Potential new SCOTUS 2nd Amendment cases?

[GEM]

AlexanderA has it right on. Heller contained language that was a poison pill, although this is not acknowledged by Scalia fans. It is said (who knows) that Scalia and Thomas planned to revisit the issues but were thwarted. They published outraged dissents which were worth spit as far as practical measures. Stevens has specifically said he that he influenced Kennedy to get this bad analysis into Heller.

I'm willing to bet the Court doesn't take up a case quickly or not at all. Will the 5 justices go against Roberts when they may want his vote on other social issues. RKBA is NOT a priority for the Court or the major GOP elite. They just use for send a check messaging.

Now, periodically, someone says "Not infringed". Well, Frank has analyzed for us how BOR rights are not absolute despite a layperson's view of the language. Certainly, Scalia acknowledged the RKBA had limitations. So that phrase is good for a beer after a match and that's about it when it comes to practical matters.

 

[wiscoaster]

...<snip> ... RKBA is NOT a priority for the Court or the major GOP elite...<snip>

Agreed, w/ my emphasis added.

 

[LiveLife]

Will the 5 justices go against Roberts when they may want his vote on other social issues.

You know, things could be vastly different had Hillary won in 2016 as all hope for 2A would be lost by now.

Still, I prefer a weak 5-4 with the possibility of adding 1-2 more justices going forward for the future of gun rights/2A cases.

I know, we haven't secured the next 1-2 justices yet so I will reserve my full celebration until then but I tell you, my morning coffee has tasted better and better each time Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and now Barrett got appointed.

I'm willing to bet the Court doesn't take up a case quickly or not at all.

There's no rush for them to take a case quickly ... We got time, especially if 1-2 more pro 2A justices get appointed.

 

[wiscoaster]

...<snip>...
There's no rush for them to take a case quickly ... We got time, especially if 1-2 more pro 2A justices get appointed.

Hmmm, well, ... depends on the outcome of the Senate elections. If the majority changes hands, things could go to h... in a handbasket real fast. The Court can't take a case until some party suffers, sues, and goes through the whole appeal process, bubbling up through the court system, chancing an unfavorable outcome at each step...which could take years ... during which our rights are infringed, our property might be confiscated, and we might become felons without due process. So, wrt to taking a case already surviving that process, IMO sooner might be better than later.

 

[Dudedog]

This one is a possible if the 9th en blanc rules for the state of CA. CRPA said they will take it all the way. Still waiting to see what the 9th says....
Duncan v. Becerra

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm willing to bet the Court doesn't take up a case quickly or not at all.

There's no rush for them to take a case quickly ..

Sadly, I think both of you are right. But from the point of view of RKBA advocacy, it might be better to "strike while the iron is hot." Of course this depends on the outcome of the November election. If the Dems sweep, which the polling seems to indicate, one of the things they would do is expand the Court. There goes the pro-RKBA majority.

Hmmm, well, ... depends on the outcome of the Senate elections. If the majority changes hands, things could go to h... in a handbasket real fast.

Yes, but even in the worst-case scenario, there would be a "window" of 6 months to a year where there was a pro-2A majority. That's why we have to push cases forward as quickly as possible.

 

[GEM]

There's a majority and there's a majority when we talk about Congress. Unless there is an apocalypse for one party, there will not be a filibuster proof majority. A party might vote out the filibuster as was done for judges and regretted since by many. The GOP might have done that in DJT's first year to pass all kinds of progun bills. Instead, they shrunk from any action. Mitch and Ryan had no interest in the issue. Would a Biden senate do that for an AWB. Joe is hot for one but a traditionalist and not wanted to ditch the filibuster.

Recall that on most issues, neither party leadership wants to pass their ultimate goal as that takes away the always popular SEND A CHECK appeal. Also the advocacy groups would be sunk. Get rid of all oppressive gun laws - well that kills the first 26 pages of most NRA magazines.

