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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Caetano didn't have a license and possessed a stun-gun for self-defense...AND was ARRESTED for that. The arrest created the damage/injury needed for the SCOTUS to consider the case. It was a damage upon her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense. If someone isn't going to do that with the semi-autos, we'll have to wait until there's enough circuit court splits for them to hear a case. They MAY take the Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois case, as the plaintiffs there have in their possess those types of weapons for self-defense. But, they also possess FOID cards and licenses(contracts), so those may be the deciding factor in the SCOTUS not taking the case. They won't take the Mass case because they WANT to possess those types of weapons and don't possess them for self-defense.

    The issue you are talking about is related to standing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

    In all of the 2A cases that SCOTUS has held all of the petitioners have standing to bring the case. They would have already denied cert if they believed that was an issue.

    Standing is an issue in the MD HQL case, but that is currently in the 4th circuit.
     
    Last edited:

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    The issue you are talking about is related to standing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

    In all of the 2A cases that SCOTUS has held all of the petitioners have standing to bring the case. They would have already denied cert if they believed that was an issue.

    Standing is an issue in the MD HQL case, but that is currently in the 4th circuit.

    Believe what you want, but I'm going along with this supreme court justice.


    U.S. Supreme Court
    ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

    Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (concurring)

    The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:


    5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. 6 Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U. [297 U.S. 288, 348] * S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 , 35 S.Ct. 140. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99 , 100 S., 51 S.Ct. 392. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 , 42 S.Ct. 274, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,172
    Outside the Gates
    The issue you are talking about is related to standing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

    In all of the 2A cases that SCOTUS has held all of the petitioners have standing to bring the case. They would have already denied cert if they believed that was an issue.

    Standing is an issue in the MD HQL case, but that is currently in the 4th circuit.

    So, to have clear standing in the HQL case, a FFL may have to sell a gun to someone who did not possess an HQL and be arrested and tried?
     

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    So, to have clear standing in the HQL case, a FFL may have to sell a gun to someone who did not possess an HQL and be arrested and tried?

    Exactly. That is an absurd interpretation of what standing is. “I went to a gun store without an HQL and tried to buy a pistol and was turned away” is all you need.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Believe what you want, but I'm going along with this supreme court justice.


    U.S. Supreme Court
    ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

    Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (concurring)

    The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:


    5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. 6 Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U. [297 U.S. 288, 348] * S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 , 35 S.Ct. 140. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99 , 100 S., 51 S.Ct. 392. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 , 42 S.Ct. 274, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.

    It is not about what I believe, standing is the term the court uses to describe what you are talking about.

    The concept started in the 20's and Justice Brandeis was one of the first to author a case with the concept.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    So, to have clear standing in the HQL case, a FFL may have to sell a gun to someone who did not possess an HQL and be arrested and tried?

    Not exactly. What is needed is to demonstrate three things; injury-in-fact, casuation, and redressability. You generally don't need to go so far as to get arrested, but you do need to demonstrate that the issue is real and not hypothetical.

    In Heller there were six plaintiffs but only Heller actually applied for a permit to own a handgun. Heller was the only one with standing because the other five could not demonstrate they really wanted one by actually applying. They did not challenge the permit in Heller.

    In Kolbe, I believe all that was necessary was to declare that he wanted and "assault weapon" and the fear of prosecution prevented him from even trying.

    In the HQL case, I don't believe any of the individual plaintiffs actually tried to apply for the HQL. I seem to recall, the district court dismissed the case because none of them actually applied. From the oral argument in the 4CA, it appears that the plaintiffs are arguing that they do not need to actually apply because they do not want one in the first place. The state is arguing that the issue is still too hypothetical.

    The HQL case also has an FFL as a plaintiff. I believe they are arguing that they have standing because they turned a bunch of people away. The state seems to be challenging it because they did not keep records of them turning people away.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,566
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom