Jump to content

2A carry case to be heard at US Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

Btw, even though I made the comment regarding permits above, not to say that training is not important. In my opinion, if you are going to carry, it's definitely a good idea to get some training or at the very least spend a few hours at the range so you know how to shoot accurately and how your firearm works. I wish that Illinois weren't so annoying in regards to getting a ccw as far as cost, wait etc. My parents in Ohio got their ccw a while back and it only took I think a week and picking it up from the county sheriff.

 

As far as the case though, if they would rule favorably, then I guess we need them to look at magazine bans as to if they feel those are legal. I know how everyone here feels, but you know it's something that will be coming up considering congress these days.

Completely agree that training is extremely important, however I think that the shutdown and backlog of permits over the past year have showed how problematic a permit system could be. a lot of first time applicants waiting for the better part of a year just goes to show that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you see right now Arizona is doing a forensic audit of the election.

 

I wouldn't get my hopes up. This is just Kabuki theater done by our local RINObpulicans.

 

 

Well you see right now Arizona is doing a forensic audit of the election.

 

I wouldn't get my hopes up. This is just Kabuki theater done by our local RINObpulicans.

 

You may very well be right. However I was just reading a few minutes ago, some of the mainstream outlets are already trying to discredit the company doing the audit because they don’t have experience with elections and that the owner was a trump supporter if I remember what I read correctly. But the fact that democrats have already filed lawsuits there and the fact they’ve sent lawyers, I think 73 was the number I heard that they sent down there?

 

Part of me thinks if people aren’t concerned, then let them audit to their heart’s content since they wouldn’t find enough data to be concerned with. Just seems like people who had things to hide would be the only ones making as much noise as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You may very well be right. However I was just reading a few minutes ago, some of the mainstream outlets are already trying to discredit the company doing the audit because they don’t have experience with elections and that the owner was a trump supporter if I remember what I read correctly. But the fact that democrats have already filed lawsuits there and the fact they’ve sent lawyers, I think 73 was the number I heard that they sent down there?

 

Part of me thinks if people aren’t concerned, then let them audit to their heart’s content since they wouldn’t find enough data to be concerned with. Just seems like people who had things to hide would be the only ones making as much noise as they are.

 

 

Who cares if they send lawyers. Won't make a difference.

 

Let's say the best case scenario happens.

 

Let's say the Audit uncovers some really evil nasty stuff. Stuff that could influence an election. Will that mean Arizona will decertify their 2020 electoral vote and then the Totalitarian in Chief has to step down? Nope.

 

Again, just Kabuki theater EVEN if things go 100% right.

Edited by BobPistol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

It won't. At best this will eliminate may-issue jurisdictions and shall-issue will be the law of the land

 

So what are people getting so excited over this. We in Illinoisistan will have to battle the radical left that wants to set fees to the moon to prevent people from carrying let alone owning?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

It won't. At best this will eliminate may-issue jurisdictions and shall-issue will be the law of the land

 

So what are people getting so excited over this. We in Illinoisistan will have to battle the radical left that wants to set fees to the moon to prevent people from carrying let alone owning?

 

It's the baby steps, if the court rules shall-issue nationwide, then you start to go after the fees and application process that continues to restrict, deny or delay the right next. For example Illinois objection part of the carry law would be ripe for a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

It won't. At best this will eliminate may-issue jurisdictions and shall-issue will be the law of the land

 

So what are people getting so excited over this. We in Illinoisistan will have to battle the radical left that wants to set fees to the moon to prevent people from carrying let alone owning?

 

 

Honestly? Its because people on left are saying it will allow everyone to carry a gun everywhere or whatever and people on the right are believing them (of, if you're feeling generous, egging them on)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to predict what SCOTUS will do or decide -- especially before oral arguments. The Justices narrowed the question significantly and struck the word "citizens" from Clement's question, which could have implications both for 2nd's "the right of the people..." and the 14th's privileges and immunities clause invoked in Macdonald. That Thomas doesn't need Roberts to have a majority is also encouraging (as noted above). That is, it is unlikely that the conservatives were forced to narrow the question. Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny. That is, in my opinion (and just mine), we don't necessarily need a sweeping ruling, but we need a clear ruling that will stand up for a long time and that provides a framework to permit GVR-ing many lower court rulings in the future as inconsistent with SCOTUS guidance.

