Defensive Carry banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,283 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Real Title: Supreme Court won’t hear New York gun law challenge
By David Sherfinski
The Washington Times
Monday, April 15, 2013

My Comments: They have always been very pragmatic on cases concerning Core Bill of Rights issues. Remember Larry Flint..............? You had better hope that all the Right leaning Judges stay in positon until the next POTUS election, or we may as well kiss our 2A goodbye.

........As the debate over gun rights heats up on Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition to hear a challenge to a key provision of New York state’s restrictive gun laws. (NOTE: These are laws about conceal carry - before the current NY Gun Grab laws of this year)

The high court without comment refused to take up a petition challenging a lower court’s upholding New York state’s requirement that citizens prove “proper cause” to carry a weapon for self-defense outside the home.


Added, My Apologies - should have added this thread in the orgional post for context: http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/165455-2a-supreme-court-considers-challenge-state-gun-licensing-laws-case-ny.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more: Supreme Court won't hear New York gun law challenge - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,390 Posts
...if the citizens of a state would raise up on their hind legs in enough numbers, the problem could be handled at the State level...we've come to the point we can't sneeze without SCOTUS approval...how about our state officials...shouldn't they be called upon to answer to us???
Real Title: Supreme Court won’t hear New York gun law challenge
By David Sherfinski
The Washington Times
Monday, April 15, 2013

My Comments: They have always been very pragmatic on cases concerning Core Bill of Rights issues. Remember Larry Flint..............?

........As the debate over gun rights heats up on Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition to hear a challenge to a key provision of New York state’s restrictive gun laws.

The high court without comment refused to take up a petition challenging a lower court’s upholding New York state’s requirement that citizens prove “proper cause” to carry a weapon for self-defense outside the home.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more: Supreme Court won't hear New York gun law challenge - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
Welcome to the "new and improved" America............
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
...if the citizens of a state would raise up on their hind legs in enough numbers, the problem could be handled at the State level..
We don't like it, but I think the NY legislature actually speaks for the people of NY.

It would be better if our Supremes held their feet to the fire of 2A but I think the court system has made
it clear many times that they are going to give State legislatures great leeway.

It would be better still if THE HOUSE took up a 2A protection act. They have no intention of doing it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
We don't like it, but I think the NY legislature actually speaks for the people of NY.

It would be better if our Supremes held their feet to the fire of 2A but I think the court system has made
it clear many times that they are going to give State legislatures great leeway.

It would be better still if THE HOUSE took up a 2A protection act. They have no intention of doing it.
I certainly agree that it would be better for congress to pass some type of legislation federally protecting the 2A.

However, I disagree somewhat with your thoughts on the SCOTUS weighing in on the issue. The Bill of Rights protects all citizens of the US and therefore supersedes all state laws. Historically, the SCOTUS has upheld the Bill of Rights over state laws in many instances including on the issues of slavery and civil rights. They have an OBLIGATION to protect the Bill of Rights in this instance as they have in the past.

I admit that I don't know all of the details of the case, but on the surface it appears that this court is simply avoiding its duty in not hearing the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
We don't like it, but I think the NY legislature actually speaks for the people of NY.

It would be better if our Supremes held their feet to the fire of 2A but I think the court system has made
it clear many times that they are going to give State legislatures great leeway.

It would be better still if THE HOUSE took up a 2A protection act. They have no intention of doing it.
Yeah, Hop, the NY legislature probably does represent the majority of the residents of the state...

But, our Republican form of government ought to protect the rights of the minority.

While your 2nd Amendment protection act is a good idea, it is, we know, a pipe dream.

I would just as soon say the Second, in and of itself, is sacrosanct. Allowing any resident of the United States to keep and bear whatever arms he/she chooses (man portable).

Let the states decide the issue of CONCEALED carry, but OC should be constitutional in all states and subdivisions.

That would be the REAL 2nd Amendment protection act (tion).

Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
IMO, it's pathetic that the "proper cause" condition doesn't get a fair airing in the courts, for the arbitrary thing it is. Law isn't supposed to work that way.

Uncertain what the history of the legal challenges have been, on this point in NY, but if it attempted to jump straight to the SCOTUS, then declining to hear it pending dealing with it at the NY level is probably the right decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,283 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
IMO, it's pathetic that the "proper cause" condition doesn't get a fair airing in the courts, for the arbitrary thing it is. Law isn't supposed to work that way.

Uncertain what the history of the legal challenges have been, on this point in NY, but if it attempted to jump straight to the SCOTUS, then declining to hear it pending dealing with it at the NY level is probably the right decision.
My apologies, I should have added this previous post for context of this issue (Note: I updated the first post with this link also): http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/165455-2a-supreme-court-considers-challenge-state-gun-licensing-laws-case-ny.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
How ironic that we would need a law to protect our Constitution. :frown:
It's the greatest proof that exists of failure to hire quality judges and senators, and the failure to hold their faces to the fire when they foul up their sworn duty to UPHOLD, PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution. (Breach of sworn oath and deliberate contravention of the Constitution on the foundation principles needs a stinging criminal punishment inflicted, when so brazenly done, IMO; without it, we'll never stop this tidal wave of "progressiveness" that's eviscerating our country.)

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Absolutely. :yup: :tired:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
We don't like it, but I think the NY legislature actually speaks for the people of NY.It would be better if our Supremes held their feet to the fire of 2A but I think the court system has made
it clear many times that they are going to give State legislatures great leeway.

It would be better still if THE HOUSE took up a 2A protection act. They have no intention of doing it.

No, it does not speek for the people of NY...!!!! If you look at the number of counties that passed resolutions to oppose the new laws you would understand that. It speeks only for the downstate, ''NYC'', residents. If you do not live here, do not pretend you have a finger on the pulse of the upstate residents.

It's the failure of the officials to represent the upstate people, that is turning us upside down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
It's the greatest proof that exists of failure to hire quality judges and senators, and the failure to hold their faces to the fire when they foul up their sworn duty to UPHOLD, PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution.
HUH? Surely you jest? Hire?

Firstly; they are not hired. They are bought at a price. The purchase of these judges and senators is called "appointments" and "elected." Both come at high monetary cost.

Hold their feet to the fire? Who is supposed to do that exactly? You? Me? Oh wait..They have this little committee known as the senate and/or house disciplinary committee.....oh yeah, they will certainly root out and ill doings. Pleeeeze!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
It's the greatest proof that exists of failure to hire quality judges and senators, and the failure to hold their faces to the fire when they foul up their sworn duty to UPHOLD, PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution.
HUH? Surely you jest? Hire?

Firstly; they are not hired. They are bought at a price. The purchase of these judges and senators is called "appointments" and "elected." Both come at high monetary cost.

Hold their feet to the fire? Who is supposed to do that exactly? You? Me? Oh wait..They have this little committee known as the senate and/or house disciplinary committee.....oh yeah, they will certainly root out and ill doings. Pleeeeze!
I was being facetious.

We do indeed pay their salaries, in such positions, whether appointed or elected or spontaneously appearing in the chair. We pay for it.

Hold their feet to the fire ... us, we the People, via our hired "bloodhounds" (our administrative/legislative legal-eagles, the congress-critters). Yeah, like that's been working out well.

Being corrupted by the power, few of them are actually doing their jobs. Many are attempting with all their hearts to destroy the Constitution via either actively pursuing legislation or actively redefining apples as oranges (which is pretty much what the robes are doing when they claim "shall not infringe" means "infringe to within an inch of the life of the Constitution").

Facetious. Tongue-in-cheek. Spoken deadly seriously, given the gravity of the problem.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top