Supreme Court May Decide to Take up Gun Carry Case Tomorrow

[M14 Shooter]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

This is a lie, as you know that neither case says any such thing.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

They said nothing of the kind.

They said simply that they were not deciding that question in the present cases (Heller and McDonald), and so there was no reason to thinks those cases were having an effect on the idea of "reasonable restrictions".

Yet.

They were merely deciding the questions covered in the Opinions: Whether it was constitutional to ban carrying inside one's own home (it wasn't, Heller), and whether the 2nd amendment protected an individual's right regardless of whether he's part of a military group (it does, McDonald).

The question of whether the 2nd amendment allows ANY restrictions at all on the right to keep and bear arms, is left undecided for now, and so people making such restrictions aren't banned, yet.

My guess is, the restrictions will keep getting knocked off, one at a time, as the questions in the above cases were.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, the Supreme Court just announced they were declining cert on the New York case.

Meaning, they STILL aren't making the decision yet.

----------------------------------------------

High court rejects challenge to NY gun law

High court rejects challenge to NY gun law

Apr. 15 10:19 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.

The high court action comes amid an intensifying congressional debate on new gun control measures. The issue has resurfaced prominently in Washington in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults.

 

[Oldguy]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

This is a lie, as you know that neither case says any such thing.

Want to bet? This is from the Heller opinion, which McDonald restated:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

This is a lie, as you know that neither case says any such thing.

Want to bet? This is from the Heller opinion, which McDonald restated:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

None of which translates to the court saying that "gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional".

In fact, the text of Heller itself disproves your claim in that:

...the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional...

Thus, you lied.

 

[Oldguy]

None of which translates to the court saying that "gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional".

Then how else would you read that?

[/quote]In fact, the text of Heller itself disproves your claim in that:

...the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional...

Thus, you lied.

Go ahead and quote the rest of that paragraph:

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

See what I emboldened? If a person cannot be "disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights," the Court would have had no reason to mention it...would they?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

Because criminals will care if the Supreme Court says they can't carry guns outside their home...

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of which translates to the court saying that "gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional".

Then how else would you read that?

However YOU might want to interpret is, the FACT is, it does not say what you claim.
You lied. Period.

Go ahead and quote the rest of that paragraph:

There's no need, as I gave you an example of unconstitutional gun control that involves something other than outright probition.
You lied. Period.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights,[/B] the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

See what -I- emboldened?
The court did not examine the licensing requrement.
This means that nothing in Heller can be read to address the constitutionality of such requirements.
You lied. Period.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They said nothing of the kind.

They said simply that they were not deciding that question in the present cases (Heller and McDonald), and so there was no reason to thinks those cases were having an effect on the idea of "reasonable restrictions".

Yet.

They were merely deciding the questions covered in the Opinions: Whether it was constitutional to ban carrying inside one's own home (it wasn't, Heller), and whether the 2nd amendment protected an individual's right regardless of whether he's part of a military group (it does, McDonald).

The question of whether the 2nd amendment allows ANY restrictions at all on the right to keep and bear arms, is left undecided for now, and so people making such restrictions aren't banned, yet.

My guess is, the restrictions will keep getting knocked off, one at a time, as the questions in the above cases were.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions

As I pointed out, this says that the Opinion it was written in, is not addressing the question of those other "longstanding prohibitions".

It says nothing about what future opinions might decide.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, the Supreme Court just announced they were declining cert on the New York case.

Meaning, they STILL aren't making the decision yet.

----------------------------------------------

High court rejects challenge to NY gun law

High court rejects challenge to NY gun law

Apr. 15 10:19 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.

The high court action comes amid an intensifying congressional debate on new gun control measures. The issue has resurfaced prominently in Washington in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults.

The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace.

For some reason, not a single news agency has printed the name of the case. Took half an hour of digging to find it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace.

For some reason, not a single news agency has printed the name of the case. Took half an hour of digging to find it.

Justices uphold state gun control law - CNN.com


Took about 2 seconds, just checked CNN/Politics. The link says the last update as at 10:05 EST.


>>>>

 

[Oldguy]

The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace.

For some reason, not a single news agency has printed the name of the case. Took half an hour of digging to find it.

Justices uphold state gun control law - CNN.com


Took about 2 seconds, just checked CNN/Politics. The link says the last update as at 10:05 EST.


>>>>

That CNN headline is not entirely correct. Just because the Court declined to hear the case does not mean they "upheld" the state law in question. There are numerous reasons the Court may decline to accept a case which may, or may not, have a direct bearing on that law.

In this case, the Court denied certiorari, which means it declined to order the lower court to forward the case, as it was asked to do by one party or another. According to Rule 10 of the Supreme Court, "Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." In other words, the Court can pick and chose what it wants to pursue and, in this case, they chose not to for whatever reason (usually because 4 justices don't want to).

