The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls.

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Posts: 9676
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by Aussie »

There are an estimated 2+ million defensive uses of firearms every year.
Link...and not one from the NRA.

User avatar
DreamRyderX
Irish wolfhound
Posts: 530
Joined: 14 Jul 2018, 11:45
spamone: Animal
Location: In Yer Dreams.............

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DreamRyderX »

Aussie wrote:
There are an estimated 2+ million defensive uses of firearms every year.
Link...and not one from the NRA.
There are various citations quoted all over the net, but:
......A commonly cited 1995 study by Kleck and Gertz estimated that between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs occur in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[7][10].......
LINK: Lowest DGU estimate of 50,000 to 80,000 DGUs ...&... Highest DGU estimate 4,700,000 DGUs

Pick yer poison........I'll stick with a midpoint of 2,000,000+ that seems to be the most quoted figure......since 1995 most believe the Kleck numbers are probably the closest today.

..
Last edited by DreamRyderX on 18 Oct 2019, 18:46, edited 1 time in total.
..................................................In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Posts: 9676
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by Aussie »

And the best you can come up with is something from 1995, and that too is an estimate.
......A commonly cited 1995 study by Kleck and Gertz estimated that between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs occur in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[7][10].......
Full of NRA shit.

User avatar
DreamRyderX
Irish wolfhound
Posts: 530
Joined: 14 Jul 2018, 11:45
spamone: Animal
Location: In Yer Dreams.............

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DreamRyderX »

Aussie wrote:And the best you can come up with is something from 1995, and that too is an estimate.
......A commonly cited 1995 study by Kleck and Gertz estimated that between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs occur in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[7][10].......
Full of NRA shit.
Ahhh, you didn't even have enough time to read it.......but that doesn't bother me......but, your personal bias is showing fella.....

Hey, everyone is entitled (even you) to a personal opinion .....bias based or not......
Image
..................................................In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Posts: 9676
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by Aussie »

No, DRX....I read it all including this bit....you failed to mention.
Hemenway research

In 2000, Hemenway published a survey which found that "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense";[30] also that year, he published another survey which found that "criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use."[31] Both of these surveys argued that many defensive gun uses may not be in the best interests of society.[30][31] Also in 2000, Hemenway and his colleagues conducted a small survey that found that guns in the home were used more often to intimidate family members (13 respondents) than in self-defense (2 respondents). The same study stated that its results suggested that most self-defense gun uses did not occur in the home, and that non-gun weapons are used more often to thwart crime than guns are.[32] A later survey by Hemenway et al. that included 5,800 California adolescents found that about 0.3% of these adolescents reported having used a gun in self-defense, whereas, in the same study, 4% of those adolescents reported that someone had threatened them with a gun.[33] In a 2015 study co-authored with Sara Solnick, Hemenway analyzed data from the NCVS from 2007 to 2011 and identified only 127 instances of DGU.[34]
You are so full of NRA shit.

User avatar
DreamRyderX
Irish wolfhound
Posts: 530
Joined: 14 Jul 2018, 11:45
spamone: Animal
Location: In Yer Dreams.............

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DreamRyderX »

Aussie wrote:No, DRX....I read it all including this bit....you failed to mention.
Hemenway research

In 2000, Hemenway published a survey which found that "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense";[30] also that year, he published another survey which found that "criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use."[31] Both of these surveys argued that many defensive gun uses may not be in the best interests of society.[30][31] Also in 2000, Hemenway and his colleagues conducted a small survey that found that guns in the home were used more often to intimidate family members (13 respondents) than in self-defense (2 respondents). The same study stated that its results suggested that most self-defense gun uses did not occur in the home, and that non-gun weapons are used more often to thwart crime than guns are.[32] A later survey by Hemenway et al. that included 5,800 California adolescents found that about 0.3% of these adolescents reported having used a gun in self-defense, whereas, in the same study, 4% of those adolescents reported that someone had threatened them with a gun.[33] In a 2015 study co-authored with Sara Solnick, Hemenway analyzed data from the NCVS from 2007 to 2011 and identified only 127 instances of DGU.[34]
You are so full of NRA shit.
Again, you're still entitled to your own biased personal opinion............just your own 'second-hand at best' guess.....

