The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 23, 2022, 04:48 PM   #26
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,999
Quote:
If memory serves, when IL was forced to allow concealed carry, it set a training requirement . . . and then Chicago tried to ban all shooting ranges in the city limits.
They did, and it was reversed in Ezell v. Chicago.

As for the idea of New York setting arbitrarily high barriers to issuance, footnote 9 says this:

Quote:
Because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 23, 2022, 05:03 PM   #27
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
Thanks Tom for finding the specific text in the ruling.

I know in DC, which was lower court forcing may to shall, I know from a staffer on DC council's judiciary committee, that neither judiciary chair Phil Mendelson, no the DC AG wanted to increase issuance requirements for fear of losing even more in the courts. This despite the fact that the rest of the council wanted to throw up all kinds of new issuance barriers. They ended up with the prior may issue rules except eliminated good cause.

Of course on the other side of the coin from issuance, the rules for where and when you can carry, are liable to possibly get more limits in say NYC. In an urban area if you say put rules where any federal, state or local government office has a office in a building, or any health care or child care provider is anywhere in the building, add city parks, mass transit (trains, cabs and buses) and you can make huge swaths where a licensed carrier could end up in jail.
TDL is offline  
Old June 23, 2022, 06:12 PM   #28
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,999
So I read Breyer's dissent so nobody else has to trudge through it. It's really odd.

The majority opinion explicitly rules out means-ends review, but Breyer refuses to acknowledge that. Instead, he leads with numerous pages complaining about mass shootings and rising firearms fatalities. He castigates the majority for not taking these things into account, though he really can't connect this decision with those factors.

Given his impassioned dissents and his public criticisms regarding Heller and McDonald, I can't help but wonder if writing this one was the main reason he's waiting to step down.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 23, 2022, 06:18 PM   #29
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,145
Thanks to the learned in the law folk here that break these things down.
Much appreciated.
DaleA is offline  
Old June 23, 2022, 06:30 PM   #30
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,554
Quote:
For example, if NY sets an 80-hour training regimen as part of its standards,
Shortly before I moved out of NY, they instituted a training class requirement. (NO Shooting requirement just the class).

IIRC it was a 4 hour thing. The state paid for NONE OF IT!!!!

It was given by volunteer instructiors (NRA certified) who got NO PAY, and donated their time just as they did for Hunter Safety classes. NRA supplied some materials, the instructors personally supplied the rest. My Dad was one of the instructors, and I actually wrote part of his instruction segment.

Some years later, I heard that the required course time had been increased, in stanges, and ending up at a 24hr requirement. I do not know if this is accurate, or not. Also heard that the permit fee went from $20 up to$100, and the permits, which had been good for life, unless revoked were now a limited time thing, and you had to get a new one every so many years.

I also heard talk that NY was considering upping the training requirement to 40hrs, don't know if it happened, or not.

Quote:
it is the may issue that manifestly requires more government employee time since they, until today had investigate and confirm the good cause itself. I should think they would have difficulty raising fees for objectively less processing man hours.
I think you've got this a bit wrong, probably because you're applying common sense.....

I seriously doubt they EVER spent any time, manpower, or money investigating if the reason claimed for requesting the permit was valid. It would make sense if the FIRST thing checked on would be if the reason for the application was valid (on the approved list), and if not, you deny and don't waste resources investigating further. Saves money... BUT I know with certainty that's NOT what NY did when I lived there,

Application was filled out, fees paid, conditions met (fingerprints, photos, training, etc) THEN the investigation was done on YOU, and that investigation would also reveal if your reason for applying was "questionable" or not.

THEN the entire, completed package went before a judge and THEY decided if they would approve issue, or not, based entirely on their personal judgement. If they didn't LIKE the reason you gave for applying, they could refuse to issue.

