JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
So if I make someone my slave for 6 years, violating their civil rights, get sued, and right before trial I release them from slavery, we just go our separate ways like nothing happened.

Smart thinkin' Supremes...
 
It may be an unpopular opinion here, but I think they did the right thing.
If they'd heard the case surrounding a repealed law it would have (correctly) marked the court as "politicized". In our favor, yes, but it would color all of their decisions moving forward.

Getting accolades and praise from stupid liberal outlets isn't the point and means less than 0. Sometimes you gotta play dirty if you're gonna rassle w pigs... l totally get (and agree with) that. I also have little doubt that a left-leaning court would have happily taken advantage of a similar situation and we would have rightly cried foul.

The SCOTUS is no place to play politics... the dirty stuff needs to stay in the Capitol where it belongs.

Just my opinion.
I think your right on track here, that NYC law became a "Moot" point when they decided to change it, ( and playing the shell game) what SCOTUS really needs is an Iron clad case that clearly settles the 2nd once and for all!

I have always said, it would only take one case to bring the whole 2nd into review and ether uphold it in it's entirety AS WRITTEN, or shut it down!
We need a definitive case with a definitive ruling!
 
Format of this post may not be clear that all this is from the Volokh column hosted at Reason - link below:


"Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence:

And I share Justice ALITO's concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.
Justice Alito wrote in his dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch:

We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern.

Immediately after the case was decided, the Supreme Court distributed 6 Second Amendment cases for the May 1, 2020 conference (H/T to the Duke Center for Firearms Blog.)

  1. Mance v. Barr (5th Circuit)—challenge to federal prohibition on out-of-state handgun purchases
  2. Pena v. Horan (9th Circuit)—challenge to California's prohibition on "unsafe" handguns (including "microstamping" requirement)
  3. Gould v. Lipson (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
  4. Rogers v. Grewal (3rd Circuit)—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
  5. Cheeseman v. Polillo (N.J. Supreme Court)— challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
  6. Ciolek v. New Jersey (N.J. Supreme Court )—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
"


 
There is a principle in law about judicial efficiency. All the Supremes had to do was craft a short opinion to resolve the debate, something like this:

"This / these laws are plainly in violation of the express language, meaning, and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. And while NY has cleverly retracted its law, after years of civil rights violations, we find that harm was done and future harm by similar laws will be done if this is not forever addressed and settled.

Is a thief not guilty even when, after caught, he returns the stolen item? Is a rapist not guilty even after getting caught and apologizing? Is a liar not culpable even after apologizing once his lie is revealed? A knife wielding attacker causing harm to a victim, is not exonerated once the victim receives medical care and heals. While mitigating steps to fix the harm are recognized in the law, they never undo the harm or broken law. Fixing the conduct is not a defense, it is mitigation on the punishment. The bedrock of our judiciary holds illegal behavior accountable, regardless of the mitigation the guilty party does to fix it. The guilt is in the actions. Mitigation is a separate matter. And in the case before us, civil rights were plainly violated for a number of years and unknown, unknowable, and unquantifiable harm was done.

We recognize it takes years and significant economic investment (economic harm) to get relief through the Courts. Allowing respondents/defendants to control the litigation process by "fixing" their illegal behavior on the eve of trial, and "mea culpa, and a pass" both rewards bad actors and fails to give plaintiffs their 'day in court.' We are making it widely and clearly known that this law, and others that plainly violate the clear language and intent of the 2nd Amendment, are Un-Constitutional and cannot be "fixed" once infringed upon by merely withdrawing it. So today we take two plain actions. We first enact a nationwide injunction against any state gun control measures XYZ that are in violation as being on the face a violation of the 2nd Amendment, utilizing a strict scrutiny standard of review. Secondly, to put teeth to these words, we award the plaintiffs compensatory damages of all costs and fees and punitive damages of this astronomical amount to be placed into a trust and divided among all gun owners in the state who can file a claim for harm."
 
And, the other shoe just dropped, WHEN when the States be held legally bound to SCOTUS rulings? Plenty of States step on the constitution daily, it's what gave us "Sanctuary City/State" Status, it's when States preempt Abortion law, and the most obvious, Second Amendment laws! When the Local/City/State see no punishment for running amook over our rights!
 
