Posted on 06/23/2022 7:04:54 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
Good discussion on the SCOTUS BLOG
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
See my post #86 this thread.
When it comes to promoting your self interest you do whatever works in a situation.
**********
In politics self interest has a way of morphing from one thing to another.
When they run for office they promise to do what the people want.
When they get to Washington they vote for what the party and special interests want.
Sometimes those doing things for short term benefit (i.e., making deals) lose sight of the longer term consequences. Some Republican senators who crammed through the red flag legislation are going to find that out.
In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
“ They’re expecting big-time trouble.”
And that trouble won’t be from right-to-life.
The real “insurrections”, death and destruction come from the left and the illegitimate U.S. administration.
You mean "See my post #86 in the other thread."
;-)
It’s been Monday all week long, sorry.
I hate to break it to you, but today is Tuesday.
No ruling on baby killing?
“Suspect that Roberts is delaying the release of the abortion decision as long as possible. He is still hoping that somehow he can change one vote.”
Sounds very plausible to me, since Roberts, in my opinion, has been bought and paid for.
After a quick reading I view the decision as being about as weak as it could be and still strike down the New York ( and California) may-issue laws.
The decision seems to allow the state to dictate the “manner” of carry. It seems to support California’s ban on open carry, though open carry of long guns has roots in our nation’s history when handguns were much less common.
I fear that states limiting magazine capacity may be allowed along with outlawing pistol grips on otherwise protected long guns. I really don’t see the need to dump “strict scrutiny”. It has protected the First Amendment pretty well despite dramatic advances in technology. We need that for the Second Amendment.
The people need long guns to fulfill their Militia function and this decision leans toward mandating handguns for self-defense in public. Does the Second Amendment really require that people own more than one gun? I don’t think so.
There may be states with good gun laws but it will not be a result of this decision. I’m pessimistic about California and see a lot of infringement coming our way from the federal government.
I agree with your take.
I’ll add that SCOTUS has a long-standing practice of allowing the lower courts (Court of Appeal) do the dirty work, even to the extent of interpreting SCOTUS holdings to the point of ineffective, and SCOTUS just lets it go. E.g., abuse of the Presser precedent for decades.
Excellent! You almost made me spew my coffee, but excellent!
Those aren't issues in this case.
"I really don’t see the need to dump “strict scrutiny”. It has protected the First Amendment pretty well despite dramatic advances in technology. We need that for the Second Amendment."
No scrutiny is better than strict scrutiny.
Something like 9 more decisions, probably 4-5 tomorrow and the big one next Tuesday.
If they’ve ruled against Roe, I’ve been thinking they may be waiting till the end so everyone can get out of town with families, etc.
If I were one of the judges, I’d be truly afraid for my family. There doesn’t seem to be any effort to stop the protesters so far.
Just the opposite, they are being encouraged by Brandon and Psaki and tacitly by the DOJ who should be arresting them.
I don’t agree. Twenty five or so states no longer require carry permits. That constitutes proof that California is not compelled to demand such permits since there is no blood running in the streets.
This decision allows California to inconvenience people with hardly any limits as long as their laws do not allow subjective discrimination. Strict scrutiny was not a bad way to go as far as I can tell.
I hate to break it to you, but today is Tuesday.
🤔
...Groundhog Day?
"This decision allows California to inconvenience people with hardly any limits as long as their laws do not allow subjective discrimination. Strict scrutiny was not a bad way to go as far as I can tell."
I'm not convinced that strict scrutiny doesn't apply here. But anyway, I think you have it going the wrong way. Intermediate scrutiny would allow more burdens on the right. Strict scrutiny would allow fewer. No scrutiny would allow none. Not more.
I wish I could believe that.
Under strict scrutiny California's permit system would be declared unConstitutional if California was unable to prove that it was compelled (presumably by virtue of the consequences otherwise) to have a permit system.
I see no path to challenge the permit system based on this ruling. Are you suggesting that the permit system in New York was allowed to stand simply because the plaintiffs didn't ask to have it thrown out?
Similarly, the two dozen states which require no permit do not have more crime than the other states. And yet this decision does not address the requirement that a permit be obtained. States that do not require training are doing as well or better than states which do require it. Strict scrutiny would dictate that such requirements not be allowed.
The decision includes a mention that schools are included among "sensitive places". I don't recall when that law has last been scrutinized but I doubt very much that any government could prove that they are compelled by public safety concerns to disallow firearms. So many shootings in schools; so few shootings in gun stores and police stations.
The historical basis for allowing semi-automatic firearms is only as lengthy as the New York law which was just tossed. How will pro-gunners make the case that firearms that didn't exist for the first century of the nation are protected?
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.