Defensive Carry banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,283 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Washington Post
By Associated Press, Published: April 11

My Comments: They are meeting to see what will be on the Fall Docket to hear. This is about the Right to Concealed Carry, not the just past New York State laws. Hopefully, the new New York Laws will get struck down next year (especially NYC). But at least this one is moving pretty quick, I think.

From the article/link below.

.....In November, less than three weeks before the Newtown shootings, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a state law that requires those who want to carry handguns to show a special need for self-protection. Other states with gun laws like New York include California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Another federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., has since upheld the Maryland law, while challenges are pending to the laws in California, Hawaii and New Jersey.

Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Va.-based lawyer who is representing the New Yorkers, as well as the challengers in several other states, said that by upholding such state laws, lower courts are undermining constitutional protections for gun owners.

.....The National Rifle Association and 20 states are backing an appeal by five New York residents who claim that the state law violates their constitutional gun rights. The challenge comes nearly five years after a landmark Supreme Court decision in favor of gun rights — and four months after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn.

Read More: Supreme Court considers challenge to state gun licensing laws in case from New York - The Washington Post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
The Supreme Court is certainly cognizant...

Of the volatility of gun issues at this time...

That's a paraphrase... But my question is why the SCOTUS should even care about current social dispensation... Their focus should be only on the law and its constitutionality. Period. Not the social mores of the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,283 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The Supreme Court is certainly cognizant...

Of the volatility of gun issues at this time...

That's a paraphrase... But my question is why the SCOTUS should even care about current social dispensation... Their focus should be only on the law and its constitutionality. Period. Not the social mores of the day.
Well currently, we are right about 'even' in numbers on SCOTUS to agree with you (counting the fact that Roberts has proven to go real rouge on occassion).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,987 Posts
I may be wrong (Wouldn't be a first, possibly a second) but I believe the court has already ruled that CC in itself is not a right. But I look forward to any gun control law going before the SCOTUS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
Guys, the story says they 'might' consider the case, not that they're going to. That announcement may come Monday or Tuesday.
Yeah, they might consider it... You know, 'course they might not, 'cause their so "cognizant" of current social scruples and such.. Not because of the variances in district court rulings... Surely, the latter should have little bearing on what the SCOTUS decides to entertain itself with, right?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
The U.S. attorney general should enforce the law in every state. And the 2nd amendment is the law. States and cities do not have the constitutional right to usurp the law according to their own whims. They should be prosecuted and the "laws" they enacted unlawfully should be overturned. The justice dept. acts at the direction of the current administration, and should act independently to preserve the laws of the land. I don't like it when things don't work the way they should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzadik

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
The U.S. attorney general should enforce the law in every state. And the 2nd amendment is the law. States and cities do not have the constitutional right to usurp the law according to their own whims. They should be prosecuted and the "laws" they enacted unlawfully should be overturned. The justice dept. acts at the direction of the current administration, and should act independently to preserve the laws of the land. I don't like it when things don't work the way they should.
Only if the U.S. Attorney General isn't find of breaking those laws himself, and opining that his boss can too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Yeah, they might consider it... You know, 'course they might not, 'cause their so "cognizant" of current social scruples and such.. Not because of the variances in district court rulings... Surely, the latter should have little bearing on what the SCOTUS decides to entertain itself with, right?
re, to part in bold: And there in lies one of two dangers for CC. 1) that they don't review
the lower court's holding and hence it sticks and spreads to other Circuits; 2) They do review
the lower court's ruling and decide to uphold it. Our chance of winning here is 1 out of 3.

Be careful what you wish for. Same thing I said before Heller. Watch out. It is too early to cheer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Well currently, we are right about 'even' in numbers on SCOTUS to agree with you (counting the fact that Roberts has proven to go real rouge on occassion).
Roberts has had numerous occasions of good cause to go "rouge" (red in the face), at least so far as I can tell. As do most of the robes on the question of the 2A.

If only they'd choose to be every bit as self-righteous (rogue) as they claim to be, and give the 2A/9A/10A a fair reading in light of original intent and its simplicity: the People were intended to retain for themselves every right to be armed as fully and capably as they knew how, that right was guaranteed against infringement by hirelings, and the rights were made applicable across all states.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace, 12-845.
This is a case that millions of us in New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey have been waiting for.
The administration and too many in the senate want to keep re-fighting the Battle of Sandy Hook - in the wrong direction. “The justices have to be cognizant of the politics of guns at this moment in time. Newtown makes it less likely the justices will want to wade into the gun issue,” says UCLA law professor, Adam Winkler. Can the SCOTUS do its duty as a separate power of government and weigh the facts of the law objectively to do justice for the constitution? Historic times, indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
The Supreme Court no longer focuses on law. The members have their agenda they then work to get 5 of the 9 to go a long and force what ever they want.
We have not been a nation of laws in a long time. It is far worst now.
We hung on the last major vote by 1. This time if Obama has anything on any of the 5 that voter for us we are done for.
Your fate is in the hands of 5 of 9 that are free to do what ever they want.
It won't madder much anyway Obama said it loud he made it clear he will fix that when he appoints one more member to the court.
So quit looking up case law it is meaningless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace, 12-845.

This is a case that millions of us in New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey have been waiting for.
Here's the link, for everyone: U.S. Supreme Court, Docket # 12-845, Alan Kachalsky, et al., Petitioners
v. Susan Cacace, et al.
.

Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, on Kachalsky v Cacace, Nov 27 2012.

<snip>Plaintiffs seek7declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,8barring New York State handgun licensing officials from9requiring that applicants prove “proper cause” to obtain10licenses to carry handguns for self-defense pursuant to New11York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f). They argue that12application of section 400.00(2)(f) violates the Second and13Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.


“The justices have to be cognizant of the politics of guns at this moment in time. Newtown makes it less likely the justices will want to wade into the gun issue,” says UCLA law professor, Adam Winkler. Can the SCOTUS do its duty as a separate power of government and weigh the facts of the law objectively to do justice for the constitution? Historic times, indeed.
Historic, indeed. If the plaintiffs' complaint is upheld, it could mean a death-knell to the might-never-issue "proper cause" codswallop that so many states implement (NY, CA, etc). OTOH, if it's rejected ...

And, as you point out, we're only one SCOTUS robe away from abomination, in regards to the Constitutional protections against tyranny by hirelings.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Well, justice is delayed as the SCOTUS rejected this case. NY's AG says, "[the court’s order declining to hear the case amounted to] a victory for families across New York who are rightly concerned about the scourge of gun violence that all too often plagues our communities.” The SCOTUS has similar cases to consider hearing in the coming months.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top