@AndiTurner what’s the likelihood of a successful case to or get the lege to overturn 30.05/.06/.07 signs based on Bruen?
Yeah, but then they probably walked in the courtroom with a lot of holes in their argument .From what I’ve read, the justices really poked a lot of holes in New York’s arguments
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
In their eyes we did. Yes they did cause their demise as what they did was "take an inch go for the mile approach.‘We’ didn’t trigger shit. In this specific instance, NY could have changed their law, but chose not to. In the abortion case, Missouri put in a place a 15 week timeline. Abortion rights group didn’t like it and sued.
Yes, but the real biggie is a very old SCOTUS decision exending the “Interstate Commerce Clause”.
If they reverse that one, we go back to pure federalism, and the entire “big government” and its “deep state” come tumbling down.
I don’t think that they have the guts to “do the right thing”; but we may be surprised.
Pray !
I look for some sort of backlash from New York politicians and legislators in light of this SCOTUS ruling. But I see the new ruling possibly hindering them quite a bit. I hope anyways.
Not yet possible.I am surprised daily with this SCOTUS. I am hoping that they take up the Rhode vs Becerra ammo case.
I know that but something tells me that it will end up going to SCOTUS. As you can tell I have no confidence in the 9th.Not yet possible.
The 9th Circuit is still working on Rhode. The 9th has only known about the Bruen decision for a few days, just like the rest of us, so the 9th will need to reconsider Rhode in the light of the Bruen decision, which will take months, at least.
The proper paperwork to get the 9th to reconsider Rhode, given the Bruen decision, was filed a few days ago (just hours after the Bruen decision was released), so it probably hasn't even been entered into the 9th's calendar yet by the court's clerk.
Some months from now, the 9th will get around to acting like morons WRT Rhode, and totally screw the pooch. Then, and only then, can Rhode ask SCOTUS to take a look.
I know that but something tells me that it will end up going to SCOTUS. As you can tell I have no confidence in the 9th.
There is also the just write a law and it’s constitutional until ruled otherwise tactic.… the "holes" which are left in our armor after Bruen...
I am surprised daily with this SCOTUS. I am hoping that they take up the Rhode vs Becerra ammo case.
^^^^This!^^^^There is also the just write a law and it’s constitutional until ruled otherwise tactic.
There is also the just write a law and it’s constitutional until ruled otherwise tactic.
^^^^This!^^^^
They can still pass unconstitutional laws all day long, and those laws still stand until someone decides to challenge the merits of whether the law is, or isn't constitutional.
My point is, they are not going to just give in and give up on "gun control" issues. That I believe they are going to get smart and crafty in how they write new legislation regarding gun rights.True, there is a presumption of constitutionality. However, there are consequences to states passing these laws which will dis-incent them from going full retard.
First are the financial consequences, which lead to election consequences. While the fringe leftist voters will never care, the moderate taxpayers get upset when they find out that the govt continually wastes their tax money by passing unconstitutional laws, and then when those laws get overturned, their government ends up writing fat checks. Those moderates then vote the other way, and some of those politicians will lose the one thing they care about -- staying in office.
Eventually, through many lawsuits, the pro-2A crowd will find those few judges who are also pro-2A, and funnel many cases through that judge, all of them if necessary. Look at Judge Roger Benitez in California, they call him "Saint Benitez", because he totally gets the 2A and his decisions reflect that. So now, they can get injunctions on laws relatively quickly -- sometimes more quickly than the legislature can create those laws.
It's then up to the state to appeal, try to get the injunction overturned, and the fight is on. While the injunction is in place, it's as if the law doesn't exist.
The second thing is the risk of sweeping decisions in court. This is exactly what NY tried to avoid when they mooted their own case before Bruen happened. DC just tried to do the same thing, whether or not they'll get away with it is TBD.
Big money donors and high-ranking party officials will often tell locals to take a loss in a case instead of appealing a loss just to keep the damage local. If NY weren't such a pit of vain lunatics, they would have listened to those voices, and not pursued the Bruen case, but they are religious zealots, and kept after it, and now the entire nation will live forever will expanded gun rights. Thanks, NY!
So I think what we'll see are very carefully considered anti-2A laws. These will not be broad, powerful attempts to disarm the population, they will be shaving nicks, trying to annoy you to death. In places like CA and NY, they will certainly succeed in dissuading many from going down the path of gun ownership. Elections have consequences, and the morons in CA/NY will reap what they have sown, the Constitution can't save idiots from themselves.
Is Rhode v)
Becerra still stayed ?