The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 24, 2019, 09:37 PM   #26
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee View Post
Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.
OK, fair enough.

Anything is possible, but I would expect that since the licensing process is only mentioned in passing in the case it's unlikely that any significant change will come out of it. The plantiffs are asking for relief from the travel restrictions, not an end to licensing.
__________________
Carpe diem mañana
natman is offline  
Old January 24, 2019, 09:50 PM   #27
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,330
Quote:
The plantiffs are asking for relief from the travel restrictions, not an end to licensing.
We're still in the baby steps stage. Heller was about a relatively small question at its core, and that involved the right to keep a licensed gun in the home.

What I'm hoping to see is a clearer declaration that laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 25, 2019, 01:49 AM   #28
Cirdan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Location: Tahoe
Posts: 286
My guess is the sheer absurdity of the NYC law is why they took it. Heller didn't clarify things very much, just slapped down DC for a law that was a de facto over ride of the 2nd amendment.
Cirdan is offline  
Old January 25, 2019, 03:43 AM   #29
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee View Post
Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.
OK, but the points were not general, but gun related.

Related to the topic case, one of the issues to be decided involves our right to travel. That's relevant, the ACLU supports it, and it does kinda tie into the no fly/no buy thing.
publius42 is offline  
Old January 25, 2019, 10:51 AM   #30
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
I hope that if they strike down the NYC law, they don't add unnecessary prose supporting state and city ability to burden the carry of firearms. There should be a window allowing that the banning the carry of loaded firearms is not supported by the 2nd Amend.

Don't say that of course banning concealed or open carry is legit for the states
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 25, 2019, 10:53 AM   #31
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
We're still in the baby steps stage. Heller was about a relatively small question at its core, and that involved the right to keep a licensed gun in the home.

What I'm hoping to see is a clearer declaration that laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.
How laws that directly challenge a constitutional amendment aren't automatically subject to strict scrutiny escapes me. But, yes, a definition of strict scrutiny applied to the Second would be a nice bonus.
__________________
Carpe diem mañana
natman is offline  
Old January 26, 2019, 02:01 PM   #32
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
banning the carry of loaded firearms is... supported by the 2nd Amend
Somehow that's how I think many federal judges would read that quote if it is in the opinion. Just like they grossly misinterpreted the paragraph in which Scalia wrote "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause".
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old February 3, 2019, 10:50 AM   #33
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
Friend sent me this link of a pretty good article on current court status and problems. https://nationalfirearmslaw.com/look-out-below/

Points out the pros and cons of recent decisions like Heller, lower court misinterpretations and how the future depends on SCOTUS being progun in a very clear manner. That depends on Roberts. If not, state restrictions will cripple major portions of the country.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 22, 2019, 09:12 PM   #34
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,550
TTAG posted this today which is interesting.

Rogers and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Grewal, which is challenge to NJ may issue law, and the cert petition was supposed to be heard today but has been delayed to March 21 instead. Author of article makes some speculations on why but it is very interesting that it was not shot down today.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...supreme-court/
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old February 24, 2019, 03:57 AM   #35
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 394
Good info..

What I never figured out in all this was why NYC was so hell bent on preventing guns from leaving the city in the first place.. I mean NYC doesn't want the guns in the city to begin with so why make a law that prohibits it ?
riffraff is offline  
Old February 24, 2019, 08:43 AM   #36
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,836
It took a hundred years to go from the 14th Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education. One Inc. v. Olesen happened in 1952 and Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003. A civil rights litigation strategy is not for those who seek immediate gratification. Heller happened in 2007 (and only after significant changes of SCOTUS).
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 24, 2019, 09:22 AM   #37
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
It took a hundred years to go from the 14th Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education. One Inc. v. Olesen happened in 1952 and Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003. A civil rights litigation strategy is not for those who seek immediate gratification. Heller happened in 2007 (and only after significant changes of SCOTUS).
BR wins the Understatement of the Month Award.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06308 seconds with 10 queries