Law Supreme Court hearing first 2nd Amendment case in a decade

[Pseudo Sane]

All this post is missing was something about Trump. You had it all.

 

[Officer Rick]

Did you see how restrictive the NY laws in question are? The titular ones, I mean. They were so restrictive that, in my subjective opinion, they were trampling on the rights and liberties of NYC residents. Given what you have just admitted, beyond your request on background checks (let's hip pocket that discussion for now), surely you could see that these laws impede the free exercise of said rights.

Also you should swap out your rifle to match your avatar

NY sucks ass I kind of have no sympathy for anyone who chooses to live there (same with CA or Texas or any other crappy place) Their laws are draconian and are done for tax dollars.

edit: i dont want to post my personal guns but mine is a magpul version with the same sights (i have a pistol grip on the forend) similar to this

 

[tinker_190]

NY sucks ass I kind of have no sympathy for anyone who chooses to live there (same with CA or Texas or any other crappy place) Their laws are draconian and are done for tax dollars.

edit: i dont want to post my personal guns but mine is a magpul version with the same sights (i have a pistol grip on the forend) similar to this

We aren't really discussing if the laws are draconian or motivated by tax dollars. We are looking at (or rather, the SCOTUS is looking at) whether the laws violate the 2nd amendment. I agree that the NY/CA/IL/NJ/MD gun laws are excessively restrictive and ill informed and unjust but I do feel bad for those living under those laws.

Nice rifle.

 

[jk7707]

Considering the left has a mental illness I can see how they would see firearms as dangerous and need to be controlled/restricted/banned.

But do the right wing posters here believe that people who have severe mental illness should be able to own firearms?

Hold on.

Let me check something.



We want to follow the law and the Form 4473. Do not sell firearms to the mentally defective - which for our purposes here is defined by your statement of "severe mental illness".

The distinction is that "we" do not want the government to be able to restrict ownership based on say, seeing a mental health professional. Or perhaps post partum depression. Or a whole host of other inroads that the left WILL use to justify curtailment of rights that are not easily distinguishable under arbitrary labels. It is the continual errosion that we see across the board on many Constitutional guarantees that the "right" will continue to champion while the left is using every opportunity to destroy the Bill of Rights.

tl/dr: You wrong.

Sure, because the honor code seems like a good benchmark for selling someone a weapon. There should be a middle ground somewhere between what you describe and what we have now.

 

[Lord Coke]

But the SC is still choosing to hear it, and thus set whatever its ruling is as precedent

So how the opinion is written will be big to determining how much restriction local laws can have on guns

As someone who lives in Illinois where localized "Assault weapon bans" have been popping up city to city and county to county mag restrictions, this case means a lot to me

I hate to be the guy that kills the party and I very much could be wrong but the Supreme Court spent most of the time on the mootness aspect of the case and I think the case needs to get past the mootness issue before the Court can even issue a ruling on the 2a.

This is a link to the transcript
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_a...D9eKpkKYEnwW1Ndv27fKDdcKBTfek8Q7I475gV9jgoKr0

 

[Lord Coke]

Is that actually a thing, or is that speculation?


Always happy to see a fella off dubs. The right to bear posts shall not be edited.

@Farmer Br0wn

If the repeal seem genuine then the case is moot. If the repeal is likely done just to avoid the case AND the law will likely be brought back then the Court may still hear the case.

What NYC did to avoid that second issue was ask the State of New York to pass a law that basically got rid of the city of NYC ability to put in a identical law in the future. That issue wasn't even argued today in Court.

What was argued by Paul Clement the NRA's lawyer was that the repeal was incomplete because reading the new law you must travel directly to the range or second house without any stops so even a bath room or coffee break would be illegal. The NYC attorney came back and said we will not be enforcing the law that way so you can make short stops.

Whether the case is moot will come down to whether the Court or really Roberts finds that statement credible imo. But I could be wrong.

btw all the lawyers had to do in this case is ask for 1 dollar in addition to getting the law repealed and NYC could not have done this. The issue here is the plaintiffs asked for prospective relief by getting the law gone to prevent future harm. If you ask for damages then that is to cure past harm and a repeal of the law would to remedy that issue. I am a little disappointed by how this all turned out.

 

[floivanus]

im yellow because i didnt proofread. my post and should have left part out.
but your non post and your buddies continued non posts added 0 to the thread
All i want is stricter background checks and keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill
anyone should be able to pass a background check. I own like 13 guns i dont mind getting a license for them like the one for my vehicle. whats the big deal?
and no one should take anyones guns away (unless the aforementioned mentally ill or other disqualifying etc) I own an M&P sport 2 and no ones taking my baby away

The problem the people you clump into “the right” have with much of the push for stricter gun regulations have been played out extensively in states like CA, NY and IL, the “license” you have no problem with come with registration, and with registration you are subject to the changes that people make to the law. When they decide they don’t like you having say a ruger 10/22, because there are available 10 and 25 round magazines (gawd forbid they know about the 50 and 100 rounders) they will send you a letter and demand you turn it in or sell it out of state, and yes that has happened many times in NYC and IL so it isn’t some extreme right wing conspiracy.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Meh, effective gun control can only be implemented at the federal level, and the political capital for it doesn't exist. As long as guns are going to be legal, might as well let legal gun owners transport their guns from one city or state to another.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Something something Obama's coming for muh guns.