If they didn't like YOU, as a person, they could refuse to issue. If the day ended in "Y" they could refuse to issue. One case I knew of was a guy who met every legal requirement, but, because he had a history of speeding tickets, the judge refused his permit, the reason given (and the judges weren't legally required to give their reasons, though the often would) was that he showed a pattern of civil disobedience, disregard for the law, and reckless behavior. (and that just because he hadn't committed a felony level offense YET didn't mean he was someone who should be legally armed...)

SO, if they follow the NY pattern I am familiar with, there will be no saving of anything in the investigative and permit process under the new Supreme Court ruling.

Quote:
I get "march for our lives" members and some of the other antis material and they are going bonkers and spouting nonsense.
In my opinion, going bonkers and spouting nonsense is what they have always done...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 23, 2022, 07:34 PM   #31
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
*= Here's one point of wiggle room, right here. I expect that The Usual Suspect States (NY, CT, IL, CA, etc.) will create "objective" standards for issuing licenses, but those standards will be so stringent as to put them out of reach for a lot of people.
I'm curious why you put Connecticut in this list, but not Rhode Island or Massachusetts. Some sources consider Connecticut to be "may issue," but it's really not. It's about as close to "shall issue" as you can get.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 23, 2022, 07:48 PM   #32
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
I'm curious why you put Connecticut in this list, but not Rhode Island or Massachusetts. Some sources consider Connecticut to be "may issue," but it's really not. It's about as close to "shall issue" as you can get.
Apparently, I had a brief episode of cranial rectitis, more commonly known as a “brain fart.”
__________________
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  
Old June 24, 2022, 08:22 AM   #33
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,942
Has anyone read Alito’s concurring opinion?

It or part of it can be found here.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-case-n2609218
steve4102 is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 08:41 AM   #34
ViperJon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2007
Location: Long Island
Posts: 214
As a New York state handgun license owner since 1992 here is how it currently works in Suffolk County (Long Island). There is at least a 12-18 month wait from initial application filing and approval and issue of a "restricted" license. It's actually called a "Sportsman" license which allows you to carry your handgun to and from the range only. There is a extensive background check, multiple references have to be listed and notarized and you are fingerprinted. After about 3-4 months from application you get called in for an interview and fingerprints at that time. I imagine that wait is going to be even more ridiculous now. Then you wait.

I'm convinced there will be virtually insurmountable hurdles put in the way to actually allow this to happen any time soon and without legal challenges. There will no doubt be some extensive EXPENSIVE training required as well as any and every possible roadblock. Despite 42 states being "shall issue" without issues this is just the apocalypse realized here in NY.

Although I have no way to know the stats, I would be surprised if there was five incidents of a legal licensed handgun owner being involved in a criminal use of their gun in a decade. If anything it would work the opposite, no one wants to lose their license after all the hassle.
ViperJon is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 08:43 AM   #35
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
Has anyone read Alito’s concurring opinion?....
Yes, quickly. It'll at least be the weekend before I can give this the attention is really deserves.
__________________
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  
Old June 24, 2022, 08:51 AM   #36
ViperJon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2007
Location: Long Island
Posts: 214
Interestingly despite having my NY "Sportsman" license which allows me to carry only to and from the range, I have an out of state resident full carry license for right next door Connecticut and have for many years. They trust us New Yorker's I guess, evidently more than our own state does.
ViperJon is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 11:31 AM   #37
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
Does this legally effect state legislatures or can states like CA keep making new laws that they NOW KNOW would be unconstitutional ? If so would/is there now a quicker way to appeal such laws or would it still be the same common 5 year process ?
Yes, it affects state legislatures.

And, yes, California will keep making new laws that they KNOW are unconstitutional, just like they've always done.

The difference is that when they are challenged in court, the state can no longer use means-end scrutiny to justify keeping the law. They will have to make up a new excuse.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. NYRPA v Bruen, page 2

It is my fervent hope that having clearly laid out the rules, SCOTUS will have little patience with lower courts that fail to follow them.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 12:01 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,554
Quote:
It is my fervent hope that having clearly laid out the rules, SCOTUS will have little patience with lower courts that fail to follow them.
IF history is any sort of a guide (according to the people who push background checks it is, and according to the people who sell stocks, it isn't...), I fear your hopes will come to naught.

