Posted on 05/01/2021 5:34:43 AM PDT by marktwain
On Monday, April 26, 2021, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of New York Rifle, Et Al. v. Corlett, for the question of whether the denial of applications for firearms carry licenses violates the Second Amendment. From the supremecourt.gov:
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.
20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
While the court decided to hear a previous New York State Rifle case, it decided the case was made moot before arguments were heard. Others might argue the Caetano case was important, which while true, it was not as important as a case directly dealing with carry of firearms outside the home.
This New York State Rifle case is primarily about whether a local authority may arbitrarily deny otherwise qualified citizens from obtaining concealed-carry licenses for self-defense outside the home.
Ideological Leftists, Progressives, Cultural Marxists, or Woke (all versions of the same unlimited government power ideology), have feared a case such as this for some time. It is why the District of Columbia refused to appeal the Wrenn v. D.C. decision in 2017.
The make-up of the Supreme Court has not changed to favor those who view the Constitution as a “living document”. Three originalists and textualists have been appointed to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump.
The very limited question, in this case, maybe the result of bargaining by Chief Justice Roberts, to ensure some form of permit law remains after the decision by the Supreme Court. As the question is limited to whether the denial of a permit is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the implication is the permit itself is acceptable.
As the case will be limited to the question of denial, the court would have room in the future to decide if permits themselves are an infringement.
When the decision is written, it should point out it is *not* ruling on whether permits themselves are an infringement.
what will Malta, the Vatican, Germany
and the NWO pedophiles ORDER Roberts
and their other SCOTUS marionettes to do?
SCOTUS should be removed from US Government.
they had their chance ... and chose raped children.
Count on Barrett siding with the leftists on anything firearms.
You can come back to this thread afterwards to thank me.
I think Barrett’s $2 million up-front book deal is her payoff.
Can we get someone to stake out the Bank of Malta so we can see which way this is going to go?
“I think Barrett’s $2 million up-front book deal is her payoff.”
It’s the way they do it.
But OTOH now that we know that SCOTUS has no problem whatsoever with the theft of a Presidential election I will never again depend on *any* court in this country doing the right thing.
Barrett was oversold and any attempt at a discussion of her conservatism, small Government bona fide during to confirmation process was ruthlessly suppressed as an attack on commitment to religious observance.
IMO she will do additional damage and hinder the goal of returning America to the Constitution and the process of diminishing the power of the Federal G’vt relative to States Rights.
What a fascinating means of money laundering. Indistinguishable from a real book deal, easy to inject big payments up front, easy to buy out inventory, bonus of others paying for it if the subject actually proves interesting enough.
It gains in importance if the Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment applies outside the home.
they think that the Founding Fathers meant that
"a well-regulated milita"
was one where they couldn't leave their house.
New York presents many interesting Second Amendment issues, of which “may issue” laws (obviously unconstitutional) are only one.
New York State does not issue weapons permits to nonresidents. They just don’t. They also do not recognize any other state’s permits (full faith and credit, obviously unconstitutional).
They instruct their police to arrest persons traveling through the State with firearms, saying that jailed gun owners can plead the Federal case at their trial (Federal law allows transport through states while traveling from legal point A to legal point B).
They have delegated State authority over firearms regulation to the City of New York, which has gun laws which are so unbelievable that the hardest job of NYC firearm advocates is getting people outside of NYC to believe that they are real.
I’m not optimistic, because January 6’s peaceable assembly in a building which belongs to US citizens has our entire ruling class, which I presume includes Supreme Court justices, fainting on their couches. In the 1820s, the White House was open to all citizens on Sundays and Andy Jackson would do meet and greets. Now, our rulers must physically separate themselves from us out of fear for their safety.
The wicked flee where no man pursueth.
I always get trounced on when I say this, but women have no business being on any court of law, least of all the highest court. If conservatives are to be consistent, they must stand by their purported contention that men and women are fundamentally different from each other is ways that are substantive.
Women will nearly ALWAYS side with safety above all else, a penchant which would be anathema to our founders.
I have a problem with 1) May Issue rather than Shall Issue, and 2) excessively long permit processing times and unreasonably expensive training requirements.
I would also like to see a ruling on national reciprocity, but that isn't part of this case, and do not want to volunteer to gain standing by being a test case.
From his speech the other night, Biden seems to think the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. (I read it; I didn’t watch).
Do you really think so little of her character?
Why yes, I do think that little of her. As I do the others who opted to play Chicken after Nov 4th.
Have you read her dissent in Kantor v Barr which she made while an appellate judge?
Well I would guess one would need a permit and training to go to church.
Write a letter to your congress critter.
Post of free republic.
Or any of the other rights noted in the constitution.
No other amendment tells the government that they SHALL NOT INFRINGE ON IT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.