User Panel
|
Quoted: Expect orders and opinions on Monday. They would typically release one or two a weekday before argument, but since they aren’t doing arguments they just release them on Monday electronically. So, I suspect we will have some on Monday. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Any updates? Expect orders and opinions on Monday. They would typically release one or two a weekday before argument, but since they aren’t doing arguments they just release them on Monday electronically. So, I suspect we will have some on Monday. Most of us will be dead by then. |
|
Quoted: Expect orders and opinions on Monday. They would typically release one or two a weekday before argument, but since they aren’t doing arguments they just release them on Monday electronically. So, I suspect we will have some on Monday. View Quote Thank you & thanks for fighting for our rights. |
|
|
|
Speculation reading if you are bored.
NYSRPA & COVID-19 https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/2020/04/15/nysrpa-covid-19/ |
|
|
Can I assume there is nothing noteworthy to the Second Amendment in today's Orders of the Court?
|
|
|
Who does everyone think is writing NYSRPA?
I hope it’s Thomas but believe it’s Kavanaugh. I fear it’s Roberts. |
|
|
and the case is for all intents and purposes, moot:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf |
|
Quoted: and the case is for all intents and purposes, moot: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: and the case is for all intents and purposes, moot: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf Well. Dang. After the initial arguments and so much focus being on mooting it I suppose it's not much of a surprise. Thanks so much Kavanaugh. ETA: I shouldn't be so down about his concurrence with mooting the case. He did go on to say: I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court. |
|
Quoted: Well. Dang. After the initial arguments and so much focus being on mooting it I suppose it's not much of a surprise. Thanks so much Kavanaugh. ETA: I shouldn't be so down about his concurrence with mooting the case. He did go on to say: View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: and the case is for all intents and purposes, moot: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf Well. Dang. After the initial arguments and so much focus being on mooting it I suppose it's not much of a surprise. Thanks so much Kavanaugh. ETA: I shouldn't be so down about his concurrence with mooting the case. He did go on to say: I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court. You have four Justices saying the lower courts are doing it wrong and a new case must be taken, it takes four votes to grant cert, and they can drag Roberts into the fold. Mance (interstate handgun sales) or Pena (CA handgun roster) are my bets for the next case to be granted. Kharn |
|
Quoted: You have four Justices saying the lower courts are doing it wrong and a new case must be taken, it takes four votes to grant cert, and they can drag Roberts into the fold. Mance (interstate handgun sales) or Pena (CA handgun roster) are my bets for the next case to be granted. Kharn View Quote This is correct. Kavanaugh said THIS case was moot, but the lower courts have been thumbing their nose at the 2nd Amendment. He is saying let's fix this and take up a case that won't be moot. Roberts is the only open question. He basically decides the scope of the 2nd Amendment. The bad thing is that this won't be done this term. It will be next term. We desperately need Trump to replace Breyer or Ginsburg on the court. We can't count on Roberts. That is and should be the SOLE ISSUE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION FOR GUN OWNERS. Replacing Ginsburg or Breyer, it all hinges on that. |
|
Quoted: We desperately need Trump to replace Breyer or Ginsburg on the court. We can't count on Roberts. That is and should be the SOLE ISSUE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION FOR GUN OWNERS. Replacing Ginsburg or Breyer, it all hinges on that. View Quote Trump wins in 2020 and we'll see a 6-3 or 7-2 SCOTUS for 20 years, every circuit court flipped, and the demise of Chevron. I used to be a single issue gun voter, now I'm a single issue Judicial voter. |
|
Quoted: Trump wins in 2020 and we'll see a 6-3 or 7-2 SCOTUS for 20 years, every circuit court flipped, and the demise of Chevron. I used to be a single issue gun voter, now I'm a single issue Judicial voter. View Quote AMEN We must get Trump reelected, lets hope all the "bu bu my bumpstocks" schmucks get their heads out of their asses! One more SCOTUS pick & things will drastically change in our favor & the Commies know it! |
