News came out yesterday.
WIth a win for the NYSRPA would – presumably if incorporated – require “strict scrutiny” of gun laws compliance with the Second Amendment. Literally, they could not infringe the right of the people to keep and carry firearms, provided they aren’t otherwise disqualified from doing so.
The left is getting the vapors.
And while Roberts conservative credentials have proven to be less than stellar, it’s worth remembering he voted with the majority on Heller and MacDonald.
Expect Big Left to mount the mother of all full-court presses.
Citizens United big?
I’d wager a shiny new quarter on it.
Much more on this on Monday’s episode of the “MN Gun Report” podcast (which, as noted about ten words ago, comes out on Monday).
We’ll see.
If the SCOTUS throws us under the bus on this one, we’re cooked.
Yes.
But as I’ve seen this explained, the reason we haven’t had a case before the SCOTUS that would lead to the use of “strict scrutiny” in reviewing state gun laws is that Scalia (while he was alive) and now Alito didn’t believe that Roberts was 100% on board (notwithstanding that he’d joined the majority with Heller and Macdonald), and that bringing a strict scrutiny case without a nearly sure shot at getting five votes would likely do more harm than good to the “Individual Right” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
With Justice Coney-Barrett, Alito figures the votes are there to make this a nearly sure 5–4 win, and if Roberts doesn’t waver, the good guys will win 6–3.
The theory is, ACB replacing RBG gives Alito the votes he needs to win, with or without Roberts.
Let’s hope, and perhaps even pray, that Roberts doesn’t want to look like a flip flopper by voting differently than he did on Heller.
Roberts has proven to be quite an unreliable asshole, but it’s worth the risk for a win. If we lose, it doesn’t much matter anyway.
DPS, why unreliable? Just an asshole!
it’s worth the risk for a win.
My point – Alito has managed the risk, and with Coney-Barrett on the bench, it’s acceptable. Even without Roberts, it should be 5-4. And Roberts ruled for Heller and Mcdonald, so he’s not a writeoff.
“The New York law is over a century old,” Mr. Waldman said. “It has been the basis for gun laws in cities across the country. Among other things, if the justices really are going to be guided by history and tradition, this law should stand.”
Translation: we’ve been doing it wrong for a long time, so that makes it right.
Oddly, that reasoning did not apply to gay marriage.
This is the most racist, pro-slavery post that has ever appeared on SITD.
Just ask Kraephammer.
If they need Roberts, they will get reject NY’s law with a narrow definition that doesn’t apply to any other state or laws.
If they don’t need Roberts, they may go big.
If they are going to uphold it, why accept the case?
My prediction is that whatever it takes to keep the so-called conservatives on the court voting as the left wants will be done. There’s gotta be pictures of Roberts somewhere (shame anyone might publish them) and Coney-Barrett has children in school (shame anything might happen to them) – same with Kavanaugh. That should be enough along with two bints and Breyer. Prepare for a loss.
A member of our well regulated militia leaves a loaded handgun in a bedroom drawer. His 12 year old son brings the gun to school and fires off a few shots in the hallway. The dad says he “had seen nothing…to indicate such an incident was possible.”
Plymouth 6th-grader fires gun in school; dad says boy took gun from home ~ Star Tribune
https://www.startribune.com/plymouth-6th-grader-fires-gun-in-school-dad-says-boy-took-gun-from-home/600050309/
Somewhere, a doctor botched an operation. Ban all doctors.
Somewhere, a crime was committed by a knife wielding thug. Ban all knives.
Somewhere, a person was killed in a motor vehicle accident. Ban all cars.
Somewhere, a person got hurt by debris falling from a building – ban all engineers, masons, bricklayers, glazers, windows, bricks, mortar, lumber, copper, aluminum.
Somewhere… yes folks, this is libturd logic at work. Scary, huh?
Dad is dumb ass for:
A. Not having the gun locked up and
B. He left it loaded.
I’m not an expert on Second Amendment interpretation but fortunately for me everyone else is.
SCOTUS didn’t recognize an individual right to bear arms until 2008 in Heller, so it’s between half a century and a century behind in answering basic interpretive questions about the 2nd Amendment, so we get to see that process play out on blogs and social media, which will be charming
Tater drooled: “A member of our well regulated militia leaves a loaded handgun in a bedroom drawer. His 12 year old son brings the gun to school and fires off a few shots in the hallway. The dad says he “had seen nothing…to indicate such an incident was possible.”