Allowing respondents/defendants to control the litigation process by "fixing" their illegal behavior on the eve of trial, and "mea culpa, and a pass" both rewards bad actors and fails to give plaintiffs their 'day in court

and this is the issue.
 
Format of this post may not be clear that all this is from the Volokh column hosted at Reason - link below:


"Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence:

And I share Justice ALITO's concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Justice Alito wrote in his dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch:

We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern.

Immediately after the case was decided, the Supreme Court distributed 6 Second Amendment cases for the May 1, 2020 conference (H/T to the Duke Center for Firearms Blog.)

  1. Mance v. Barr (5th Circuit)—challenge to federal prohibition on out-of-state handgun purchases
  2. Pena v. Horan (9th Circuit)—challenge to California's prohibition on "unsafe" handguns (including "microstamping" requirement)
  3. Gould v. Lipson (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
  4. Rogers v. Grewal (3rd Circuit)—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
  5. Cheeseman v. Polillo (N.J. Supreme Court)— challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
  6. Ciolek v. New Jersey (N.J. Supreme Court )—challenge to New Jersey's "may issue" conceal carry licensing regime
"



Looks like it was updated after you posted, adding 4 more cases:

Reason said:
Update: SCOTUSBlog located four more Second Amendment cases that were distributed for the 5/1/20 conference:

  1. Worman v. Healey (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts ban on "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines
  2. Malpasso v. Pallozzi (4th Circuit)—challenge to Maryland's "may issue" conceal carry license regime
  3. Culp v. Raoul (7th Circuit)—Challenge to Illinois's ban on allowing non-residents to apply for conceal carry license
  4. Wilson v. Cook County (7th Circuit)—Challenge to Cook County's ban on "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines
We should know Monday morning whether there is a new grant. And invariably, the local governments will try to moot the cases. Again.



Ray
 
SCOTUS has as much as told state legislators and lower courts that they have DECIDED this and are pretty sick and GD tired of their actions in direct contradiction to their decisions.

What's really funny is when the antis say that the 2A was decided and done with (as NOT an individual right) until recently because the Supremes hadn't heard a 2A case. To the contrary, it (2A) never went to SCOTUS because it was widely ACCEPTED as an individual right and rarely questioned... they try to spin a lack of push-back due to bad legislation as acquiescence to THEIR point of view... freakin' retarded way of thinking and totally illogical and anti-acedemic... a (farcical) stance they just LOVE to coopt as their own.
 
The three who dissented do.

Point is, we've all been anticipating an inevitable showdown in the SCOTUS to settle this bubblegum once and for all, and yet, the past few times that they've had an opportunity to rule, they've punted for the most part.

I'm about fed up with this thinking that it even has to be necessary to have the court's declaration that government is not within their limited powers to infringe on an inalienable civil right. How bubbleguming hard is it for the SCOTUS to finalize it and put these over-reaching state governments in line with the U.S. constitution?
 
Point is, we've all been anticipating an inevitable showdown in the SCOTUS to settle this bubblegum once and for all, and yet, the past few times that they've had an opportunity to rule, they've punted for the most part.
...

This is why we need one more judge. If Trump wins we'll get it for certain as RBG will retire.
 
More:


I'm not so sure that there's going to be a "Second Amendment day of reckoning", as I beginning to believe that SCOTUS adding those 10 gun cases to their 1 May conference, is just a shell game, to try to get us forget about them about not ruling on NYSRPA vs NYC. The petitions may have added to the conference, but are they actually going to grant cert (hear the case) or just keep them in conference for eternity? It's looking like the latter, as they've only granted cert to two cases and neither had anything to do with the 2A.


At least @Dave Workman got a mention on the Monday Round up...........



Ray
 
Would have been nice to see strict scrutiny. This just shows they are just as spineless and ineffective as Congress.

Guess it's 3d printing to the rescue, because nobody has our back.
No you want strict scrutiny on a solid case. This one being moot would color the ruling. There are more good cases coming. We'll get it.
 
No new grants today
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices' private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week's conference.
The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City's ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices' May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There's no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.



Ray
 

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors May 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top