SCOTUS accepts first major 2nd Amendment Gun case in over a decade - NY State Rifle & PA v. Corlett

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Apr 26, 2021.

  1. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,878
    Location:
    Virginia
    Scalia was trying to cobble together a 5-member majority. The difference here is that Roberts is not needed for a 5-member majority.
     
    stillquietvoice and CapnMac like this.
  2. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,590
    I agree. Seems our opposition will take any win they can get no matter how small, and then will continue to fight tooth and nail for the next win, and the next, and the next. Doesn't matter if it's a local, state, or national win as long as it's a win. Doesn't matter if it's minuscule or a large win like a state wide AWB. Their voters will be happy and content while looking into the future to get what they left on the table instead of wasting energy berating and being upset at their representatives for not getting everything they wanted aka all guns highly regulated or banned Yesterday!

    We have come hundreds of miles gun rights wise from were we were in the Clinton and even pre Heller/McDonald era. There are a plethora of people behind the scenes getting out there everyday and fighting for the rest of us who are sitting on a forum complaining. We might not get everything we want Yesterday, but I can not understand how or why people are so upset about the pendulum swing that much further in our direction. They're so worried about winning the war once and for all that they're not focused on winning all the small battles that lead up to that. All the firearms currently in circulation, all the new gun owners, all the Universal Carry states popping up, and all the state and national representatives on both sides of the ailse who are reluctant to go full retard on the anigun agenda would not have happened if not for all Heller and all the other small wins that seem to irritate us so much.
     
  3. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    And I obviously think this needs mentioning again already. And I've said it so many times in the past, kudos for chatting with like minds HOWEVER the REAL HEAVY LIFT is a wee bit more expensive.

    Pick a 2A organization I don't care which. Donate now, often, even the lil ol' $5 spot. And...drum roll... CONTACT YOUR ELECTEDS.
     
    Styx likes this.
  4. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,716
    Location:
    NV
    Hmm. I wonder about that - does voting count as a civil right in the sense of the BoR? I would be interested to see that argument. Both ways. It 'feels' different in that voting is a civic right to participate in government, whereas a right enumerated in the BoR is a personal civil right. But that is just a sense of how I see the difference - it is not a legal argument.
     
  5. TTv2

    TTv2 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,036
    Not needed, but if he knows that 5 others are in favor of striking down the denial then he will jump on the majority to try and write the opinion, that's pretty clear, but the wild card in this thing is Barret because she's unproven on SCOTUS and she seems to be easily influenced by Roberts.

    Then again we've seen waffling from both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on things in the past, it's possible that one or both of them could rule that government has every right to deny a person from receiving a carry license.

    2A cases at SCOTUS are such a hot button issue that nothing outside of Thomas, Alito, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagen are a sure thing.
     
    stillquietvoice and GEM like this.
  6. luzyfuerza

    luzyfuerza Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    RKBA-Friendly Utah
    All we really know is that at least four justices have been looking for an opportunity to take up a 2A case that will clarify SC jurisprudence. At least four justices agreed to limit the question addressed by the court in this case. We can suppose that these four have reason to believe that they have at least five votes to accomplish the objective above.

    The next big decision comes from Justice Roberts. After the vote regarding whether to uphold or strike down the limitations at issue here, he and he alone will determine who takes responsibility to write the opinion, which describes the rationale for the uphold/strike down decision. Then that justice and his clerks will draft a document that at least four others will accept.

    To assign preparation of the majority opinion to himself, Roberts must vote with the majority.

    If Roberts assigns the opinion to himself, I expect wiggle and wishwash. If Thomas or Alito, I would expect clear and direct.

    Which do you think is most likely?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2021
    DoubleMag likes this.
  7. LNK

    LNK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    685
    Location:
    E TN
    The fly in the ointment, is that currently, well connected individuals "can" get a carry permit, even in NYC. Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? Seems to me, a layman, that NY may just be backed into a corner.

    JMHO
     
    stillquietvoice likes this.
  8. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,505
    Location:
    Illinois
    The 13th amendment bans involuntary servitude. Yet in practice we still had massive involuntary servitude in the form of the draft, which is about the worst kind of involuntary servitude you can get.
     
  9. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,264
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    The draft is not "involuntary servitude"; the Constitution gives congress authority to "call forth a militia." It's not slavery because soldiers get paid, and while I believe 18 year Olds must register, we do not currently have a draft, military service is voluntary.
     
  10. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,638
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    There are "smart people" who agree with you,
    The obvious machinations they used to moot the previous NYC case are part of the reason the case was narrowed.

    The biggest rock-n-hard place NYS is in is that getting a permit is capricious and/or felicitous. So, if you live in County A but not B; or you are lucky enough to know Person X, or to not have run afoul of Person Y, you might or might not get a permit. Even if you follow all the rules. And can come up with a "legitimate" reason.

    For all the flaws and foibles of American jurisprudence, it holds "randomness" as most abhorrent.
     
  11. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,889


    Why do you think they did that?
     
