Does this brief help at all in SCOTUS’s decision making?
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourn...overturn-nyc-gun-law/?slreturn=20190417144910
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourn...overturn-nyc-gun-law/?slreturn=20190417144910
I sure hope it doesn’t. I want the Supreme Court to act on and decide cases based entirely on merit and Constitutionality. Not for the desires, wishes, or urges of ANY administration.
I sure hope this doesn't go Trump's way. States should have the right to regulate guns within their own borders, just like the Founders intended.
That doesn't negate the right of the states to set gun laws. Scalia said precisely that in Heller.McDonald v. Chicago crossed that bridge in 2010. The RKBA is "incorporated" into due process, just like the 1st amendment guarantees of free speech or the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
That's different than saying that the federal government has the right to regulate those things. Constitutional individual-right backstops are different than grants of federal authority.
That doesn't negate the right of the states to set gun laws. Scalia said precisely that in Heller.
States should have the right to regulate guns within their own borders
That doesn't negate the right of the states to set gun laws. Scalia said precisely that in Heller.
As long as that law doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, it's valid. And before the Heller decision, more than a century of jurisprudence held that the 2nd only applied to the federal government and the constructionist idea that the right to keep and bear arms was of a military intent and tied to militia service.
-edit- To clarify, the 2nd Amendment was very limited in its scope and it was the states who protected gun rights of their citizens. We can see plenty of examples in state constitutions where gun rights are much more well-defined as belonging to individuals for legal purposes.
No dichotomy there. According to contemporary commentary at the time the Amendment was adopted, the people are the militia. If the Amendment is seen in this light, the general public has a right to the standard weaponry (machine guns, etc.) that the armed forces use. The idea of militia universality, grafted on to the Miller case (1939), gives us that result. This should be the main thrust of 2nd Amendment interpretation, not the aberration that is Heller. Heller was just a political compromise among the Justices, and not a statement of originalist principle.Also, the text is clear that the right is afforded to the people, not the militia.
No dichotomy there. According to contemporary commentary at the time the Amendment was adopted, the people are the militia.
The current legal definition of the militia, from 10 U.S.C. section 246(a), is as follows:Well, a big chunk of the people were, anyway - free males 18-45. But even those members of the population who weren't in the militia - such as women - are part of "the people" and entitled to keep and bear arms.
I sure hope this doesn't go Trump's way. States should have the right to regulate guns within their own borders, just like the Founders intended.
If he, as a resident of New York, wanted to file such a brief, that's one thing. But the president asking a federal court to overturn a state law just seems wrong. Hopefully Roberts remembers that its not his job to legislate from the bench. He seems to have tempered his early activist streak as of late but with guys like Kavanaugh ready and willing to continue his judicial activism, I don't hold high hopes for this court.
More bigger government is coming I'm afraid.
Yes, that was exactly my point. The militia in 1791 was much more "universal" than the militia as legally defined today.In today's terms that would most likely be analogous to 20-65,
I am not a legal eagle or beagle, but I disagree that the states have the right to strictly limit a basic right to the point of its non-existence. Just as states were stopped from setting voting criteria aimed at racist goals, they should not be able to limit the RKBA in the manner I mentioned.
Political stunt.
There will be loads of Amicus briefs. The President 's is more noticeable than some others.
But an allegedly Federalist administration calling for judicial action to overturn laws passed, however ignorantly, by the elected representatives of NYC residents is a stretch philosophically.
It's all messaging, which is fine.
Political stunt.
There will be loads of Amicus briefs. The President 's is more noticeable than some others.
But an allegedly Federalist administration calling for judicial action to overturn laws passed, however ignorantly, by the elected representatives of NYC residents is a stretch philosophically.
It's all messaging, which is fine.