|
PER CURIAM. In the District Court, petitioners challenged a New York City rule regarding the transport of firearms. Petitioners claimed that the rule violated the Second Amendment. Petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners' claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari. 586 U. S. ___ (2019). After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint. App. 48. Petitioners' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City's old rule is therefore moot. Petitioners now argue, however, that the new rule may still infringe their rights. In particular, petitioners claim that they may not be allowed to stop for coffee, gas, food, or restroom breaks on the way to their second homes or shooting ranges outside of the city. The City responds that those routine stops are entirely permissible under the new rule. We do not here decide that dispute about the new rule; as we stated in Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 482483 (1990): "Our ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss. See, e.g., Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S., at 204; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 3940 (1950). However, in instances where the mootness is attributable to a change in the legal framework governing the case, and where the plaintiff may have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably not asserted previously, our practice is to vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings in which the parties may, if necessary, amend their pleadings or develop the record more fully. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Inc., 404 U. S. 412, 415 (1972)." Petitioners also argue that, even though they have not previously asked for damages with respect to the City's old rule, they still could do so in this lawsuit. Petitioners did not seek damages in their complaint; indeed, the possibility of a damages claim was not raised until well into the litigation in this Court. The City argues that it is too late for petitioners to now add a claim for damages. On remand, the Court of Appeals and the District Court may consider whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate. It is so ordered. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Trump wins in 2020 and we'll see a 6-3 or 7-2 SCOTUS for 20 years, every circuit court flipped, and the demise of Chevron. I used to be a single issue gun voter, now I'm a single issue Judicial voter. View Quote For that wet dream to come true we also need to keep/increase our lead in Congress. |
|
Quoted: For that wet dream to come true we also need to keep/increase our lead in Congress. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Trump wins in 2020 and we'll see a 6-3 or 7-2 SCOTUS for 20 years, every circuit court flipped, and the demise of Chevron. I used to be a single issue gun voter, now I'm a single issue Judicial voter. For that wet dream to come true we also need to keep/increase our lead in Congress. Nervous Republicans See Trump Sinking, and Taking Senate With Him |
|
Scotus will never help NY. It would be too sweeping and effect too many people. They don't like to make waves.
We are forever screwed. Even if a strict scrutiny ruling comes down this decade NY will ignore it and the 2nd circus will just uphold it. Scotus will ignore it. NY is just too big to fail regarding gun laws. |
|
View Quote NYT? It's nice that the Never_Trumpers got their own mod. |
|
|
View Quote I don't have to try again, your posts speak for themselves. |
|
Quoted: I don't have to try again, your posts speak for themselves. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: I don't have to try again, your posts speak for themselves. Trump must be worshipped,like a God,no matter what,and anyone that criticizes him is a damned NeverTrumper.............. Same same with the Republican Party. |
|
Quoted: I don't have to try again, your posts speak for themselves. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: I don't have to try again, your posts speak for themselves. |
|
Quoted: If you read the article even though it is from the NYT. Republicans are afraid of Trump losing approval by the public and how it affects the down ballot votes. View Quote that's bs and anyone believing that are dopes. I'll tell you what, if reps don't start doing their job, I won't vote because I'm seeing very little difference between them an dems |
|
Expand?? The language of the 2nd says "arms" which means basically all weapons and armor. Can't expand much beyond that.
