National SCOTUS to hear major gun case

[ATCclears]

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a New York law that limits carrying concealed firearms outside the home, potentially loosening gun laws nationwide in the first major Second Amendment case since 2010.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, will be scheduled for argument in the court's next term, which begins Oct. 4.

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Right to Carry Concealed Guns for Self-Defense

It is the first major Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has heard since 2010 and one that could lead to a loosening of gun laws nationwide.

www.wsj.com

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

I can just hear the screaming and wailing from one side if they do side with gun owners.

 

[CHLChris]

When SCOTUS grants cert it is usually because the 4 who granted it believe they can get (or already have) a 5th vote to overturn the lower court decision.

I am concerned that Roberts, who is so scared of court-packing that he is pushing the court to the left to placate the LEFT so they may not pack SCOTUS, will scare one of the newbies to refuse to overturn.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Well, it worked for FDR, the one president that probably should have actually been impeached and removed.

 

[pdempsey1097]

This is looong overdue.
Either way, at least we'll know if our rights are still protected by the Constitution.

 

[Tinman357]

A pivotal moment to be sure. They come down on the wrong side, history may point to this as the start of something horrible.

 

[s1xty7]

I can just hear the screaming and wailing from one side if they do side with gun owners.

And I can just hear the screaming and wailing from the other side if they don't side with gun owners.

Edit: I should clarify, I meant that as gun owners screaming and wailing in anger, but I can see how one could get other meanings out of that. It starts to take on a much darker and more serious tone.

 

[Nosferatu]

So do we get to burn cities down if the ruling doesn't go our way?

 

[nammac]

So do we get to burn cities down if the ruling doesn't go our way?

They don't want us to start that, there'd be nothing left but scorched earth

 

[Nosferatu]

They don't want us to start that, there'd be nothing left but scorched earth

That would be a bad thing?

 

[E4mafia]

K, keep me posted.

 

[RicInOR]

Making Sense of the Limited Cert Grant in NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett

Link to case: No. 20-843

Search

 

[titsonritz]

I can just hear the screaming and wailing from one side if they do side with gun owners.

You mean again?

 

[Stomper]

I've said it before....


Do NOT count on lawyers wearing black robes to save you, or to do the right thing. You'll be disappointed EVERY time.

 

[cigars]

We already know how that yob Roberts is going to vote. Don't need Vegas odds on that.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Honestly between a bad precedent and the D packing the court, I'd be hard pressed to make a choice. But then that logic got us into the welfare state we live in now so ....

 

[P7M13]

They don't want us to start that, there'd be nothing left but scorched earth

To that, I laughed and said, "phukin'-a-right, Bubba!"
In reality, gun owners will most likely be very civil about it.

I think the time will come, we shall see who is a true supporter, and who is a fudd.

 

[MichaelH]

www.nytimes.com

Reposted from the NYT.

[h3][/h3]

Supreme Court to Hear Gun Control Case

Adam Liptak

8 - 10 minutes

---

The justices, who have not issued a major Second Amendment ruling since 2010, will consider a challenge to a longstanding New York gun control law.

 

[RicInOR]

SCOTUS Will Decide Whether the Right To Bear Arms Extends Beyond Your Doorstep

While it may seem obvious that the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" extends beyond the home, federal courts…

reason.com

 

[CharlesNichols]

The justices rewrote the question presented to the Court for the justices to decide. The question presented is not whether or not there is a right to carry a firearm in public. The question presented is whether or not the denial of the petitioners' applications for [unrestricted] concealed carry permits violated the Second Amendment.

Why was the question changed?

Two reasons seem likely. First of all, the petitioners never challenged the New York state prohibition on the Open Carry of handguns or the New York City prohibition on the Open Carry of long guns.

Secondly, the dissent in Heller criticized the majority not for saying that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional, the four judges in the dissent wholeheartedly agreed with the five justices in the majority on that point, the criticism was not explaining "Why?" prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.

Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion that Heller was the first in-depth analysis and there will be time enough to provide the historical justification for why bans on concealed carry, and bans on the possession of firearms from felons, and the mentally ill are constitutional.

NYSRPA v. Corlett gives the court the opportunity to articulate the methodology to be used in deciding Second Amendment cases, and then instruct the lower courts to follow its explicitly stated methodology from now on.

Justice Scalia reading from his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller -> https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

Chief Justice Roberts stating the methodology he would apply in deciding Second Amendment cases -> https://rumble.com/vg70rf-chief-justice-roberts-second-amendment-methodology.html