The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 3, 2019, 07:25 PM   #76
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
I'm starting to like Alito again. From Mr. Roberts' link:

Quote:
Justice Alito also seemed to suggest that the now-repealed law was completely irrational, because it never actually promoted public safety:

JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the --are people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?

MR. DEARING: We --we --no, I don't think so. We made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that --that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned? …

JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?
SOCK! POW! BAM!
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 05:49 AM   #77
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by natman View Post
It's certainly a case the Supreme Court ought to hear.

It's nothing more than Jim Crow laws for the 21st century.
*cuckles* I needed a good laugh, the "gun control laws" are aimed at a *ahem* much fairer complexion demographic, just look at firearm crime related statistics sometime to see what *ahem* "demographic" takes the "blue ribbon" in those stats, because "the powers that be" don't care about "crime", they care about the "control" and that's what "gun control" is about, it has little to do with "guns".
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c

Last edited by silvermane_1; December 4, 2019 at 05:57 AM.
silvermane_1 is online now  
Old December 4, 2019, 07:17 PM   #78
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 905
In other relevant news, the "Ruth Bader Ginsberg Health Today" reports health conditions are somewhat fragile:

"MONDAY, Nov. 25, 2019 (HealthDay News) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was discharged from the hospital on Sunday after being admitted on Friday with chills and a fever... It's been a tough year health-wise for Ginsburg, who finished treatment for pancreatic cancer in August."

https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/...health-scare#1

The result of which being, according to The Hill, "... Liberal activists are already calling on President Trump to keep any possible Supreme Court vacancy open until after the 2020 election, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has indicated he would fill a court vacancy next year, even though he blocked former President Obama’s nominee for most of 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

Apparently two amigas are not quite as formidable as three amigas, should one of the amigas fold her hand and cash in her chips.

In an election year.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 08:43 PM   #79
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvermane_1
*cuckles* I needed a good laugh, the "gun control laws" are aimed at a *ahem* much fairer complexion demographic, just look at firearm crime related statistics sometime to see what *ahem* "demographic" takes the "blue ribbon" in those stats, because "the powers that be" don't care about "crime", they care about the "control" and that's what "gun control" is about, it has little to do with "guns".
Whites commit more crime because there are more white people. We were looking at the mass murder rates on another forum; someone was making the tired argument that the problem was obviously whitey by posting the number of mass murders in the past 20 years sorted by race. Well, adjust the numbers for the percent of total population and you get a totally different picture. You can guess what group was overrepresented. The most interesting thing I saw (and I got in trouble for pointing it out) is that Latinos were underrepresented.

I have no idea how that compares to overall crime stats, and I'm not sure it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

I agree with your conclusion, just not how you got there.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 11:22 PM   #80
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
The most interesting thing I saw (and I got in trouble for pointing it out) is that Latinos were underrepresented.

I have no idea how that compares to overall crime stats, and I'm not sure it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

I agree with your conclusion, just not how you got there.
So you're saying we need to get Hispanics to commit more mass murders?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 01:15 AM   #81
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,525
Quote:
So you're saying we need to get Hispanics to commit more mass murders?
No, (btw, I know that's a joke) I think perhaps many of them place a higher value on human life than many blacks or whites -- maybe an influence of the Catholic Church? Or stronger families? That *really* didn't go over well where people were trying to out-progressive each other.

Either the data (that I didn't post in the first place) meant something or it didn't, and I was wrong-thinking it
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 03:41 AM   #82
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,491
I'd say that the cultural characteristics of various ethnic groups and the reporting of crime statistics (in general) are NOT on topic for this thread which is about a Supreme Court case dealing with a NYC law covering transport of firearms.

There's places for that, this ISN'T IT.

one warning, ...gentlemen...

stick to the topic.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 08:48 AM   #83
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,525
Sorry. Forgot what subforum I was in, and was probably pushing it for any of them. (you can delete this if you want)
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

Last edited by zxcvbob; December 5, 2019 at 09:15 AM.
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 09:29 AM   #84
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,242
Personally I'm hoping for some sort of relief in the transport of firearms, NJ has one of those overly ridiculous can't transport a handgun unless it's to a range, or from a range to home, with no stops in between laws.

But I'm not betting the farm we'll get a ruling that will fix it.
NJgunowner is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 10:39 AM   #85
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJgunowner
Personally I'm hoping for some sort of relief in the transport of firearms, NJ has one of those overly ridiculous can't transport a handgun unless it's to a range, or from a range to home, with no stops in between laws.
Transport seems to be what the case is about .... if the justices don't decide that the case is moot. But it's about transport within, into, and out of New York City under a New York City premises permit. I'm not sure how even a favorable ruling on the question would apply to New Jersey.

Or to neighboring Connecticut, for that matter. Connecticut has a licensing scheme sort of, somewhat, in a manner of speaking similar to that of NYC. Connecticut has carry permits. (Unlike in NYC, however, ordinary citizens in Connecticut can actually obtain carry permits.) Connecticut also has something called an "Eligibility Certificate for Possess Pistol or Revolver." Like their Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver, this certificate allows the holder to purchase a firearm. (In Connecticut, nobody can purchase a firearm without having either a carry permit or a certificate of eligibility.) The difference is that the eligibility certificate allows the holder to buy the firearm and take it home ... period. It does NOT allow transport between locations within the state, and it does NOT allow transporting the firearm -- even unloaded and locked in a case -- from home to a range. All it does is allow you to buy a gun and bring it home (and take it to a gunsmith for repairs).

