Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

Supreme Court passes on Second Amendment cases challenging lifetime gun ownership ban

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Apr 19, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,168
    danez71 likes this.
  2. BigBore44

    BigBore44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,265
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The Supreme Court punts more than the ‘39 Texas Tech Red Raiders/Centenary Gentlemen game.
     
    bear166, gyp_c2, Bfh_auto and 2 others like this.
  3. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,609
    Location:
    Arizona
    The more fascinating aspect of the recent behavior of the USSC is their *rulings* by absenting themselves - that they are performing of late.

    Failing to take up a case is of course, supporting a previous ruling regardless the esoteric, double-speak reasoning that they often use.

    It's like the tools in Congress thinking they can dodge accountability by being absent or registering a non-vote. They are still identified by their context.

    Todd.
     
    BigBore44, Pat Riot, hps1 and 12 others like this.
  4. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    588
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    A lot of folks were hanging their hopes on a “conservative” court. With what’s going on in this country and the media’s role in inciting more violence, is any one surprised the court punted on a gun issue. The court will not help loosen gun rights with the civil disturbance on the rise. Try to ban firearms across the board and I believe that’s a bridge to far. We need Frank in on this.
     
    BlueHeelerFl and Bfh_auto like this.
  5. BigBore44

    BigBore44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,265
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Why? It’s speculation as to why they punted. Could be public opinion since we keep having shootings. Could be because of the threat to pack the court. Could be because the SCOTUS is actually disinterested in the cases and believes the lower court rulings should stand. I just wish they were required to go on record and write an explanation why they pass certain cases, not just regarding the 2A.
     
    kcofohio, Pat Riot, hps1 and 4 others like this.
  6. Bfh_auto

    Bfh_auto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Messages:
    6,465
    They're doing what they do best. Bowing out on important cases.
    My late father said if you change your opinion based out of fear. You have no business being a judge. I agree with him.
     
  7. ev780

    ev780 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2021
    Messages:
    86
    Lots of 2A cases in the pipeline. Maybe they are waiting on the right case. I dunno, just hopeful.
     
    Pahonix, Dunross and BigBore44 like this.
  8. Twiki357

    Twiki357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,040
    Location:
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    Right now they may just trying to keep a low profile to avoid stirring up support for the court packing push. But I agree with post 5 that they should provide an explanation as to why they pass on accepting a case.
     
  9. 230RN

    230RN I keep pushing that pendulum back.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,654
    Location:
    Colorado
    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/11891633/

    Me. Too.

    Terry, 230RN
     
  10. natman

    natman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,000
    Keep in mind that for every case they take, the Supreme Court passes on 99 others.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  11. Pat Riot

    Pat Riot Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    Messages:
    5,682
    Location:
    West Virginia
    Judges are judges. Not politicians.
    I heard a doctor say “When politics and medicine come together, politics always wins, which is unfortunate.”
    That also appears to be the case with justice in this country today.
     
    alsaqr and BlueHeelerFl like this.
  12. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,688
    Location:
    WNY
    We've heard that for a long,. long time now. As the threat to gun rights becomes more to fore, it's getting old. However, on the antigun side, they despair that they can't get anything through the Senate, although they see some positive signs for HBCs, not so much for AWBs.
     
  13. Pahonix

    Pahonix Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2021
    Messages:
    66
    I'm hoping you're right
     
  14. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,894
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    From single-issue viewpoint, every case passed on relating to that single issue looks personal, venal, and crass. And are usually assigned vitriol appropriate to such notions.

    However, the metrics are absolute. SCOTUS is presented anywhere from 3200-3500 case per year, and can only actually hear 700-800 cases at maximum. (For the 40 week SCOTUS 'year' that 20 cases per week--four per day.)

    So, many "issues" do not get considered. Issues critical to those invested in them as single-issue controversies.
    And, many minor cases get brought to SCOTUS, along with piles of pre-trial motions arguing procedure.

    In this specific case, life-time bans on becoming a Prohibited Person is really an issue of the difference between USC and CFR and funding of agencies. To wit, a problem created y the Legislative and Executive ranches between themselves. 18 USC 922 was cooked up by Congress, and left to be administered by the Executive Branch (and by defunding portions of the law they themselves created). That's not really Constitutional--that's procedural.

    Yes, there's an excellent argument regarding permanent disenfranchisement of free citizens being abhorrent to Liberty, but none of the cases brought that as an argument.

    Just because a case is brought to SCOTUS does not mean it's properly framed as a constitutional issue--the NYC lawsuit being an excellent example.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  15. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,688
    Location:
    WNY
    We will see if an AWB or limitations on carry in some states are a constitutional issue. I see that we may see the NYC moot case as peripheral as this case might be. However, they ditched more direct 'constitutional' cases due to Roberts being an anti. What will happen with the new more focuses cases is an unknown and whether they get off their glacial pace is maddening. But Judge Amy had time for a book deal.

    Clarence is getting into drop dead any day age range - Democrats worry about Breyer. We didn't think Scalia would just drop dead - surprise.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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