Yes, the lower court ruling stands, but that's not the same thing as the Supreme Court upholding the ruling.

 

[paulitician]

They refused to take up the New York Law. Just more proof our Supreme Court is owned by the NWO Globalist Elite. They could care less about our Constitution. Their all-in on that whole New World Order thing. It's very sad.

 

[Oldguy]

None of which translates to the court saying that "gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional".

Then how else would you read that?

However YOU might want to interpret is, the FACT is, it does not say what you claim.
You lied. Period.

Go ahead and quote the rest of that paragraph:

There's no need, as I gave you an example of unconstitutional gun control that involves something other than outright probition.
You lied. Period.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights,[/B] the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

See what -I- emboldened?
The court did not examine the licensing requrement.
This means that nothing in Heller can be read to address the constitutionality of such requirements.
You lied. Period.

The Court did not address the licensing requirement because Heller conceded that it was Constitutional if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously...which it wasn't. In other words, all parties; Heller, the District of Columbia AND the Court agreed that the licensing requirement is Constitutional. And, that licensing requirement IS gun control.

But, you go right ahead and believe what you want. You refuse to see the facts anyhow.

 

[Oldguy]

They refused to take up the New York Law. Just more proof our Supreme Court is owned by the NWO Globalist Elite. They could care less about our Constitution. Their all-in on that whole New World Order thing. It's very sad.

Oh, for gosh sakes!

 

[WorldWatcher]

The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace.

For some reason, not a single news agency has printed the name of the case. Took half an hour of digging to find it.

Justices uphold state gun control law - CNN.com


Took about 2 seconds, just checked CNN/Politics. The link says the last update as at 10:05 EST.


>>>>

That CNN headline is not entirely correct. Just because the Court declined to hear the case does not mean they "upheld" the state law in question. There are numerous reasons the Court may decline to accept a case which may, or may not, have a direct bearing on that law.

In this case, the Court denied certiorari, which means it declined to order the lower court to forward the case, as it was asked to do by one party or another. According to Rule 10 of the Supreme Court, "Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." In other words, the Court can pick and chose what it wants to pursue and, in this case, they chose not to for whatever reason (usually because 4 justices don't want to).

Yes, the lower court ruling stands, but that's not the same thing as the Supreme Court upholding the ruling.

"Not a single news agency has printed the name of the case", which is what the post was the focus of the response.


>>>>

 

[Oldguy]

Justices uphold state gun control law - CNN.com


Took about 2 seconds, just checked CNN/Politics. The link says the last update as at 10:05 EST.


>>>>

That CNN headline is not entirely correct. Just because the Court declined to hear the case does not mean they "upheld" the state law in question. There are numerous reasons the Court may decline to accept a case which may, or may not, have a direct bearing on that law.

In this case, the Court denied certiorari, which means it declined to order the lower court to forward the case, as it was asked to do by one party or another. According to Rule 10 of the Supreme Court, "Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." In other words, the Court can pick and chose what it wants to pursue and, in this case, they chose not to for whatever reason (usually because 4 justices don't want to).

Yes, the lower court ruling stands, but that's not the same thing as the Supreme Court upholding the ruling.

You said that "not a single news agency has printed the name of the case", which is what the post was the focus of the response.


>>>>

No, I didn't say that. Somebody else did.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I didn't say that. Somebody else did.

Sorry, I've corrected the post.


>>>>

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then how else would you read that?

However YOU might want to interpret is, the FACT is, it does not say what you claim.
You lied. Period.


There's no need, as I gave you an example of unconstitutional gun control that involves something other than outright probition.
You lied. Period.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights,[/B] the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

See what -I- emboldened?
The court did not examine the licensing requrement.
This means that nothing in Heller can be read to address the constitutionality of such requirements.
You lied. Period.

The Court did not address the licensing requirement because Heller conceded that it was Constitutional

Another lie.
Heller did not ask the court to address the licensing requirement, and so the court did not do so. As the court did not address the licensing requirement, the court did not, in any way shape or form, rule upon the constitutionalisy of that requirement. There's no concession of the point here by anyone, only the intentional narrowing of the question, and thus the ruling, of the case.

You refuse to see the facts anyhow.

Says he who was given an example of unconstitutional gun control that involves something other than outright probition, which you ignored.
So far, all -you- have done here is lie.

 

[kwc57]

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about the word 'infringe.' Anything besides a 9-0 vote for gun rights would be an embarrassment. But the court lost all dignity after Obamacare.

Well, somehow, I would hope after Newtown, Roberts and Kennedy will join the sane justices on this issue.

Gotta love the gun nutters. They want to have unrestricted guns while the gun industry fights to retain the right to sell guns to the criminal and the insane.

Link to your evidence where the gun industry targets this specific demographic? I'll wait.