  12. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,210
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    Barret, unlike others, actually has 2A history with/against Barr in her previous role.

    Personally, I dont think shes as much a wild card as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
     
  13. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,812
    Location:
    Central Florida
    I wonder if SCOTUS will combine the Hawaii case with this one.
    They seem somewhat similar.

    AFS
     
  14. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,889


    Interesting that you brought Hawaii up. This article from a few days ago discussed it stating that the Hawaii one was a better case. He even said they could combine the two cases and still make a ruling by next June which would be the same time as the current case. Here's 2 screen shots of the much longer article. I don't have time to cut and paste all of it.



    https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/30/making-more-sense-of-the-limited-cert-grant-in-nys-rifle-pistol-association-v-corlett/




    Screenshot_20210514-123647_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20210514-123705_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20210514-123724_Chrome.jpg
     
    danez71 likes this.
  15. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    29,757
    Location:
    Florence, Alabama
    I doubt it. They wanted a case that could be decided with narrow opinion and little practical effect.
     
    GEM likes this.
  16. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,638
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    No, that's in a separate jurisdiction.
    As are the very similar cases being brought in Maryland and New Jersey.

    Until they reach the SC's doorstep, they are somebody else's problem.

    Also, SC is not free to just combine cases.
     
  17. luzyfuerza

    luzyfuerza Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    RKBA-Friendly Utah
    For only one reason: to ensure that they locked up that critical fifth vote.

    This might be a case where a sixth vote, perhaps from Roberts, strengthens the apparent majority but weakens the opinion. If he writes it.

    How often does SCOTUS get to define for all time the meaning and scope of a critical phrase in the Bill of Rights? Thank you to the freedom-minded justices who are managing this process so carefully! Thank you to the founders who had the foresight to include the words "...and bear..." in the second amendment!
     
  18. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,884
    Location:
    WNY
    We just don't know. Kavanaugh is sometimes thought to be a waffle in step with Roberts. I think Jim Watson nailed it. There will be a very limited minor relief in NYS and no grand, sweeping definition decision that asserts carry rights without restrictions except for age, felony status and adjudicated mental illness.

    NYS will ditch the reasons but keep the references, training, etc.
     
  19. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,878
    Location:
    Virginia
    Historically, "bearing arms" had a specific meaning, in the military context. It was not synonymous with merely "carrying."

    The way I read the 2nd Amendment, from a historical point of view, was that the militia (meaning just about everyone) had the right to keep their guns (meaning arms suitable for military purposes) at home, and then to take them out of the home when called for a militia muster.

    Note that in 1791, nobody disputed the right of individual self-defense, the right to own ordinary civilian weapons, etc. These were just there, in the background, were non-controversial, and would not have been the subject of a constitutional provision. No, the Founders were thinking about the Lexington/Concord incident, when the British tried to seize the colonists' militia arms stockpile.

    Now, I realize that the whole argument about the meaning of the 2nd is quite different from what it would have been in 1791. There's a whole overlay of 200+ years of history. But then let's not talk about the concept of "originalism." Whatever it does, the Supreme Court is "legislating from the bench."
     
    wmgeorge likes this.
  20. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,210
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    Even RBG disagrees with you.


    https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/concealed-carry-and-the-right-to-bear-arms#_ftn4
     
    stillquietvoice likes this.
  21. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,878
    Location:
    Virginia
    The Supreme Court may well adopt your definition of "bearing." That's not to say that that's what "bearing" meant in 1791. It was a technical term back then, so "natural meaning" had nothing to do with it. Look at the military drill manuals of the day, to see when someone was considered to be "bearing" and when he was not. (For example, when ordered to "stack arms" or "ground arms," the troops were no longer considered to be "bearing." To be "bearing," they had to be standing at arms in a military formation or under military orders.) It simply wasn't a term that was relevant to civilian life. Anyone who was "bearing arms" was presumed to be a soldier. You didn't "bear arms," for example, to hunt.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2021
  22. natman

    natman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,871
    The Supreme Court has adopted that definition:

    At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. DC v Heller, pages 10-11
     
    danez71 likes this.
  23. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,210
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    It's not "my" definition. It's SCOTUS' definition.



    I think that SCOTUS definition carris more weight than yours given the resources available to SCOTUS, and that it was opined by liberal RBG and then supported by other liberal and conservative SCOTUS justices over decades.


    The definition really hasn't been challanged by anyone but you that I know of.

    But even if it had, it's settled by SCOTUS so your definition doesn't mean squat and you know that.
     
  24. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,889

    I wonder what the chance of Roberts writing the opinion is?


    Who do you think will most likely be chosen to write the opinion?
     
  25. Pudge

    Pudge Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    607
    Location:
    Tioga County, PA
    There are two terms that have definitions. Bear and arms. You could bear a burden, or bear news for instance, outside of a military context.

    While I'm sure that the military had their own specific meaning for certain terms, then, much as they do today, I'm not sure military manuals are the best source for a common understanding of specific terms in any era.
     
    danez71 likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice