Jump to content


Photo

Corlett v. NYC (CCW may issue challenge)


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 20 February 2021 - 06:30 AM

https://www.supremec...lic/20-843.html

 

I didn't see a thread for this case. It's at SCOTUS right now with defendant's response due Monday the 22nd (and they've already had 1 extension).

So it looks like we may get the new SCOTUS' answer on whether to take up a may-issue case in the next month or two.

This is an NRA funded challenge with Paul Clement at the helm.



#2 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,511 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 21 February 2021 - 09:16 PM

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?
 


Void the FOID!

#3 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,575 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 22 February 2021 - 12:00 PM

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'  :rolleyes:


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#4 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,703 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 22 February 2021 - 12:54 PM

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'  :rolleyes:

I'll be honest, I always thought "Goldfarb" was a fake name made up to make fun of people named Goldman or Goldberg or similar


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#5 davel501

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 18

Posted 22 February 2021 - 02:21 PM

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'  :rolleyes:

 

Even if they were right about that it would still be damning to their case.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
 
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
      (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)


#6 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,575 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 22 February 2021 - 03:27 PM

 

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia'  :rolleyes:

 

Even if they were right about that it would still be damning to their case.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
 
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
      (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

 

 

Oh I agree, and when you remove handicap, sexual and age discrimination the militia is essentially everyone and we are right back to it being an individual right by default.

 

This Goldfarb guy, from what I gather, has been trying to get his day in front of the Supreme Court using this same arguement so he can tell them they are wrong for awhile.


Edited by Flynn, 22 February 2021 - 03:28 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#7 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 27 February 2021 - 08:33 AM

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?
 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.



#8 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,575 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 February 2021 - 02:50 PM

 

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?
 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.

 

 

It would really depend on how they rule, generally they will rule narrowly, but this is a civil rights issue that lower courts and governments have obviously been ignoring since Heller, so it would not surprise me to see the Supreme Court get out the white glove and slap the lower courts into compliance.  I would like to see them put on the boxing gloves and knock it out of the park, but any forward progress is progress.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#9 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 28 February 2021 - 06:50 AM

 

 

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?
 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.

 

 

It would really depend on how they rule, generally they will rule narrowly, but this is a civil rights issue that lower courts and governments have obviously been ignoring since Heller, so it would not surprise me to see the Supreme Court get out the white glove and slap the lower courts into compliance.  I would like to see them put on the boxing gloves and knock it out of the park, but any forward progress is progress.

 

The lower courts have said on one hand the right doesn't end when you leave your home yet it can somehow be rationed only to people who show a particular "need" for it. It's inconsistent with any other fundamental right as rights are not supposed to be held in a hierarchy where some are worth more than others.



#10 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 28 February 2021 - 10:21 AM

One, simple: 'shall not infringe' -- would do it.



#11 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,575 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 28 February 2021 - 05:34 PM

One, simple: 'shall not infringe' -- would do it.

 

Sadly that isn't working, but a rulling that laid down that because it's a civil right strict scrutiny applies, would be a good start as 9/10 anti-gun laws would fail that test.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users