The Judges on the High Court might have little patience, but they will DO NOTHING, until/unless a specific case comes before them.

That's what they do. It's what they have always done. It's what the system is set up to do. Not what most people think their rulings do, not what the media tells people their rulings do.

They do not enforce their rulings, do not correct misinterpretations of their rulings, until they rule on a case before them that involves a previous ruling.

Simply put, they don't do that, because its not their job. Never was. The Supreme Court rules on specific cases before them, and on the law(s) in regard to those cases. If they rule some part of a law unconstitutional, it is then invalid as applied to the case they are ruling on.

Once that happens, it is then the responsibility of the rest of the US govt systems to use the ruling as guidance to change existing laws where needed and to use as consideration in crafting future laws. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to direct them, watch them, babysit them, or do anything else if they don't follow the Courts ruling. There are other parts of the govt which have the job of doing that. The legislatures, Executive branch functions and lower courts. Until those fail (and they often do) the Supreme Court does not, and cannot get involved until that failure brings another case in front of them to rule on.

The crap the media tells everyone the rulings mean, is just that, crap....
In my not so humble opinion...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 01:15 PM   #39
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
IF history is any sort of a guide (according to the people who push background checks it is, and according to the people who sell stocks, it isn't...), I fear your hopes will come to naught.

The Judges on the High Court might have little patience, but they will DO NOTHING, until/unless a specific case comes before them.

That's what they do. It's what they have always done. It's what the system is set up to do. Not what most people think their rulings do, not what the media tells people their rulings do.

They do not enforce their rulings, do not correct misinterpretations of their rulings, until they rule on a case before them that involves a previous ruling.

Simply put, they don't do that, because its not their job. Never was. The Supreme Court rules on specific cases before them, and on the law(s) in regard to those cases. If they rule some part of a law unconstitutional, it is then invalid as applied to the case they are ruling on.

Once that happens, it is then the responsibility of the rest of the US govt systems to use the ruling as guidance to change existing laws where needed and to use as consideration in crafting future laws. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to direct them, watch them, babysit them, or do anything else if they don't follow the Courts ruling. There are other parts of the govt which have the job of doing that. The legislatures, Executive branch functions and lower courts. Until those fail (and they often do) the Supreme Court does not, and cannot get involved until that failure brings another case in front of them to rule on.

The crap the media tells everyone the rulings mean, is just that, crap....
In my not so humble opinion...
Believe me, I understand why you feel this way. But there are some rays of hope. In Heller, SCOTUS clearly destroyed the "only 18th century technology" argument:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8

This was in 2008. Nevertheless, in 2016 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a stun gun was not covered by the Second because stun guns were not available when the Amendment was written.

The case came to SCOTUS and they rejected the finding per curium, meaning that they didn't even hear evidence, they rejected it out of hand. This is the equivalent of saying "this case is so badly reasoned it's not worth our time". I would hope that even the Ninth Circuit would want to avoid that, although I do have to admit they've been pretty shameless so far.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 01:58 PM   #40
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,744
Justice Alito's concurring opinion is excellent, but I think he missed an important point:

Quote:
Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection.
Although we have police departments today, the courts have ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect each individual from attack. The effect, then is that we today are in exactly the same situation as were the citizens of the then-new USA: If these people were we are attacked, they were we are on their our own.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 04:12 PM   #41
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by natman
…The case came to SCOTUS and they rejected the finding per curium, meaning that they didn't even hear evidence, they rejected it out of hand. This is the equivalent of saying "this case is so badly reasoned it's not worth our time"...
No. The Court continually tells the world that no inferences may be drawn from the Court’s declining to hear a case. The Court receives on the order of 10,000 (+/-) petitions for certiorari and hears only something like 80-100 cases each year. There are many reasons why the Court will decline a case, and we won’t actually know the reasons unless the Court decides to tell us.

