/homelessness/drugs and gang related crime has been mentioned.If the Democrats continue pushing the gun control fetish, they're going to continue reaping nasty surprises at the ballot box. The gun issue is a very important part of the party realignment in this country.
The gun issue is notoriously hard to poll. Among the few people that respond to polls in the first place, gun owners are loath to admit to strangers that they even own guns. This is why I say that guns are a very important issue, that nevertheless lurks below the surface. The antigunners are very loudly evident, but this is misleading since the pro-gun vote is largely hidden.The latest Times/Siena poll reported that guns have dropped as a major vote determinant in this election. Also, research indicates that the dramatic loss of white working class votes does in part contain antipathy to the Democratic gun control position.
And that's how our founders framed this nation's government, so "We the People" can self govern to not allow mob majority impose on the rights of the minority.The only way we will see actual enforcement of the NYSRPA SCOTUS ruling is if the executive branch, through Federal AG, dispatches US Federal Marshalls to the state where the tyrants are disobeying the ruling.
... in 2024, if the Republicans nominate and elect a new administration that is more SCOTUS and 2A friendly, nothing would bring me more joy then for our friends up in Sacramento or wherever the courtroom is in a given case were visited by a team of armed Federal Marshalls to uphold the law of the land. That would be a day to rejoice.
And that's how our founders framed this nation's government so "We the People" can self govern.
"We the People" already corrected the injustices of slavery and women being second class citizens that the democratic majority imposed on the rights of the minority who lacked representation.
And "We the People" will, if so destined, again correct the injustice of gun owners being treated as second class citizens and have their Second Amendment restored as first class right, as already stated by justice Thomas.
Godspeed 2022/2024 and as justice Gorsuch stated, I do believe "We the People" can self govern.
Anti-gun crowd didn't have Supreme Court's Bruen ruling where the two-step approach was eliminated for Second Amendment cases in past decades.That is a very rose coloured glasses view of history to say the least. In practice it never worked that way.
Anti-gun crowd didn't have Supreme Court's Bruen ruling where the two-step approach was eliminated for Second Amendment cases in past decades.
2022 moving forward is a turning point where courts now much rule based on "text and history" approach only.
With House, possibly Senate representation to change in 2022 and White House occupant in 2024, what happened in prior decades could be reversed.
And of course, time will tell as "We the People" will decide what happens to this country.
We didn't have the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling then.We "had" the white house, senate, and house 2016-2018 and nothing changed.
We didn't have the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling then.
Eliminating the "two-step" approach is a game changer as most of nation's anti-gun laws could be reversed under "text and history" approach only - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12427677
We will find out in due time who will control the House/Senate and the White House. If "We the People" want Bruen ruling permanently enforced, then we will see destiny unfold.
It is what it is regardless what our opinion is. And before too long, results of "We the People" voting will be known.This whole "we the people" thing is a sad joke.
Gov. Hochul's commercials stress that she is taking illegal guns off the street. It doesn't mention that she also took all legal concealed carry guns off the street. I mention that enough that my wife says: I know, I know.
It is what it is regardless what our opinion is. And before too long, results of "We the People" voting will be known.
BTW, this is a gun forum so Bruen ruling with the prospect of pro-2A House/Senate and WH in 2024 is something we can hope for in permanent enforcement of Supreme Court ruling.
I'm at a loss, guys.This has been a meandering discussion to follow. All I can say, is, I predict a moment on the horizon where anti gun states just say no to the Supreme Court and no to Bruen and keep going down their path. The only recourse seems to be follow-on legal challenges that will delay implementation of Bruen for another generation. This isn't hat different from southern states' reaction to the Brown decision. (Or to the Roe decision for that matter.) It will take decades to accomplish what Bruen specifies, and that's only if the current make-up of the court holds out that long. It wouldn't surprise me if the balance of power on the court shifts in the next 10 years and Bruen gets forgotten/unenforced or outright reversed. In the mean time, the near total disregard in states like CA, NY, etc. will essentially nullify the decision.And with that, back to OP.