 

I look forward to listening to orals in the fall.

Edited by Silhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

After the Tuesday ruling, FOID cards are still enforceable in Illinois. The ruling in this case only applies to Brown.

 

Unfortunately, this is the problem. The FOID is only unconstitutional for one person, which is completely absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great news. If they can force NY to "shall issue", it would be a huge step in the right direction. Expecting 50 state Constitutional Carry is unrealistic, but any movement toward 2nd amendment rights will be great.

We didn’t lose our Second Amendment rights all at once but incrementally over the years. The mantra from the left has been death by 1000 cuts.

As much as I wish it were otherwise, we will not regain our rights 100% by one SCOTUS decision but incrementally. This >>could be<< a good step in the correct direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

After the Tuesday ruling, FOID cards are still enforceable in Illinois. The ruling in this case only applies to Brown.

 

Unfortunately, this is the problem. The FOID is only unconstitutional for one person, which is completely absurd.

 

 

That's because this case is not stare decis (i.e. a precedent). It is a regular court ruling. If this was an appeals court ruling, yeah, that's stare decis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny.

 

That is the huge variable that could take a mundane and narrow case like this and give it Heller status. Even with a narrow ruling if the court in the ruling establishes that a strict scrutiny test should be applied to 2nd infringement because it's an individual civil right, that completely reshapes our future and still ongoing fights as a vast majority of these infringing gun laws will not pass a strict scrutiny test. Right now lacking an established level of testig for 2nd infringments has allowed the lower court Judges across the nation to apply whatever test they pull out of thin air that day, that has to end there has to be uniformity applied across all the states like there is for other rights.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny.

 

That is the huge variable that could take a mundane and narrow case like this and give it Heller status. Even with a narrow ruling if the court in the ruling establishes that a strict scrutiny test should be applied to 2nd infringement because it's an individual civil right, that completely reshapes our future and still ongoing fights as a vast majority of these infringing gun laws will not pass a strict scrutiny test. Right now lacking an established level of testig for 2nd infringments has allowed the lower court Judges across the nation to apply whatever test they pull out of thin air that day, that has to end there has to be uniformity applied across all the states like there is for other rights.

 

Hypothetical: Let's say SCOTUS invokes strict scrutiny. What prevents a lower court from saying, "Naah, SCOTUS was wrong, strict scrutiny doesn't apply."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decided to put my reply here to keep the thread together

If they decide the right to bear arms does NOT extend beyond the home, I would guarantee that IL will ban concealed carry ASAP.


EDIT: I typed out a whole reply here that somehow vanished and it just left the quote. Guess I'll write it again...


Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain

Edited by defaultdotxbe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny.

 

That is the huge variable that could take a mundane and narrow case like this and give it Heller status. Even with a narrow ruling if the court in the ruling establishes that a strict scrutiny test should be applied to 2nd infringement because it's an individual civil right, that completely reshapes our future and still ongoing fights as a vast majority of these infringing gun laws will not pass a strict scrutiny test. Right now lacking an established level of testig for 2nd infringments has allowed the lower court Judges across the nation to apply whatever test they pull out of thin air that day, that has to end there has to be uniformity applied across all the states like there is for other rights.

Hypothetical: Let's say SCOTUS invokes strict scrutiny. What prevents a lower court from saying, "Naah, SCOTUS was wrong, strict scrutiny doesn't apply."?

The appeals process and almost 230 years of Article III precedent. A lower court could hypothetically say anything they want, but it would be swiftly shot down on appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

 

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

 

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal.

 

You are correct. Your statement reads like a summary of the forthcoming decision. Let me make a guess. The decision will be a 6-4 declaration that the denial of the application violated the right to keep and bear arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

 

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal.

 

You are correct. Your statement reads like a summary of the forthcoming decision. Let me make a guess. The decision will be a 6-4 declaration that the denial of the application violated the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Should have said 6-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...