Oh, and it’s extraordinarily rare for an appellate court (like SCOTUS) to hear evidence. Appellate courts decide questions of law based on legal arguments (not questions of fact based on evidence).
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 24, 2022, 10:44 PM   #42
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,554
Quote:
But there are some rays of hope. In Heller, SCOTUS clearly destroyed the "only 18th century technology" argument:
yes, it did. And it also pretty much shredded the "only the militia has the right to arms" argument.

HOWEVER, it also contained the very narrow scope of application I mentioned before. The primary plus was ruling that you cannot ban an entire class of firearms (such as handguns).

But at the same time, they said that other gun control restrictions were "presumed" constitutional. And they used the language of the court to state it.

The language used was, I'm sure, clear to the court but was, and still is misunderstood by the people in general, and I believe many people in government, deliberately.

what they took away had them saying "yay!! We CAN restrict assault weapons, the Supreme Court says its Constitutional!!"...when in fact, the court said no such thing. Essentially what the court said was "we are not ruling on other gun control, today, and, until we do, we presume such laws to be Constitutional.

Now, here's the "fine print" ignored or misconstrued by the anti gun people...

EVERY LAW is presumed Constitutional, and IS Constitutional, until the Supreme Court rules on it and says it isn't.

And, as has already been pointed out, the Court is under no compulsion to correct those who misunderstand their rulings.

I'm happy we got a ruling that negates the state's authority to decide what is, and isn't a valid reason to apply for a license to be permitted to carry a gun concealed.

I'm disappointed it took a Supreme Court ruling to do it, but then I have a somewhat simple outlook on gun control. IF you're legally prohibited, you shouldn't have a gun. Everyone is prohibited from shooting people for fun or profit.

IF you're not doing that, why do we have to put up with so much extra crap??
(yeah. I know, it probably makes some people money....)
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 09:50 AM   #43
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
No. The Court continually tells the world that no inferences may be drawn from the Court’s declining to hear a case. The Court receives on the order of 10,000 (+/-) petitions for certiorari and hears only something like 80-100 cases each year. There are many reasons why the Court will decline a case, and we won’t actually know the reasons unless the Court decides to tell us.
You're absolutely right about the lack of significance of SCOTUS denying cert. However, that's not what happened in Caetano. SCOTUS didn't deny cert for the case, they vacated the lower courts ruling without hearing arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
Oh, and it’s extraordinarily rare for an appellate court (like SCOTUS) to hear evidence. Appellate courts decide questions of law based on legal arguments (not questions of fact based on evidence).
I misspoke. Thanks for clearing that up.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 10:36 AM   #44
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,463
Quote:
…You're absolutely right about the lack of significance of SCOTUS denying cert. However, that's not what happened in Caetano. SCOTUS didn't deny cert for the case, they vacated the lower courts ruling without hearing arguments.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
You’re absolutely right. My apologies.

And the Court does sometimes, albeit rarely, do that.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 05:23 PM   #45
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,547
What I find absolutely laughable in all of this is Breyer's dissents in this case and the following dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson. In NY vs State Rifle... Breyer pleaded that State legislatures NEEDED the authority and ability to set regulations against A SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for the sake of public safety. He quoted (cherry picked) statistical data to support his argument. In Dobbs v Jackson Breyer argued that State legislatures should not be afforded the ability to regulate something that is NOT A SPECIFIC ENUMERATED RIGHT.

