Second Amendment day of reckoning? SCOTUS dissents foretell changes.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by G66enigma, May 4, 2020.

  1. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    863
    1,213
    93
    In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, here is an interesting analysis in an op-ed article at National Review. Suggests changes are afoot in SCOTUS that might bode well for casting down some of the hallmark "pillars" of anti-gun maltreatment of the RKBA.

    A pretty good read. Promising, if some of the apparent indicators (on SCOTUS) bear fruit.

    Another Court appointment, or even two, assuming the election doesn't go down the flusher (RKBA-wise), then there might well be hope on the horizon.


    The Second Amendment Day of Reckoning Is About to Dawn @ National Review, 5/2/20.

     
    alsaqr and bluez like this.
  2. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,052
    4,322
    113
    I'm warily hopeful.
    But it is IMO unlikely any federal entity will restore the RTKABA willingly. Including the robes.

    Gov sees gun control as just that. Keeping the balance of power in the gov and police hands so as to unconstitutionally control the population at ironically the point of a gun.
    It's an incorrect assumption as gov forces are hilariously out numbered and out gunned even now.

    I do not believe state or fed gov or courts will willingly relinquish the police state they believe they have created by repealing gun regulations, GCA and NFA.
     
    Caveman Jim and bluez like this.

  3. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    863
    1,213
    93
    Yeah, it's rough.


    I also don't believe "government" (in the U.S.) will willingly give up usurped power, once they've wrested it from us. (As is the case, with the RKBA.)

    But, really, at bottom, the courts, most specifically the Court, are ... or rather should be ... the main arbiters and enforcers to ensure the Constitution and its core principles are followed. (Naive to expect it'd happen automatically, but that's the essential purpose [if not function in practice].) Paid by us, yes. But not to pull out the Epsom salt and allow them to give us a bath, each case involving the Constitution's requirements and constraints.

    The more of these types of lawsuits that make it to SCOTUS, with clear and unjustifiable constraints placed upon individuals, the clearer it becomes: that SCOTUS and the other courts have tolerated and allowed, even promoted, the concept that the RKBA is to be treated differently than every other ostensibly protected liberty (in the BOR).

    That gets harder to justify, as time goes by.

    Imagine if the right to legal counsel and a public trial by jury of one's peers were treated like the RKBA's allowed to be treated ...

    • Can't let anyone know you've been arrested, until they let you.
    • Can't speak to legal counsel until they allow it.
    • Can't afford to engage counsel, if they've "frozen" your assets.
    • Can't speak to legal counsel except under the specific conditions they set.
    • Can't present your fullest defense, except what they'll allow.
    • Can't be allowed to dig too deeply into behaviors of "the authorities" lest ugly dirty laundry get too clearly exposed.
    • Have to prove your innocence if having used force upon another, if accused.
    • ...
    • But, otherwise, you get to defend yourself. If you're able to do it under such constraints, as opposed to what amounts to a "kangaroo" exercise with a largely predetermined outcome much of the time with RKBA-related cases.


    Yet, SCOTUS flatly refuses to consider the simplicity of that ... couched in the example of counsel/trial, or speech, or association.

    If they'd do THAT, I suspect they'd begin to see. If they'd revisit the Declaration and the BOR's preamble, even more so. And if they'd bloody well determine, 9:0, to stiffly and vigorously hold all challenge to the BOR's prohibitions to the highest possible scrutiny ... well then, we'd be getting somewhere.


    So. We'll see.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2020
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  4. TheDreadnought

    TheDreadnought Well-Known Member

    224
    299
    63
    I regularly predict doom, but in this case...

    ... I think SCOTUS is looking for the right case to drop the hammer on gun control. New York, for a number of reasons, wasn’t it.

    Same goes for nationwide court injunctions. They’re sick of dealing with them.