I thought it was already settled that the 2nd was a individual/personal right? So this seems screwy to even be in question. |
|
Quoted: Trump must be worshipped,like a God,no matter what,and anyone that criticizes him is a damned NeverTrumper.............. Same same with the Republican Party. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I don't have to try again, your posts speak for themselves. Trump must be worshipped,like a God,no matter what,and anyone that criticizes him is a damned NeverTrumper.............. Same same with the Republican Party. yeah they are negative for our gun rights, bump stock, fallen states, and yeah more lip service hack, we did much better in obama years |
|
View Quote The same New York Times that reported that Hillary has a 95% chance of victory? The one recently caught blaming Hannity for some guy taking his Coronavirus advice two weeks before he gave it? https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/21/nyt-author-who-faulted-fox-news-for-mans-tragic-passing-also-downplayed-coronavirus/ That’s a reliable source for sure. |
|
Quoted: The same New York Times that reported that Hillary has a 95% chance of victory? The one recently caught blaming Hannity for some guy taking his advice two weeks before he gave it? That's a reliable source for sure. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: The same New York Times that reported that Hillary has a 95% chance of victory? The one recently caught blaming Hannity for some guy taking his advice two weeks before he gave it? That's a reliable source for sure. Trump's poor poll numbers trigger GOP alarms over November President Trump faces a major hurdle with swing state voters GOP panicked over Trump's collapsing poll numbers as president's campaign aides battle over strategy |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't have to try again, your posts speak for themselves. Trump must be worshipped,like a God,no matter what,and anyone that criticizes him is a damned NeverTrumper.............. Same same with the Republican Party. yeah they are negative for our gun rights, bump stock, fallen states, and yeah more lip service hack, we did much better in obama years https://i.imgur.com/EouKuM5.jpg |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The same New York Times that reported that Hillary has a 95% chance of victory? The one recently caught blaming Hannity for some guy taking his advice two weeks before he gave it? That's a reliable source for sure. Trump's poor poll numbers trigger GOP alarms over November President Trump faces a major hurdle with swing state voters GOP panicked over Trump's collapsing poll numbers as president's campaign aides battle over strategy Can we keep this on track about gun rights litigation and that path forward rather than another bash the GOP distraction? People haven’t even had time to read All 34 pages yet |
|
Quoted: and the case is for all intents and purposes, moot: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf View Quote Does Alito’s dissent help us at all in other lower court cases? |
|
Quoted: Trump's poor poll numbers trigger GOP alarms over November President Trump faces a major hurdle with swing state voters GOP panicked over Trump's collapsing poll numbers as president's campaign aides battle over strategy View Quote A Politico article and an article that references the Politico article. Yawn. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: NYT? It's nice that the Never_Trumpers got their own mod. https://i.imgur.com/qrH1VFY.jpg Try again. You've already stated in another thread that "Trump fooled me once, he won't fool me again." You're a N_T now. |
|
Quoted: Can we keep this on track about gun rights litigation and that path forward rather than another bash the GOP distraction? People haven’t even had time to read All 34 pages yet View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The same New York Times that reported that Hillary has a 95% chance of victory? The one recently caught blaming Hannity for some guy taking his advice two weeks before he gave it? That's a reliable source for sure. Trump's poor poll numbers trigger GOP alarms over November President Trump faces a major hurdle with swing state voters GOP panicked over Trump's collapsing poll numbers as president's campaign aides battle over strategy Can we keep this on track about gun rights litigation and that path forward rather than another bash the GOP distraction? People haven’t even had time to read All 34 pages yet That’s the problem. There is no path forward. Trumps picks are perfectly willing to let infringements stand. He could pick the whole court and nothing will change. |
|
Quoted: That’s the problem. There is no path forward. Trumps picks are perfectly willing to let infringements stand. He could pick the whole court and nothing will change. View Quote Don't bother them with facts they have more Kool Aid to drink about Trumps 2A Utopia being just around corner. These things take time you gotta trust the 2A Coalitions picks for SCOTUS that Trump is using. |
|
Quoted: You've already stated in another thread that "Trump fooled me once, he won't fool me again." You're a N_T now. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: NYT? It's nice that the Never_Trumpers got their own mod. https://i.imgur.com/qrH1VFY.jpg Try again. You've already stated in another thread that "Trump fooled me once, he won't fool me again." You're a N_T now. |
|
Quoted: Don't bother them with facts they have more Kool Aid to drink about Trumps 2A Utopia being just around corner. These things take time you gotta trust the 2A Coalitions picks for SCOTUS that Trump is using. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: That's the problem. There is no path forward. Trumps picks are perfectly willing to let infringements stand. He could pick the whole court and nothing will change. Don't bother them with facts they have more Kool Aid to drink about Trumps 2A Utopia being just around corner. These things take time you gotta trust the 2A Coalitions picks for SCOTUS that Trump is using. |
|
|
Quoted: Fair enough call me when something actually gets done. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
|
It's very heartwarming to see the Share_Blue Squad show up to defend their favorite mod.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.