This is the very height of hypocrisy. Clarence Thomas destroyed any argument that there is a historical trend of banning the carry of firearms. In fact, almost every case in which the respondents highlighted in their oral arguments from the era immediately following the adoption of the BOR, legislatures that wrote those statutes or courts who subsequently ruled on their constitutionality almost always left open a means in which a citizen could publicly carry firearms. Legislatures and Court rulings of the era even pointed to the 2nd Amendment in the BOR as mandating the need to leave open an option to carry in several instances (NCs ruling, GAs law, and TNs law all left open a means of carry in deference to the 2A). This contrasts with the issue litigated in Brown v. Jackson, where many states did have forms of a ban on abortion in the era shortly after adopting the BORs. And shortly after passing the 14th amendment, almost all states had a ban.

I am not advocating for the subsequent court decision, or trying to delve into politics outside of gun regulation. If I did go too far then Mods I do apologize. I just think it very telling to contrast Breyer's two dissents. When viewed together, they make absolutely no sense unless you simply want SCOTUS Justices purposefully barring democratic debate on policy issues best left to legislatures, while at the same time allowing legislatures abridge guaranteed rights. Breyer contends that an ENUMERATED RIGHT should be left open to state bans and regulation, while a RIGHT NOT ENUMERATED (and founded on a rather questionable legal argument) should not be open to regulation from state legislatures beyond a certain time period... it actually boggles the mind.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946

Last edited by 5whiskey; June 25, 2022 at 05:30 PM.
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 05:50 PM   #46
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
You’re absolutely right. My apologies.
No problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
And the Court does sometimes, albeit rarely, do that.
I hope they'll be giving per curium rulings more often, given the knee jerk reaction of politicians in NY:

NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s Democratic leaders aim to preserve as many restrictions as possible on carrying a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of the state’s gun-licensing law.

State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis.

https://apnews.com/article/us-suprem...4ec09221f668c3 [emphasis added]

Which is pretty incredible, given this quote from NYSRPA v Bruen:

.... respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. NYSRPA v Bruen, page 3 [emphasis added]

When the Supreme Court says "Don't do this" and politicians respond with "We're going to do it anyway", it calls for a swift smackdown.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.

Last edited by natman; June 25, 2022 at 06:02 PM.
natman is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 06:19 PM   #47
DaveBj
Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2019
Posts: 55
"When the Supreme Court says "Don't do this" and politicians respond with "We're going to do it anyway", it calls for a swift smackdown."

Unfortunately, SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement wing.
DaveBj is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 08:47 PM   #48
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Unfortunately, SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement wing.
Guys, forgive my ignorance of court proceedings at this level. Could not SCOTUS hold the politicians (who look to be thumbing their noses at this ruling) in contempt?

I watched the interview with the NY Governor and she said they where looking into making as many places as possible “sensitive” and off limits to CCW’s. It was plain her intent was to nulify as much as possible the SCOTUS ruling.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 09:29 PM   #49
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,547
Quote:
Guys, forgive my ignorance of court proceedings at this level. Could not SCOTUS hold the politicians (who look to be thumbing their noses at this ruling) in contempt?
No. Respecting rulings from the Judicial Branch of Government has honestly always been more based on the honor system since the Judicial Branch has no way to enforce it's rulings. If you look over the nearly 250 years of our nation, however, there are only a very few rare instances where SCOTUS rulings have not been respected. And there is a long history of controversial decisions that did not have strong majority of public support (sometimes even lacking a simple majority). There is enough history behind abiding by SCOTUS decisions I don't think any flagrant violations of this ruling will happen. But lawmakers will absolutely play games where they can. Like establishing so many sensitive areas that it frustrates people who CCW. If you can't have your firearm at the daycare you drop your kids off at on the way to work, then you just skip carrying your firearm to work that day. See, easy chilling effect... and one that I suspect would be allowed in the sweet by and by. Now add in theaters, venues that charge admission, parades, places that serve alcohol, streets adjacent to school zones, churches, hospitals, all government buildings.... and yes there won't be very much CCW.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 25, 2022, 10:21 PM   #50
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,579
See https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/essay/a...erokee%20lands.
for some historical context
mehavey 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 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09959 seconds with 8 queries