But, as a card carrying NRA Life Member in good standing, & a regular contributor to the NRA's Institute of Legislative Action, I find most of what they publish, along with documents you don't have access to, are far more credible than the Anti-Gunner, Anti-Second Amendment, Leftist Extremist cheap hit pieces I've come across........after all, when push comes to shove.....the American People have the Right that the Leftists froth over.....We, the American People, have the Right to use the best means available for self-defense, while the Leftists are shovelin' shit against the tide trying to take away what the American People have, & will never relinquish.

PS.......JFYI......by the end of the first month of 2020, 2 more States will have become "Constitutional Carry" States......simply meaning that residents of those States will no longer require a State Permit to carry a concealed firearm......the US Constitution will be their sole Carry Permit......the government & courts are out of the picture.
Image

..
Last edited by DreamRyderX on 18 Oct 2019, 20:45, edited 1 time in total.
..................................................In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Posts: 9676
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by Aussie »

But, as a card carrying NRA Life Member in good standing, & a regular contributor to the NRA's Institute of Legislative Action,......
There endeth the lesson. Bye.

User avatar
DreamRyderX
Irish wolfhound
Posts: 530
Joined: 14 Jul 2018, 11:45
spamone: Animal
Location: In Yer Dreams.............

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DreamRyderX »

Aussie wrote:
But, as a card carrying NRA Life Member in good standing, & a regular contributor to the NRA's Institute of Legislative Action,......
There endeth the lesson. Bye.
Ciao......stop by any time.....there so, so much more to glean.....
..................................................In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

User avatar
DreamRyderX
Irish wolfhound
Posts: 530
Joined: 14 Jul 2018, 11:45
spamone: Animal
Location: In Yer Dreams.............

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DreamRyderX »

..


..........Court Knocks Out Pittsburgh Gun Control in NRA-Backed Case



..........Image



Source: NRA-ILA
Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded a decision by the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Pennsylvania. In the NRA-backed case Anderson v. City of Pittsburgh, the court found that Pittsburgh's attempt to impose local gun control measures was a clear violation of state law.
“This is a huge victory for law-abiding gun owners and everyone who values freedom in the Keystone state,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “Cases like this underscore the peoples’ need for judges who will faithfully interpret the law in defense of their rights and liberties.”

At issue was a Pittsburgh restriction on so-called "high capacity" magazines. Pennsylvania, like 45 other states, has a preemption law restricting local governments from passing gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law.

Preemption laws protect law-abiding gun owners from dealing with a confusing patchwork of laws in a single state.

"We are grateful that the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas saw what is clear on the face of the statute, that the general assembly alone regulates firearms in Pennsylvania," said attorney Jonathan Goldstein with Goldstein Law Partners.

Earlier this month, NRA-backed firearm preemption cases in Washington and Montana voided similar unlawful local ordinances.

"This is a great day for law-abiding Pennsylvania gun owners. The NRA applauds this ruling and will continue defending our constitutional rights everywhere,” Ouimet concluded.

The Gun Rights of the American People Upheld & Protected........Now, & Forever! Image

...................................ImageGod Bless the NRA

...................................................Image

..................................................Image

........................................................Image


..
..................................................In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

User avatar
greggerypeccary
Rhinocerus
Posts: 5122
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 14:52
spamone: Animal

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by greggerypeccary »

"5 Killed, Several Injured in Shooting at Airbnb Halloween Party in California."

Just another day in fucked up America, where the citizens have more guns than sense.

User avatar
johnsmith
Lion
Posts: 10764
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by johnsmith »

greggerypeccary wrote:"5 Killed, Several Injured in Shooting at Airbnb Halloween Party in California."

Just another day in fucked up America, where the citizens have more guns than sense.

was that the trick? or the treat?

hard to tell in the US of A
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

User avatar
Bowerbird
puppy
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 Oct 2018, 20:52
spamone: Animal
Location: Qld

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by Bowerbird »

In case no one has posted this yet Jim Jeffries does the best summation of the Australian attitude to guns
Part 1
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Part 2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

He is right when he says we have a constitution but no one bothers to read it :bgrin

Bam
Chihuahua
Posts: 61
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 18:42
spamone: Animal

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by Bam »

DreamRyderX wrote:Image
You're not quoting the full text here. You're just quoting a part of it out of context and that is misleading.

"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."

