SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

Over a decade after it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The justices’ announcement that they will take up a challenge to a New York law that requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so sets the stage for a major ruling on gun rights in the court’s 2021-22 term.

The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/cour ... ghts-case/
IMO, the relevant section of the Constitution, besides the 10th Amendment and relevant state laws that were in place at the time they were written (and have all been repealed) that required militia membership and gun ownership - Article 1, Section 8 - that prefaces the 2nd Amendment:
The Congress shall have power:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Since the "right" to keep and bear arms was based on the requirement that states maintain militias, any Justice who rules against the state's right to regulate how guns are used, or by whom, loses the right to call himself an originalist, as all of the conservative Justices do. My opinion is that the creation of the National Guard and the dropping of the requirements for "all able-bodied men" to be members made a very strong originalist argument for states to have the ability to outright ban private gun ownership. But what do I know, I just have the ability to read.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
ShiftyMutt
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:46 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by ShiftyMutt »

As if this country isn’t already on edge.
All we need is to arm all the Elmer Fudd’s of society and watch the gun fatalities skyrocket.
Tommy Tar
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:32 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Tommy Tar »

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

com·ma
/ˈkämə/
noun: comma; plural noun: commas; noun: comma butterfly; plural noun: comma butterflies
1. a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
President Elect Tommy Tar.
joefutbol
Posts: 5529
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:28 am
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by joefutbol »

Tommy Tar wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:18 pm the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We now know what a comma is, but can you define "arms" for us?
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25422
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Wabash »

Even Scalia stated the 2A is not unlimited.

It says one has the right to bear arms. It does not say what type of arms can be allowed.
Stay loose, and be a little afraid.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

Tommy Tar wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:18 pmcom·ma
Very good! Now do "militia." I suggest using the one the Founding Fathers were referring to. It's posted up above. And it has nothing to do with yahoo cosplayers driving their moms' tactical PT Cruisers around in the woods.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

So, my thinking on this besides the Constitution defining what the Founders meant by "a well regulated militia."

State and local governments have had the authority/responsibility of regulating guns since the colonial days. Many, if not most cities didn't allow people to carry guns in town, not even in the "Wild West." Some places in the antebellum South allowed wealthy land owners to carry guns but no one else. Fun fact: Tombstone, AZ didn't allow people to carry guns in town and it averaged one or two shootings a year until that one officer-involved shooting at the OK Corral. Even then, it barely qualified as a mass shooting with 3 suspects deceased at the scene and 3 officers injured.

The writers of the Constitution had the opportunity to federalize guns laws but they left the authority with the states, since they had the responsibility of maintaining their own militias. All states up to and including Iowa in 1846 required "all able bodied men" (slaves and Indians ignored but immigrants, legal or otherwise, included) to be members of their state and local militias and to own and maintain a gun and ammunition and to train at least once a year. Those requirements were dropped in the early 20th Century when the state militias were combined into the National Guard - and since the Guard had better weapons, personal weapons weren't even allowed.

And states still control their own militias and have the authority to regulate guns, including who can own them, what types of guns people can own, where and how they can be carried and used, how and where they can be sold and kept and what kind of certification is required to own one. And I say, whether they can even be owned or not. I doubt any states would try to outlaw guns in our lifetimes (cities might, though) but I don't see any line of reasoning that says they couldn't.

My early money says Roberts and the liberals and maybe Kavanaugh and Gorsuch rule in favor of New York. Alito and Thomas (R) will hypocritically side with the NRA. Coney Barrett's still an unknown.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

Oh, and P.S. on the idea of the Second Amendment allowing the people to organize their own private militias to overthrow the government if they're unhappy with it: What in the hell kind of idiot Founding Father would advocate for his own murder over a policy disagreement? That's why they included all that "voting" and "Congress" and "separation of powers" nonsense.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
Tommy Tar
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:32 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Tommy Tar »

joefutbol wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:31 pm We now know what a comma is, but can you define "arms" for us?
To furnish or equip with weapons.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arm
President Elect Tommy Tar.
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25422
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Wabash »

Tommy Tar wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:45 am To furnish or equip with weapons.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arm
We know what the term means. As I have pointed out. The 2A is not an absolute. The US regulates (also in the 2A) certain types of weapons now. And those types of weapons are rarely used in crimes.

So we know that regulation works.

We also know the courts have found that the Second Amendment does not prevent sensible regulation (just as the First Amendment does not preclude laws on defamation). There is no constitutional objection to, say, universal background checks to obtain a gun.
Last edited by Wabash on Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stay loose, and be a little afraid.
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25422
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Wabash »

John Q. Public wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:13 pm Oh, and P.S. on the idea of the Second Amendment allowing the people to organize their own private militias to overthrow the government if they're unhappy with it:
That is the biggest flaw in those believing they need to be armed to resist tyranny. From who? The US government? Who gets to decide when the leadership has become tyrannical. I know many libs who believed Trump acted like a tyrant. Would they have been justified in taking up arms against the government?

Taking up arms against the federal government is considered treason. Which is the only crime specified in the Constitution. And still punishable by death.

I have to constantly remind gun crazies who believe their puny little AR-15 or assault type rifle will be what prevents tyranny. The US military is not afraid of their puny little assault rifles.
Stay loose, and be a little afraid.
Tommy Tar
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:32 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Tommy Tar »

The State of NY bands all firearms to be carried.

So you will be okay with me concealing my S&W 38 special? It holds only 5 shots. --:--
President Elect Tommy Tar.
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25422
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Wabash »

Not sure of your point.
Stay loose, and be a little afraid.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

Tommy Tar wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:53 am The State of NY bands all firearms to be carried.
Bands? Like they do with pigeons? :eh?:
Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

Wabash wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:52 am Taking up arms against the federal government is considered treason. Which is the only crime specified in the Constitution.
Ooookay. It also defines treason and that ain't it. "Sedition" or "rebellion," maybe but not treason.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
joefutbol
Posts: 5529
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:28 am
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by joefutbol »

Tommy Tar wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:45 am To furnish or equip with weapons
Ah. So nuclear arms, ballistic arms, tanks... We have the right bear all those arms?
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25422
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by Wabash »

John Q. Public wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:02 am Ooookay. It also defines treason and that ain't it. "Sedition" or "rebellion," maybe but not treason.
treason
/ˈtriːz(ə)n/

The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.

I forgot to mention. I also tell my gun crazy friends that Red Dawn was NOT a documentary.
Stay loose, and be a little afraid.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 21241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by John Q. Public »

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

US Constitution Article III, § 3

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

18 U.S. Code § 2381

There's another issue with 18th Century English there, but a ragtag band of cosplatriots "taking up arms" and actually "levying war" are a little bit different.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
ShiftyMutt
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:46 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: SCOTUS to take up major gun-rights case

Post by ShiftyMutt »

Ah. So nuclear arms, ballistic arms, tanks... We have the right bear all those arms?

And back then they only had muskets.
It will be interesting to see how “original” the “originalists” are.
Post Reply