Now for majorities on Scotus, can a definitive case be taken in time. Roberts, clearly an anti, can probably slow down the actions. Thomas is the eldest progun justice. Will the others do against him and can progun folks get a case there.

One cannot but look at Roberts as a total failure on firearms. Would Justice Amy be a firebrand or are other social issues more important to her. The current discussions of court impact are all about abortion and Obama care. There is a small mention of gun rights but there is no fire. Ever hear a Senator say - I will vote for her to overturn state AWBs? Nope it's abortion and Obama care.

Neither of them will keep that AR from being buried in the basement as a useless artifact for a grad student in 3000AD dig up and write a thesis about.

 

[AlexanderA]

There's a majority and there's a majority when we talk about Congress. Unless there is an apocalypse for one party, there will not be a filibuster proof majority. A party might vote out the filibuster as was done for judges and regretted since by many.

If the Dems win the presidency and at least 50 seats in the Senate (not a tall order, BTW), I can almost guarantee the first thing they do is abolish the filibuster. They have to -- without doing that their entire program is dead in the water.

That said, it doesn't mean that they will have an antigun majority in the Senate. Many of the newly-elected Democrats would be from states where gun control is toxic.

 

[GEM]

One can hope that Joe will take Obama's advice and learn from Clinton's example. Bill said that guns lost them the Congress. Obama had Rahm shut up Holder when the latter started on preaching about an AWB. We will see. Politicians raise issues for a check. Bush went on Orange alert when in trouble or trotted out social issue amendments which went nowhere.

Back to the issue, my secret sources tell me that a carry case and 3rd and 9th mag bans are ready to go to the court. We will see.

 

[LiveLife]

One can hope that Joe will take Obama's advice and learn from Clinton's example. Bill said that guns lost them the Congress. Obama had Rahm shut up Holder when the latter started on preaching about an AWB. We will see. Politicians raise issues for a check.

Ummm ... but Biden said he will have Beto O'Rourke head the gun confiscation task force ... And Kamala Harris is in favor of it last time I checked.

 

[Insignificant bill]

I believe they already ruled that those scary weapons were protected by the 2nd amendment. States just decided to ignore it and do what they want.

 

[SharpDog]

Well, if the election goes as we hope there could be two more appointments (replacing Thomas and Breyer) which should ensure an even greater majority.

Black Guns Matter

 

[LiveLife]

Well, if the election goes as we hope there could be two more appointments (replacing Thomas and Breyer) which should ensure an even greater majority.

Black Guns Matter

All Guns Matter.

Even the Pre-born Guns Matter (80% receivers/paper weights).

 

[Cannibul]

One can hope that Joe will take Obama's advice and learn from Clinton's example. Bill said that guns lost them the Congress. Obama had Rahm shut up Holder when the latter started on preaching about an AWB. We will see. Politicians raise issues for a check. Bush went on Orange alert when in trouble or trotted out social issue amendments which went nowhere.

Back to the issue, my secret sources tell me that a carry case and 3rd and 9th mag bans are ready to go to the court. We will see.

Go to his web page and take a look at his plans for gun control. One part that sticks out. Banning mail order sales of ammunition, and ALL gun parts.

 

[GEM]

Missed the point. Politicians say this or that to get votes and a check and don't do them when in office. For example, as I said before, Bush would trot out a ban gay marriage and flag burning every once in awhile. Never really did anything to get it done. So the question, is whether Joe would actually do something. We will know when it happens.

Trump says he will introduce a new health care plan in two weeks for the past 3 years. Never happened.

That's my point.

 

[WestKentucky]

Hmmm. If Clinton had won I wonder who she would have appointed, and what damage to the 2nd they would have done. There is supposedly legitimate strategy discussion around the presidential election and the confirmation of the nominated candidate. With a 5-4 court then there is less need for a republican president that many folks dislike.

I truly had hoped for more out of the current administration, but it seems that the court may have stood in the way. Perhaps now the court will allow for progress now.

