New York State Rifle

Heller and McDonald are being ignored. And they need to be filled in.

I believe there are several justices pissed because the Court is being ignored. They aren’t going to stand for it. I’m surprised it’s gone on this long.

It’s less that they’re being ignored, and more that the lower courts don’t know how to apply them. In both holdings, SCOTUS didn’t explain a standard in which to review gun control laws - leaving it up to the Circuits to come up with a standard on their own.

I suspect they didn’t lay out a standard because they couldn’t agree on one for the opinion - which also explains why they havent granted cert to any other 2nd Amendment cases since Macdonald. Whether they’ll be able to put one together this time remains to be seen - if they even get to the merits.

That 1st paragraph is horse ■■■■ and you know it.

I suspect they didn’t lay out a standard because they couldn’t agree on one for the opinion - which also explains why they havent granted cert to any other 2nd Amendment cases since Macdonald . Whether they’ll be able to put one together this time remains to be seen - if they even get to the merits.

In a November interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for “some important changes” to Scalia’s original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevens’s urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedy’s intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.

As I long suspected…

No, it’s completely correct. Why do you think, as you say, it’s gone on so long?

This fact is fairly well-known. That’s how it works, and it goes to my point above.

Heller left room for gun control laws, and didn’t explain what standard they should be measured by. Whether or not it was because Kennedy wouldn’t sign without it is irrelevant - it happened.

Now, if you think that since Kennedy is gone, a new ruling would strip that language, it’s possible. But I wouldn’t count on it.

I think Thomas, Kavanaugh and maybe Goresuch would sign that hypothetical opinion. But I don’t think Alito or Roberts would.

The Court isn’t going to hold that all gun control laws are unconstitutional. It’s just not going to happen.

No, it’s horse ■■■■■ just like I said. It’s gone on so long because they’re scared. They’re trapped and they know it. Just like with the Oklahoma case.

I didn’t say it would, but why won’t it happen? Are they not sworn to vote according to the Constitution?

Of course. But they’re not sworn to vote according to your interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, ruling according to their interpretation is pretty much the whole point of it.

Again, horse ■■■■■ There is only one “interpretation” of “shall not be infringed.”

Now, I would like to see you produce a line or paragraph from a SCOTUS ruling where they claim a restriction is not an infringement if you can. Good luck.

It is not “my interpretation” and you know it. Now you’ll claim it was “re-interpretated” to be an individual right in Heller. But you won’t think about why it was “interpretated” as a collective “right” (which does not exist in this country) in the first place. Nor what it took to arrive at that “interpretation” in the first place despite Presser (1886).

You will also not ask why it took until 2010 to incorporate one of the Bill of Rights against the states is spite of the 14th Amendment.

Will you ask yourself “Why Miller?” Probably not.

The list goes on and on.

But the Really Big Question is:

Will you recognize and acknowledge the pattern of the SCOTUS regarding this Right since at least 1875?

Freedom is a problem; especially for the Ruling Class.

Prior restraint born of fear.

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
Mencken

1 Like

Stare decisis is only acceptable if the prior rulings were in accordance with the Constitution.

Not some “interpretation” to achieve a desired outcome in complete contravention of the text.

2 Likes

Oh, and all you “Musket!” Genios need to look at Caetano v. Massachusetts as well as Heller.

Heller clearly spells out the types of limits that should be and are allowable. The language could not be clearer.

I disagree.

The language is not “clear” at all. This is an opinion shared by basically every court in this country.

You should read the Cato Institute’s amicus.

@WuWei, I think you’d find it interesting as well.

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

Waffling, negotiated horse ■■■■ as explained in the Vox article. Ambiguous list of “acceptable infringements”.

What in the 2nd Amendment allows for a dress code? (For example). Making me do it your © way is an infringement.

“Such as schools and government buildings…” and what else Tony? What makes either one “sensitive”? ■■■■■■■ “sensitive” to what?

Felons? Does that include those who have completed their sentence?

All weapons are ■■■■■■■ “dangerous” Tony, it’s one of the defining characteristics of a weapon. “Unusual” Tony? By what standard? The Bureau of Asses and Tom Foolery?

The only two positives in that ruling were 1) Reaffirmation that it is an individual right (Helen Keller could see) and 2) Reaffirmation that the 2nd did not only apply to muskets (Ray Charles, Ronnie Milsap and Stevie Wonder)

I would agree with you if this was a stand alone sentence with no further support or explanation.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

Of course it is not. He goes on in great detail and then gets very explicit.

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26

He then goes further referring back to Miller and supporting the findings in that case that weapons that are of use to militia service are specifically protected but that those protections do not rest only with those types of arms.

No matter how explicit he was the anti gun left would still argue ways around it but I think having spent a great deal of time on the subject since it was first published he was very clear in what types of restrictions were supported and what were not.

I’m not going to argue any of this with you. I’m way too tired, and my opinions on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence are confused at best. It’s not an issue I devote much attention to, because it’s not something I care much about.

As I see it now, I agree with the Court’s holding in Heller and MacDonald, and feel the Court should apply strict scrutiny to any possible statute/Constitutional issues, 2nd Amendment included.

I don’t know I agree with all the weird populism arguments you’ve made, and I also support reasonable gun control laws, particularly on the local level.

My views are conflicted and complicated. They’re in a state of evolution.

I handled it. And I read it, they are missing the mark as well. Although I appreciate their participation.

I don’t blame you.

1 Like

Good Lord change careers.

1 Like

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: what is this new kick of “populism”? What exactly do you think the Bill of Rights is?

Are you sure you know what “populism” means?

Yes. In the context that I’m using it, it means a position/ideology/worldview dominated by appeals to the “common man” by scapegoating and attacking the “elites”.