Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Defense Rifle

    Active Member
    Jul 1, 2016
    238
    NC
    Heller does not specifically address the issue outside the home. It talks about self defense and that it is at it maximum inside the home. While most courts seem to concede that there is some right outside the home, the extent of the right appears to be very limited. All most all restrictions are upheld. This case is yet another example.

    So what if your homeless? Do you not have a right to keep a firearm for self-defense?

    If you don't have a "home", then you would have to be able to carry it with you in public, either concealed or openly, in order to exercise the right.

    Or does a homeless person get to say, well the streets/outdoors is my home, home defined as a place of living/dwelling, hence they are allowed to carry a firearm in public?
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    The Hearing Protection Act was done in by Las Vegas. We'll see what event influences this decision.

    No, the HPA was never going anywhere to begin with. It was a nice piece of lip service to 2A to get some votes, but it was never going to pass. It was in fact rolled in to the SHARE act, and that got tied up and died without ever coming to a vote.

    Vegas had nothing to do with the HPA failing, and I'd go so far as to say that suggesting that Vegas was planned in order to kill it is fairly despicable.
     

    Bigfoot21075

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 3, 2008
    1,404
    Elkridge, MD
    No, the HPA was never going anywhere to begin with. It was a nice piece of lip service to 2A to get some votes, but it was never going to pass. It was in fact rolled in to the SHARE act, and that got tied up and died without ever coming to a vote.

    Vegas had nothing to do with the HPA failing, and I'd go so far as to say that suggesting that Vegas was planned in order to kill it is fairly despicable.

    I would also point out that our government has a rich history of doing some fairly despicable things...
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    No, the HPA was never going anywhere to begin with. It was a nice piece of lip service to 2A to get some votes, but it was never going to pass. It was in fact rolled in to the SHARE act, and that got tied up and died without ever coming to a vote.

    Vegas had nothing to do with the HPA failing, and I'd go so far as to say that suggesting that Vegas was planned in order to kill it is fairly despicable.

    Then you've gone too far. I fail to see your logic in coming to your inference about my statement. If you like, I can demonstrate similar faulty logic in making some inferences of my own about your reply.

    I did not say or suggest that Vegas was caused by the HPA, only that the lack of progress of the HPA was a result of Vegas. As to whether the HPA would have passed or not in the absence of Vegas is quite academic at this point.
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    Then you've gone too far. I fail to see your logic in coming to your inference about my statement. If you like, I can demonstrate similar faulty logic in making some inferences of my own about your reply.

    I did not say or suggest that Vegas was caused by the HPA, only that the lack of progress of the HPA was a result of Vegas. As to whether the HPA would have passed or not in the absence of Vegas is quite academic at this point.

    So you're saying that this part of your post:

    Look for a highly covered mass violence event with a firearm shortly before or after oral arguments...

    Is not meant to infer that you think that there is someone or someones out there who will purposefully plan a mass murder just to submarine this particular bill? Because that's how it read to me.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Is not meant to infer that you think that there is someone or someones out there who will purposefully plan a mass murder just to submarine this particular bill? Because that's how it read to me.

    It has been a timing coincidence in Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and other incidents related to the something Pro-2A being advanced.

    One time is just paranoid thinking
    Two times is just a coincidence
    Three or more times is a pattern of behavior.
     

    Bigfoot21075

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 3, 2008
    1,404
    Elkridge, MD
    So you're saying that this part of your post:



    Is not meant to infer that you think that there is someone or someones out there who will purposefully plan a mass murder just to submarine this particular bill? Because that's how it read to me.

    Just like someone would never purposefully supply arms (later used to kill border agents) to cartel members for political power and to highlight anti 2A sentiment?

    Just like someone would never approve the sale of 20% of our Uranium to the Russians?
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    This could be a huge decision," says Adam Winkler, author of "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America" and a UCLA School of Law professor. "This case is going to end badly for gun violence prevention advocates."

    Gun control groups are so worried about the court's direction on the Second Amendment that they would prefer to see New York City change the challenged rules. That could render the case moot and prevent the court from hearing it.

    Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says if the rules were changed, "it certainly would not be an issue worthy of the Supreme Court's consideration.”

    Otherwise, he says, “There is a potential that this case will lead to a discussion by some justices, and perhaps by a majority, about whether the right to a firearm extends outside the home into public places."

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...nd-amendment-gun-rights/ar-BBSZi0c?ocid=ientp
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    So you're saying that this part of your post:







    Is not meant to infer that you think that there is someone or someones out there who will purposefully plan a mass murder just to submarine this particular bill? Because that's how it read to me.
    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess I'm just despicable then, yes?

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,466
    MoCo
    While the specifics of the NY case (the draconian transportation laws) do not impact MD, or really anyone else, if the SCOTUS overturns the NY law by applying strict scrutiny, THAT is a meaningful impact. The SCOTUS may up the protection of 2A rights to the elevated status as a right that 1A enjoys.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    I find it more ironic that Adam Winkler says the gun controllers will lose. He has proven that he is not completely pro-2A.
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    also worth noting, a majority vote in this case will still mean nothing for us here in Maryland.

    I don't know why everyone is so worked up over this case.

    Well, people are worked up for a couple of reasons:

    Even though the specifics of the case don't apply to us, the broader implications do. The big one is that Heller never decided that people had a right to a gun for self defense outside the home. It is possible (though I don't think incredibly likely given the specifics of this case) that the ruling on this could correct that. If that were to happen, then "may issue" CCW permitting schemes like Maryland's would be doomed.

    It would also likely have implications on rules that seek to restrict transport of firearms (like Maryland's rules around only being able to transport regulated firearms to certain places and under certain circumstances, though this isn't guaranteed since Maryland doesn't seek in general to keep you from taking them out of state).

    The big one though is that if they decide that cases like this warrant strict scrutiny, well, that's a huge win for all of us.
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess I'm just despicable then, yes?

    No, you're not despicable. The idea that there's somehow a grand conspiracy on the part of people who don't agree with us to commit mass murder on that scale just to keep a law from passing (which, btw, didn't even exist on its own by then, it had been rolled into a larger "Sportsman's" act) is pretty crass, though.
     

    Decoy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2007
    4,926
    Dystopia
    Do you guys think this is going to be broad judicial decision or a very narrow ruling?
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    Look for a highly covered mass violence event with a firearm shortly before or after oral arguments...

    The Hearing Protection Act was done in by Las Vegas. We'll see what event influences this decision.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Sadly yes.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,312
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom