Not everywhere.
Perhaps I'm missing sarcasm....but everywhere.
Not everywhere.
The Right exists everywhere but you may get a trip to the grey bar hotel if you try to exercise it in some places.
Congress can repeal an amendment. They cannot repeal a Right. The Right existed before the amendment, the Right will exist after its' repeal.
but 3/4 of the states need to approve.
Maybe. But justices, like the rest of us, don' t really fall into simple, caricaturish, categories. I know "conservatives" who hate firearms, and "liberals" who have enjoyed time at the range and understand that not everyone who owns a gun is evil or crazy.
And, sometimes, on occasion, a justice actually makes a decision on a basis of rational interpretation of law, rather than his or her feelings about the issue.
That is not at all true when you look at the record and facts. The left justices vote fairly consistently left, the right fairly consistently right, and one playing the middle is the only wild card.
you can occasionally find a Republican who has gone off the rails and gone center or left in the court cases, but Democrat appointed federal judges and supreme court justices don't support even Heller
As far as the rest of us, that is not true either. The surveys and polling show Democrats, and self describe liberals and progressives, support additional wide and deep reduction in Second amendment rights, and people on the right support keeping or expanding second amendment rights .
That divide has become even more pronounced in the past generation, not less.
Perhaps I'm missing sarcasm....but everywhere.
This case will most likely be settled on the grounds of ones constitutional right to travel with lawfully owned property and limited to previous Heller findings concerning firearms in the home. Because the law is limited to intrastate travel, the commerce clause doesn't apply here.
Don't get your hopes up for any novel 2nd Amendment decision.
The question presented is:
Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Thomas wont be deciding anything, Roberts will.Thomas has a hard on for more 2A cases. We’ll see. I think the 2A trumps the commerce clause. The Bill of Rights vs the commerce clause.
This case will most likely be settled on the grounds of ones constitutional right to travel with lawfully owned property and limited to previous Heller findings concerning firearms in the home. Because the law is limited to intrastate travel, the commerce clause doesn't apply here.
Don't get your hopes up for any novel 2nd Amendment decision.
The question presented is:
Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
The laws states it is intrastate but the effect is also patently interstate. There is no denying it is also an interstate issue. A lot of NYC residents would be shooting at ranges NJ.
And there are other compelling arguments:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/66119/20181009105152662_18-280 Amici Brief.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...estern States Sheriffs Association et al.pdf
Groups outside of NY have certainly have amicus briefs in.
Again i think all that matters is Roberts political opinion. He is a political animal and will consider public opinion much more than he should.
I think he will overturn NY law but do so extremely narrowly and not support strict scrutiny, despite this case having clear interstate implications and despite the pattern of NY laws and federal splits arguing strong for strict
No petitioner in the case wanted to take their firearm outside the state. If the federal government can't regulate the possession of a firearm, under their commerce powers, outside of a school as in US v Lopez. What makes you think they can here?
On the ny case, I recall the interstate part from reading brief, but don’t recall if it was specifically a petitioner or support brief, but inter state was mentioned... Limiting the owners both at inter and intra state levels. So trying both a 2a spin and commerce clause as well and hoping for a win on either OR both grounds.
Thomas wont be deciding anything, Roberts will.
Roberts will decide if it is strict or not, commerce or not and upheld or not.
Just as all that mattered for Heller: is what Kennedy would let Scalia do.
I think your optics are wrong. I think there is a reason the justices haven’t taken 2A cases. It’s not about Roberts deciding, it’s about Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh knowing how Roberts will vote.
It wasn’t about what Kennedy would LET Scalia do, it was about Scalia knowing what Kennedy would do.
Thomas wont be deciding anything, Roberts will.
Roberts will decide if it is strict or not, commerce or not and upheld or not.
Just as all that mattered for Heller: is what Kennedy would let Scalia do.
The laws states it is intrastate but the effect is also patently interstate. There is no denying it is also an interstate issue. A lot of NYC residents would be shooting at ranges NJ.
And there are other compelling arguments:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/66119/20181009105152662_18-280 Amici Brief.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...estern States Sheriffs Association et al.pdf
Groups outside of NY have certainly have amicus briefs in.
Again i think all that matters is Roberts political opinion. He is a political animal and will consider public opinion much more than he should.
I think he will overturn NY law but do so extremely narrowly and not support strict scrutiny, despite this case having clear interstate implications and despite the pattern of NY laws and federal splits arguing strong for strict