The "right to keep and bear arms" isn't unconditional. It is meant to be "well regulated".

User avatar
DonDeeHippy
Warthog
Posts: 3330
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 20:18
spamone: Animal

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DonDeeHippy »

Bam wrote:
DreamRyderX wrote:Image
You're not quoting the full text here. You're just quoting a part of it out of context and that is misleading.

"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."

The "right to keep and bear arms" isn't unconditional. It is meant to be "well regulated".
To true bam, don’t worry though rhyder doesn’t own a gun in Australia anyway :purple :purple
Bongalong... for some reason women are just so superior to anything that ever existed or will ever exist!
Shellandshilo1956 ….. Even an annoying troll, has the right to free speech.

User avatar
DreamRyderX
Irish wolfhound
Posts: 530
Joined: 14 Jul 2018, 11:45
spamone: Animal
Location: In Yer Dreams.............

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DreamRyderX »

Bam wrote:
DreamRyderX wrote:Image
You're not quoting the full text here. You're just quoting a part of it out of context and that is misleading.

"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."

The "right to keep and bear arms" isn't unconditional. It is meant to be "well regulated".
Your opinion, & you are entitled to your personal opinion, but it's obvious that your personal opinion is probably derived from little, if any, US Constitutional knowledge, or knowledge of relevant American Revolutionary History (specifically between 1730 through 1820) regarding the issue of the US Constitution's Second Amendment.


The FIRST & ONLY time the US Supreme Court was ever petitioned to define the meaning, & original intent, of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution since the Amendments Ratification, was in 2008, in the DC vs Heller decision.

Prior to that 2008 decision, only inferior (lower courts...Federal, State, Local) had opinions remotely or indirectly regarding the Second Amendment, but it wasn't until 2008 did the petitioners to the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, ask for 'clarification' regarding the historical meaning of the Right of Individual Americans to Keep & Bear Arms.......



In it's Majority Decision, The US Supreme Court held in DC vs Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment contains two distinct clauses.......

The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in State constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment's Ratification.

The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three State Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.




They defined the meaning, & the original intent of the Second Amendment, in their 2008 Heller decision. That finding is Law, & can only be changed by either Constitutional Amendment, offered in Congress, & if passed through by Congress, sent to the individual States, & ultimately ratified or rejected by the American People. The only other way the Constitutional Right of the American People to Keep & Bear Arms can be redefined is via a subsequent decision by a future Supreme Court that finds the prior court erred in 2008 & redefines the Second Amendment themselves.





Your bones, as well as mine, will be long gone to dust before either event takes place.

In over 225 years the US Constitution has been amended only 17 times (the first 10 Amendments were ratified as a group....en masse in 1791).


The American Founding Fathers.....those that Crafted the US Constitution......knew that the Constitution was not perfect, & might someday need to be revised/changed/amended, so they included a process to amend it. They purposefully made this process difficult, because they didn't want the Constitution changed at whim. Also, you will note, that because the USA is not now, & never was meant to be a Democracy, it takes far more than a mere majority to amend the US Constitution.

Over the past 225+ years there have been over 11,000 attempts to amend the US Constitution. It has only been done successfully 17 times.

Now, that said, the US Supreme Court....the Highest Court in the Land......has only visited the full interpretation of the Second Amendment but once.

The US Supreme Court was only been petitioned once to define the meaning, & original intent, of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution since it's Ratification. That was in 2008, in the DC vs Heller decision.

The Second Amendment contains two distinct clauses.....It's Prefatory Clause, & it's Operative Clause.

The Second Amendment does not give, decree, or grant any Right to the American People. It does specifically state what the government is not permitted to do.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms......it simply affirms, defines, & protects a pre-existing inalienable Right of the People.

I choose only to use & express the Operative Clause because it is the meat & potatoes of the Amendment......it affirms & protects the Right of the American People......& as it was to the US Supreme Court, it is to me, the vitally important part of the Amendment.......

What you, & probably tens of millions of Americans imagine the Second Amendment to mean.......means nothing more than individual personal opinions.

How the American Supreme Court defined the Second Amendment is LAW.....& their decision in this matter is final, & not subject to appeal.

The Peoples only recourse would be through a decision of a future US Supreme Court that would have to find the Court's 2008 decision in Heller in error, or via a Constitutional Amendment, ultimately placed in the hands of the American People, encompassing a 3/4's Majority, or 38 of the 50 US States, for final ratification.