Black 12 year old popping caps off at school? No one ever saw that coming..
The Supreme Court didn’t recognize a right to abortion to 1973 with Roe, and to gay marriage until 2015 with Obergefell, when it suddenly claimed we’d been doing things wrong all along and overturned centuries of tradition and history. The court has been slow in ruling on a lot of social issues never contemplated by the Founders.
This case could pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to concealed public carry, overriding many state and local restrictions on the ability to bear concealed arms in public.
Emery is not only badly informed, he thinks that the constitutionality of a law should be decided using anecdotes.
This case could pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to abortion on demand, overriding many state and local restrictions.
This case could pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, overriding many state and local restrictions.
This case could pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to incest, pederasty, and beastiality, overriding many state and local restrictions.
This case could pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to drive drunk or high, overriding many state and local restrictions.
This case could pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right of Black people to murder Whites as compensation for slavery, overriding many state and local restrictions.
I’m starting to wonder if the cause of social decay lies with guns, or elsewhere?
EI, it’s worth noting that in the post-bellum era, the 2nd Amendment was one of the first provisions of the Bill of Rights incorporated against the states. So no, originalism with regards to the 2nd Amendment did not start with Heller or MacDonald. Akhil Reed Amar wrote a book detailing the precedent. The dictionary meaning of the Amendment was sadly forgotten for a while (due to Democrats wanting to infringe it to establish Jim Crow laws in part), but the tradition of literal application of the 2nd Amendment is old.
Another point of reference is that a predecessor of the Bill of Rights, the 1688 English Bill of Rights, also has a phrase that is about the same as the 2nd Amendment.
Oh, bike, what’s a couple hundred years of jurisprudence compared to making up rhetorically clever shit for political gain?
I will view all Supreme Court decisions about guns to be purely political until they allow guns to be carried in the courtroom itself. Until then, one can only marvel at the hypocrisy of gun laws that are viewed as a question of freedom outside the court but viewed as a safety issue inside the chamber.
No one cares what you think, Emery. As usual, you aren’t even asking the right questions.
Your version of the 2nd amendment would read “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, unless some fool leaves a loaded gun where a child might find it.”
You are a shallow thinker and you are tedious when you express the random results of your “reasoning.”
Emmery squeeked
“SCOTUS didn’t recognize an individual right to bear arms until 2008 “
Wrong, In a majority opinion that has never been reversed Chief Justice Roger Tanney recognized that individual right in 1858.
sorry, typo; Chief Justice Roger TANEY
It doesn’t matter, does it? According to liberal ideology, the abortion issue was hiding in the constitution all along, literally hiding in its shadow.
You wanna change the constitution, do the f’n work. Convince people. Jeebus, the libs own education, the media, the federal bureaucracy and most of the lawyers. You would think that they would be smart enough to realize that if they control all of that, and STILL can’t get a majority of states or congress to agree with their amendment, they are missing something big & maybe they don’t really have the truth and the people on their side.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 04.27.21 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain
The Chauvin case proved one thing beyond a reasonable doubt: Democrats are the new Jacobins, willing to sacrifice victims to the mob for political spectacle. The mob outside the courthouse in Minneapolis will be nothing compared to the mob outside the Supreme Court when the case is argued. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Chuck Schumer holding an actual pitchfork and standing next to Nancy Pelosi holding a photo of Amy’s children to send a clear message . . . vote the way we want or your family dies.
Clarence Thomas grew up poor and Black in the South. He survived a high tech lynching at his confirmation hearing. He has faced down Democrats his entire life. He’ll stand tall for Strict Scrutiny. The others? I have my doubts.
Welcome to Third World Shithole ‘justice,’ brought to you by the same people who are bringing in the Third World Shithole residents who invented it.
AlphaNewsMN confirms JD’s Third World Shithole ‘justice’.
Protesters continue to occupy the street in front of a Stillwater, Minnesota, prosecutor’s home, over a week after their demonstrations against the attorney first grabbed headlines.
The street is blocked. A residential street where people live.
If that were my street, jdm, my neighbors and I would have our lawn sprinklers turned on them the minute they set up camp.