2nd amendment is an outdated piece of the constitution and if you are against background checks and keeping guns out of mentally unstable hands then YOU are the problem. Fact is most republicans are scared of their own shadow but drape themselves in the 2a to feel safe from all the gays,blacks,and muslims out to "get" them

Nonsense. The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is arguably outdated is the Third. The Second remains highly relevant to modern society.

 

[Officer Rick]

Nonsense. The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is arguably outdated is the Third. The Second remains highly relevant to modern society.

yeah tons of militias relevant today

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

yeah tons of militias relevant today

The Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms; it doesn't only deal with militias. That the American populace is heavily armed is a highly relevant political fact.

 

[Stoic1]

Sure, because the honor code seems like a good benchmark for selling someone a weapon. There should be a middle ground somewhere between what you describe and what we have now.

Do you even NICS, bro?

 

[jk7707]

Do you even NICS, bro?

Gun background check system riddled with flaws

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gun-background-check-system-riddled-with-flaws

"It’s up to local police, sheriff’s offices, the military, federal and state courts, Indian tribes and in some places, hospitals and treatment providers, to send criminal or mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, but some don’t always do so, or they may not send them in a timely fashion.

Some agencies don’t know what to send; states often lack funds needed to ensure someone handles the data; no system of audits exists to find out who’s not reporting; and some states lack the political will to set up a functioning and efficient reporting process, experts said."

Yep, sounds like a great system to me! No room for improvement.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Gun background check system riddled with flaws

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gun-background-check-system-riddled-with-flaws

"It’s up to local police, sheriff’s offices, the military, federal and state courts, Indian tribes and in some places, hospitals and treatment providers, to send criminal or mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, but some don’t always do so, or they may not send them in a timely fashion.

Some agencies don’t know what to send; states often lack funds needed to ensure someone handles the data; no system of audits exists to find out who’s not reporting; and some states lack the political will to set up a functioning and efficient reporting process, experts said."

Yep, sounds like a great system to me! No room for improvement.

The Fix Nics act was passed to address part of this problem.

 

[jk7707]

The Fix Nics act was passed to address part of this problem.

Yea, and it's woefully inadequate. But I guess that small "part" is good enough.

 

[Lint]

So, say we prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing guns, which is the logical reaction, what would make then not refrain from seeking to be allowed to buy a gun?

Is mentally ill people who can control themselves with proper medication lesser of a risk/better deal than if we ban stuff outright and have to withstand cases of mentally ill people not taking pills/admitting need?

 

[lilelvis]

I agree the GOP would gladly arm people who have severe mental illness if they really had their way.

Yes, 2nd amendment rights for progressives too... you bet..

 

[tinker_190]

Well, look, I don't want to throw something like 50% of the population under the bus because they haven't seen the light yet. I am trying to build bridges to these people because everyone in this country needs their civil liberties protected. So I can't get behind this horrible people statement. That being said, yes, there are definitely some malicious actors within that group that want to disarm the population for nefarious reasons. There are also those that are blindly hoplophobic, those that are annoying busybodies that THINK OF THE CHILDREN, those that are cultural elitist that see self defense as beneath them, etc.

I agree that access to guns is not the cause. Do we need to show them the mail order catalogs packed with old WW2 guns? Could you imagine easier access than that? Yet the problem did not exist then. I attribute this to the decline of social fabric and radical increase in SSRI consumption in the USA.

 

[andnowweknow]

It's not getting them banged by pornstars while their wife is pregnant nor is it turning them into people who support super overweight 73 year olds who publicly contemplate fucking their own daughter.

So there's that...

 

[Beastman09]

It's not getting them banged by pornstars while their wife is pregnant nor is it turning them into people who support super overweight 73 year olds who publicly contemplate fucking their own daughter.

So there's that...

 

[Beastman09]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/02/poli...ond-amendment-new-york-gun-control/index.html

So everyone that disagrees with you is biased and wrong? LOL.

Besides the point. Federal Courts(including SCOTUS) don't issue advisory opinions. If the law has been changed the case is moot.

 

[aitkenmike]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/02/poli...ond-amendment-new-york-gun-control/index.html

An interesting case that could have far-reaching implications in preventing cities and states from being able to restrict when an individual carries a firearm out in public.

The city of New York even tried to change the law before this case made it to the Supreme Court in an attempt to make the case moot. An objective set of justices won't be very sympathetic to such legal maneuverings to prevent their judicial review.

We already know the four liberal judges will be sympathetic the the mootness argument because it falls in line with the thinking of their political tribe.

The four conservative justices are eager to reaffirm 2nd Amendment rights that have been infringed these past few decades.

It all boils down to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts always seems to find a way to agree with the liberal-leaning judges whenever the court is presented with a case that grabs a lot of headlines.

I truly don't understand why some on the left acted like the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was going to be some world-ending event. We finally got the Supreme Court that had been advertised to us for years:

We have four liberal Justices.

We have four conservative Justices.

And we have a Swing Vote in John Roberts.

What say you War Room? How do you see this case going?

Unfortunately, I suspect John Roberts will utilize some form of mental gymnastics in order to side with the liberal-leaning justices, while attempting to maintain the veneer of impartiality.

It's moot. No mental gymnastics required.