..........................................................Image

.............................................................Image


..
..................................................In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

User avatar
DreamRyderX
Irish wolfhound
Posts: 530
Joined: 14 Jul 2018, 11:45
spamone: Animal
Location: In Yer Dreams.............

Re: The Second Amendment, SCOTUS, Gun Law, & Gun Regulation

Post by DreamRyderX »

..


...................SCOTUS Is Hearing Its First Big Gun Case in 9 Years.


.............Image

.................A constitutional scholar explains the challenge to a New York City gun restriction,
..............................and its potential to affect the Right to Bear Arms more broadly.


Source: The Trace
On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on a major gun rights case for the first time in almost a decade. The case was brought in 2013 by the New York Pistol and Rifle Association, an advocacy group located outside of Albany, against New York City. The association argues that a New York City restriction that prevented licensed gun owners from taking their firearms outside the city violated the Second Amendment.

After the Supreme Court agreed to take the case this January, New York City repealed the relevant restriction, hoping that the high court would drop the case. It hasn’t — and could still issue a ruling with broad Second Amendment implications.

The Supreme Court has been virtually silent on gun rights since it established that the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms in the home in District of Columbia v. Heller, a watershed decision from 2008. But its inertia has frustrated pro-gun advocates who want clarification on the many questions left unanswered in Heller: Does the Second Amendment protect the right to carry guns outside the home? What kinds of firearms are covered by the right to bear arms?

Since Heller, the court has shifted further to the right, but this doesn’t mean the petitioners will win. That’s partly because the gun restriction that prompted the suit is no longer law, which could render the entire case moot.

To help us understand exactly what New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. City of New York means for the law, The Trace spoke to Joseph Blocher, a legal scholar who co-directs the Center for Firearms Law at the Duke University School of Law. Professor Blocher also assisted with briefing for the District of Columbia in the Heller case.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Olivia Li: What is this case about?

Joseph Blocher: The Pistol and Rifle Association is suing over a restriction in New York City’s gun license that prevented gun owners from transporting their firearms outside city limits to a second home or gun range. The association says that the restriction — referred to as a transport ban — violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as well as the constitutional right to travel. There are a lot of different ways this case could go, but it could end up being a pretty big deal.

How are the constitutional questions in this case different than Heller? And how has the composition of the court evolved?

Heller was about whether there was a constitutional right to have a gun inside your home. The Supreme Court said there was, and that the core right in the Second Amendment was to keep an arm in the home for self defense.

This case, however, involves rules and conduct outside the home. Here, the court will be considering whether there is a Second Amendment right to transport your weapon from your home to another place where you have a right to have the gun, like a shooting range. The line between the home and public space has been a battle line in Second Amendment cases since Heller.

This case is also different from Heller in the sense that the court has changed a lot since Justice [Antonin] Scalia penned the majority opinion in 2008. Justice Scalia has been replaced by Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, and Justice [Anthony] Kennedy was replaced by Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh. Many people believe that Kennedy was the swing vote in Heller, and that he only agreed to sign onto Scalia’s opinion if it included language that was friendly to reasonable gun regulations. And Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are stronger on gun rights than Kennedy was. The association’s case will be heard by a much more conservative, pro-gun court.

Why hasn’t the court taken a Second Amendment case in so long?

There weren’t enough votes to take up gun cases! You need four justices to grant cert [when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case]. It’s likely that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch made the difference here. Before they joined, the Court declined many opportunities to hear Second Amendment cases, including ones about public carry.

But gun rights lawyers have been begging the Supreme Court for years to hear a Second Amendment case. They argue that the Supreme Court has stood idly by while lower federal courts disrespect the right to bear arms by upholding too many gun regulations. Justice [Clarence] Thomas shares this opinion. He has chided his fellow justices for not supervising lower courts on the Second Amendment.

What do the petitioners want in this case?

The petitioners want to be able to transport their guns from within New York City limits to an out-of-city gun range or second home.

It’s clear that the association thinks this case is also about the right to bear arms outside the home, not just transport them. But New York City’s regulation only addressed the transport of guns between places. Gun rights groups have tried to attack restrictions on public carry in other cases, but the Supreme Court never wanted to get involved.