It would be a shame if any of the Jacobins got hurt by, say, someone driving down that street in a pickup equipped with snowplow. How are innocent motorists to know when and where the road is closed? This is probably why some states are considering laws to allow motorists to run over protesters who aren’t where they’re supposed to be.
As our resident scholar is fond of reminding us, no Constitutional right is absolute. The First Amendment does authorize blocking a public street while engaging in domestic terrorism.
Does? No, should have said Does Not.
In case you are unaware of how the fun in Stillwater all started. BLM blocks Stillwater man from getting home, police intervene and detain him.
Third World Shithole ‘justice’ indeed.
Actually, it might be fun for the County Attorney to say, “You know what? You want First Degree Murder, I’ll charge First Degree Murder and dismiss everything else. Of course, the judge will throw out the charge at the first hearing since teh evidence simply doesn’t support it, but hey, you wanted it, you got it, Toyota. Let the cop walk. It’s on your heads.”
Because after that, the mob won’t both to pressure the prosecutor any more; the mob will go directly to the offender’s house and drag her out to find a rope and a streetlamp.
Maybe that will wake up the sleeping majority to the hell-hole they’ve created.
The Biden will end the political violence in Stillwater and Minneapolis by carefully searching Facebook & Twitter for posts mentioning the words “stop the steal” and prosecuting them for . . . trespassing on the internet.
If that were my street, jdm, my neighbors and I would have our lawn sprinklers turned on them the minute they set up camp
Doctor Pete, I think you’ve misunderstood how this First Amendment thing works. In that first linked article, a link is provided of a neighbor who was a bit irate (Today in #Stillwater, MN, Washington County Attorney Pete Orput’s racist neighbors called us f’ing n*ggers during a peaceful demonstration demanding justice for #DaunteWright & murder charges against Kim Potter. The man in the video is a Paul Gorder, a 30 year vet of the MN DOC.).
[He] is currently on investigatory leave.
I remember way back in 2015, in the shadow of the death of Michael Brown and at the start of BLM , that I seriously thought I’d be willing to support BLM financially if they decided that they’d approach the problem of police involved shootings/killings by investigating the situation using detectives and lawyers. If, of course, they would be willing to admit that in many cases, the police were indeed justified in using lethal force.
And if they’d done this, I bet a nickel they’d have made a lot of progress in this area. Sadly, not the case.
jdm, I feel that woman’s frustration. I’m sick of blacks running wild, too. But calling them n*ggers (take that mod bot) might be momentarily satisfying, but it is not productive and will only serve to incite the fake media and White, self-loathing reprobates.
Focus on their behavior, and observe that mindless violence is a cultural thing among blacks that is not unique to the US. Let the facts stand on their merits and put the shame where it belongs.
Bubba, have you read Patrice Cullors bio? It was never about the police, with them.
I just got back from Stillwater, met a buddy for lunch. The action must be way back from the water, I didn’t see anything . . . unusual.
Took my R1150RT. Little bit chilly, but the heated handgrips helped.
While I agree with you, Doctor, I think it is worth mentioning that there is little, if any, good advice for those being victimized by a55holes operating under the guise of 1. Amendment rights. The point of my previous comment was that “returning the favor” by turning on your lawn sprinklers would get you in, ahem, hot water too.
Pete, never read much of Patrice Cullor’s , but you know what? I think that by making the challenge to hire some detectives to do a parallel investigation, I’m letting her announce her position for herself.
More fun and games. The Supreme Court was asked to answer one question, but has decided to answer a different question. It’s allowed to do that, of course, since it makes up its own rules and answers to nobody. But can you see the difference between the questions, and what implications the change might have on the ruling?
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/26/making-sense-of-the-limited-cert-grant-in-nys-rifle-pistol-association-v-corlett/
This all stems from Marbury v. Madison, the first case wrongly decided by the Supreme Court in which it gave itself a super-veto power that the Founders would never have agreed to give it.
Oh hell, jdm…we haven’t reached the point where showering stinking reprobates off is a crime…least not in my neck of the woods.
I’d just moisten them, maybe toss out a couple bars of soap and let them take it from there.
“Maybe that will wake up the sleeping majority to the hell-hole they’ve created.”
The French Revolution showes us – mobs are very slow to wake up. It usually requaires invading British, Dutch, Prussian and Russian troops to wake them up.