If the SCOTUS does rule against NYC's old law, it will be interesting to see if the ruling will be worded in a way that would allow a challenge to the Connecticut law.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 02:59 PM   #86
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 185
Quote:
The difference is that the eligibility certificate allows the holder to buy the firearm and take it home ... period. It does NOT allow transport between locations within the state, and it does NOT allow transporting the firearm -- even unloaded and locked in a case -- from home to a range. All it does is allow you to buy a gun and bring it home (and take it to a gunsmith for repairs).
Are you sure about this? Connecticut has dozens of shooting ranges and I know people who bring their own guns to them. I see nothing on some of their websites that says one must rent to use the facility.
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed.
TomNJVA is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 06:47 PM   #87
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
Yes, I am sure.

Connecticut statutes:

Quote:
Sec. 29-35. Carrying of pistol or revolver without permit prohibited. Exceptions.
(a) No person shall carry any pistol or revolver upon his or her person, except when such person is within the dwelling house or place of business of such person, without a permit to carry the same issued as provided in section 29-28. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer of this state, or any Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, or of the state, as defined in section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, or to any member of any military organization when on parade or when going to or from any place of assembly, or to the transportation of pistols or revolvers as merchandise, or to any person transporting any pistol or revolver while contained in the package in which it was originally wrapped at the time of sale and while transporting the same from the place of sale to the purchaser's residence or place of business, or to any person removing such person's household goods or effects from one place to another, or to any person while transporting any such pistol or revolver from such person's place of residence or business to a place or individual where or by whom such pistol or revolver is to be repaired or while returning to such person's place of residence or business after the same has been repaired, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver in or through the state for the purpose of taking part in competitions, taking part in formal pistol or revolver training, repairing such pistol or revolver or attending any meeting or exhibition of an organized collectors' group if such person is a bona fide resident of the United States and is permitted to possess and carry a pistol or revolver in the state or subdivision of the United States in which such person resides, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver to and from a testing range at the request of the issuing authority, or to any person transporting an antique pistol or revolver, as defined in section 29-33. For the purposes of this subsection, “formal pistol or revolver training” means pistol or revolver training at a locally approved or permitted firing range or training facility, and “transporting a pistol or revolver” means transporting a pistol or revolver that is unloaded and, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle, is not readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle or, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle that does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, such pistol or revolver shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the carrying of a pistol or revolver during formal pistol or revolver training or repair.
(b) The holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 29–28, as amended by this act, shall carry such permit upon one's person while carrying such pistol or revolver. Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer.
Quote:
Sec. 29-36f. Eligibility certificate for pistol or revolver.
(a) Any person who is twenty-one years of age or older may apply to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection for an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver.
(b) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection shall issue an eligibility certificate unless said commissioner finds that the applicant: (1) Has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association; (2) has been convicted of a felony or of a violation of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d; (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120; (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13; (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court; or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680; (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, including an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15 or section 46b-16a; (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing; (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4); or (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States
https://portal.ct.gov/DESPP/Division...cial-Licensing
Quote:
Who may purchase a handgun?

Only those people who are Permit holders, Eligibility Certificate holders, or sworn Police Officers may purchase a handgun.
I just called a friend who operates a commercial range and gun shop in Connecticut. He confirmed what I said. I said nothing about ranges requiring customers to rent guns. I said it is illegal to transport a handgun (and maybe a rifle) from your home to a shooting range unless you have a carry permit. Most people I know (in several states) who shoot at ranges have carry permits. Most people I have encountered at commercial ranges who don't have permits also don't have guns, so they either come with a friend who has a gun ... or they rent.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 07:30 PM   #88
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 185
I see, I missed the part about being able to bring a gun to the range if you have a carry permit.

Thanks!
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed.
TomNJVA is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 09:03 PM   #89
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
In essence, the Connecticut eligibility certificate is sort of like the NYC premises permit. It allows you to get the gun from the shop to your "premises" ... and that's about all it's good for.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 6, 2019, 02:06 AM   #90
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 793
I'm not going be "optimistic" about SCOTUS rulings changing any municipalities enforcement of local gun laws.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is online now  
Old December 6, 2019, 05:01 PM   #91
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
Some analysis by Josh Blackman of The Volokh Conspiracy:
https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overvi...y-of-new-york/

Basically, he thinks the Court will find the case moot. However, that might not be a bad thing as it means the Court could add another 2A case to its Spring docket.
Well no new Second Amendment case will be on the Spring docket according to SCOTUSblog. It will be very disappointing if they also deep six the NYC case and IMO would show a lack of interest by SCOTUS in taking up any Second Amendment cases with the current court lineup.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/j...se-for-spring/

Quote:
Justices grant one new case for spring
This afternoon the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference earlier in the day. The justices added just one new case to their merits docket for the term: Carney v. Adams, a challenge to the constitutionality of a Delaware law that limits the number of judges affiliated with a particular political party to a “bare majority.”
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old December 8, 2019, 12:08 PM   #92
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 756
SCOTUSblog also speculated that if they decided this case was moot they would hear a different 2A case instead. If they add no new 2A cases there's a good chance it's because they will hear the NY case.
Armed_Chicagoan 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 07:22 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 0.08700 seconds with 9 queries