Messages
11,586
Reactions
26,372
"New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Kinda weak, Reverse & Remand rather than an explicit "now listen here you f***ing morons this is what you will do" only invites further mischief from NY, CA etc. tinkering to cling to their Arbitrary/Capricious (usually No-)Issue until it finally gets shoved up their arses so hard they puke brown.
 
Messages
10
Reactions
28
Isn't this is the important text that will affect mag and semi-auto bans? Lots of stuff will be headed back to the 9th Circus:
(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22. (1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a "two-step" framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller's methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
 
Messages
2,375
Reactions
5,565
"New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Kinda weak, Reverse & Remand rather than an explicit "now listen here you f***ing morons this is what you will do" only invites further mischief from NY, CA etc. tinkering to cling to their Arbitrary/Capricious (usually No-)Issue until it finally gets shoved up their arses so hard they puke brown.
"We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

That phrase is basically a legal bubblegum slap to the lower court. Not sure how you see it as weak.

-E-
 
Messages
663
Reactions
539
This is so much bigger than expected. My instinct and that of others (as in the video above) was that “strict scrutiny” would be the outcome. This is SO MUCH MORE.

Even a “strict scrutiny” ruling would have made awbs and mag bans difficult, but the “no scrutiny” of the actual ruling is a stake through the heart.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top