 

[wiscoaster]

Politicians say this or that to get votes and a check and don't do them when in office.

Well, I think the main reason they don't do what they say they wanted to do is not because they lied about it to get elected, but because when they get in they find they're not as all-powerful as they thought they would be. They need the cooperation of the entrenched government bureacracy to get things done, and if the things they want to get done are threatening the bureacrats' turf they find that it gets impossible to do what they wanted to do. I think we already know that those forces and Biden are pretty much already on the same wavelengths, so I think we can be fairly sure that what he threatens to do are what will get done, if he gets elected, and his party controls the Congress and the courts. And then there's always some unforeseen national emergency or higher priority that needs to be done that pushes their stated goals into the background. Yes, I do think that if Biden is elected, he will take away our guns. That's a pretty high priority for him, his party, and his supporters, and I don't think they're just saying it to get elected.

 

[GEM]

I do think he would want to try and might try if the stars aligned to pull it off. Thus, SCOTUS needs to act. If the 5 don't tell Roberts to shove it and do something, it would demonstrate that all the SEND A CHECK for the court selections was a farce.

 

[codytrucker]

I don't see Roberts voting with the clear minority of the court very much , seems to wishy washy to take that much of a stand on most any issue. I get the idea he's somewhat of a populist . Which is ok by me , as long as the clear majority supports the Constitution .
As far as Biden , I'm more worried about Harris' views than his.
I have no doubt she would go all out to attack the 2A . And I wouldn't give him a 5% chance of finishing his term.

 

[LiveLife]

As far as Biden , I'm more worried about Harris' views than his

Every voter should be keen that they are voting for president Harris, not president Biden.

And interestingly, the DNC/Democrats rejected her during the primary.

 

[CapnMac]

with the definition of arms not limited by original intent

To quote Tench Coxe: "Every terrible implement of the soldier" set the bar fairly specifically.

Hopefully if we get a majority of strict constructionists the above will no longer be a problem.

One of the other tenets of constructionists is starre decisis. Where "made" law is not undone without strong, clear, and compelling arguments.
It is accepted law that Amendments are not absolute; that sensible and logical restrictions may be placed upon them. Particularly where other rights intersect.
One is not free to practice a "religion" which requires predatory cannibalism; one is not allowed to post screed advocating that losers in Congressional votes ought be burned at the stake. Some limitations, some strictures are allowed.

So, we are unlikely to cast off the fifty years of GCA 68 and created the ever-thorny issue of Prohibited Persons. And requires persons to prove they were innocent before buying firearms from a federally-licensed dealer. (Our Nation stumbled along for 170 years without such things, somehow.) Unless we can find a way to demonstrate that the law had no public good.

The silver bullet could be a case that revisits Miller.

 

[JTHunter]

Joe doesn't take advice, he takes orders from and reads teleprompter scripts the radical left gives him to follow and to read.
...
OOOOOPS!!!
...
<Political post>
...
<do with as you will>
...
(I shouldn't have, but I did anyway ... what a big mouth!!)

The debate may not happen. The Biden people are objecting to "Plugs" being examined for "electronic earpieces", despite the fact that they agreed to such an exam just a couple of days ago.

 

[LiveLife]

The debate may not happen. The Biden people are objecting to "Plugs" being examined for "electronic earpieces", despite the fact that they agreed to such an exam just a couple of days ago.

If Biden campaign ends up not debating, it will look really bad on Biden's confidence level.

My guess is that whatever performance enhancing drug they have him on and/or Biden's cognitive/mental stability is not fairing well enough to debate ... Kinda suspicious like Hillary's medications issues with her aid ... Remember?

1.5 hrs is a long stretch for Biden, whereas Trump has been doing it almost on a daily basis, sometimes twice a day.

I mean, can Biden even stand for that long without issues?

 

[Robert]

We've wandered off topic here. I know there is a lot riding on the next few weeks, but most of it is outside the scope and mission of THR.