What has happened in this case up to this point?

The association lost its case in a federal district court in 2015. And it lost again in 2018, when an appellate court ruled that New York City’s regulation was constitutional because it served New York City’s public safety goals. The association asked the Supreme Court to reconsider that decision in September of 2018.

There’s another interesting piece to this: The New York City Police Department repealed the transport ban in July of 2019. That same month, New York State passed a law that says all cities within the state must allow gun permit holders to transport their weapons to second homes or gun ranges.

If New York City repealed the law, why is this case still going forward?

The association is saying that New York City only repealed the transport ban because it was afraid of how the Supreme Court might rule. But normally, when a person bringing a lawsuit asks for something, and she gets it, the case is over. In legal terms, this is called “mootness,” because there’s no longer an issue to resolve. Courts should not hear cases that are moot.

There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, you wouldn’t want a defendant to stop trespassing as soon as a lawsuit is filed just to get the case dismissed, only to start trespassing again. However, in this case, there’s no danger of that happening. Remember, New York State passed a law that prohibits New York City from re-instituting its transport ban.

How might the court rule? And what are some potential consequences?

There is a range of possible outcomes, but it’s helpful to think of them in two buckets. First, the court could dismiss the case as moot, because there’s nothing the court could do to put the petitioners in a better position than they’re already in. They are free to travel with firearms outside New York City. Second, the justices could say the case should live on, and they will try to figure out whether the transport ban violates the Second Amendment.

Within this second bucket, there are a few options. The court could agree with the reasoning of the lower court and hold that New York City’s regulation does not unconstitutionally burden gun rights. This preserves the status quo.

However, the Supreme Court could instead conclude that the Second Amendment protects the transport of guns to specific locations, as well as the right to bear arms in the home. But such a decision doesn’t necessarily turn the tides. The court could simply say that this particular regulation in New York City goes outside the bounds of reasonable gun laws. Because no other city has a rule like New York’s — and New York took its own law off the books — this is a narrow result that changes literally nothing on the ground.

Another option: The Supreme Court could issue a much broader ruling where the justices say that there’s a right to public carry. The Supreme Court has never before announced that the Second Amendment covers the right to bear arms in public, although most lower courts have held or assumed otherwise.

Finally, the Supreme Court could change the way lower courts analyze Second Amendment cases. Right now, when a gun rights advocate challenges a firearm law, the courts try to figure out if the gun law is specifically designed to serve public safety goals. In the association’s case, the Supreme Court could announce a much more originalist test, one that requires courts to find a particular historical basis for modern-day gun regulations. This change could make cases more difficult for governments who want to defend firearm regulations.

We talked about how the court’s composition has changed a lot since Heller. The world outside the Supreme Court has changed a great deal, too. We’ve seen an increase in mass shootings and gun violence, as well as more social activism on gun reform. Will the justices be affected by this?

That’s a really fair question, and it’s one that comes up in every case, not just gun rights cases: How should the Supreme Court respond to public opinion, if it should at all? And I don’t think I have the answer to that. What I can say is that all of the justices in Heller recognized the problem of gun violence in the United States. Justice Scalia even wrote at the end of his opinion that gun violence was “a serious problem.” That was 2008. Sandy Hook, Orlando, Vegas, and Parkland all postdate Heller.

Who do you think will win?

I think the New York State Pistol and Rifle Association has already won this case, because New York City repealed its transport ban. The association has gotten everything it has asked for, and that’s precisely why — I believe — the court should dismiss this case as moot, no matter what the justices think about the Second Amendment.

When will we get a decision?

If the court dismisses the case simply because New York City already repealed the regulation, then we could get a decision very quickly. If the court actually tries to figure out whether the New York City regulation violated the Second Amendment, we’ll likely be waiting longer. But it’s really hard to say.

Do you think the Supreme Court will take more Second Amendment cases in the future?

I think if the court dismisses this case on procedural grounds, there’s a good chance it will take another Second Amendment case soon, maybe even by the end of this term.

What do you think?

Will the ideologically leaning, 5-4 Conservative United States Supreme Court, further define & strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in favor of an American's Individual Right to Keep & Bear Arms......as sort of an extension to Heller, or will the Court simply dismiss the case as moot after oral arguments, & search for bigger fish to fry?



..
..................................................In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

Post Reply