Dobbs & NYS Pistol & Rifle watch thread

Tomorrow starts the final tsunami of decisions of the term, Tuesday and Thursday this week, Monday of next week and possible Tuesday and Wednesday of next week will be decision days.

Just sitting and waiting until those decisions drop, but two quick notes.

  1. If Dobbs drops and Alito is still the author, conservatives have won and no need to even look at the actual decision. If Dobbs drops and the Chief Justice is the author, that means one of the Justices retreated and conservatives can, without reading the decision, can proceed to bang heads on desk while liberals on the other hand should read to find out how much they lost and how much they kept.

  2. If NYS P&R drops and Thomas is the author, ditto to the above. If NYS P&R drops and the Chief Justice is the author, ditto to the above.

There, I just saved everybody some time. :smile:

Well, until either or both of those decisions drop.


@Safiel - Thoughts on the drop of the draft? And how the investigation is proceeding?


The fourth opinion today was by the Chief Justice, so if we see either Dobbs or NYS Pistol & Rifle today, it would be by the Chief Justice.

I imagine we will get one more opinion today by the Chief Justice or possibly a per curiam.

For those unfamiliar, on opinion days the Justices release decisions in reverse order of seniority, meaning that once the Chief Justice releases an opinion, any additional opinions would be by the Chief Justice.

I was very disappointed in the leak, though the draft itself was well written. As for the investigation, that has been kept under wraps, no developments to share that I know of.

Final decision of the day by the Chief Justice was just released.

No Dobbs, no NYS Pistol & Rifle.

On to Thursday. :smile:

WE HAVE NYS Pistol & Rifle and it is by THOMAS.

1 Like

Result not a surprise. Anouther blow to libs.

1 Like

This is a complete and smashing victory for the Second Amendment.


THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

It was 6 to 3.

1 Like

This will clearly make it FAR more difficult for any gun control legislation to survive. Not impossible, but far more difficult.

1 Like

Will it doom red flag laws?

No, but it will clearly require that they be VERY tightly written.

1 Like

The fact that 3 justices support special privileges is extremely concerning for me.


They’re Progressive Democrats and it’s a gun control case. I’m not the least bit surprised.

It’s more then that…those 3 support/believe that Constitution supports special privileges for elites that rest of society doesn’t get that same luxury.

That’s the direction that libs…whether on that bench or here on this very forum have taken us.


Is this now where liberals have to scream about justices legislating from the bench or how they are part of some deep conspiracy or that a SC Justice has somehow been threatened or bribed.

You know, the usual guff we read when a SC decision does not go the way cons expect or want

1 Like

Breyer dissented in Heller

In fact, JUSTICE BREYER all but admitted that his Heller dissent advocated for intermediate scrutiny by repeatedly invoking a quintessential intermediate­scrutiny precedent.


Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years?


Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?


Breyer’s dissent. Pure emotion

Second Amendment prevents democratically elected offi­cials from enacting laws to address the serious problem of gun violence. And yet the Court today purports to answer that question without discussing the nature or severity of that problem.

He admits it.