SCOTUS.. Even bigger than NRA decision...10 round and AW bans second look..

Whatever you call it, I'd like to point out a practical point of the decision about NY permits.

The NY laws about pistol ownership and carry were not struck down, no matter how badly the media wants to convince you they were.

What was found to be wrong, constitutionally, was the State's requirement on having to provide a "valid reason" and the State's authority to decide what was, and was not a valid reason.

TO me, this is not a ruling about the validity of a fundamental right, it is about the state infringing on the right by its procedures in accepting or denying permit applications.

what I am getting from the recent court rulings on guns, abortion, and the EPA is vastly different than what is being shouted from the proverbial rooftops in the electronic and print media.

I see these rulings are not about the fundamental issues involved, directly, they are about correcting "procedural errors" in the way the state or Federal govt has addressed those issues. Things like exercising authority not specifically granted in law, primarily.

I feel that the court is trying to require the govt and its various agencies to operate within the rules as written. Of course, its all more complex than that, and extremist on both sides of every issue LIE, further confusing people, but overall, I'm fine with what the court is actually doing, and why. They aren't doing what the ranting fanatics are saying they did, on either side of the issues.
 
44 AMP said:
TO me, this is not a ruling about the validity of a fundamental right, it is about the state infringing on the right by its procedures in accepting or denying permit applications.
Click to expand...

The Court could have addressed the procedural issue by simply saying license decisions have to be made on objective standards, but the ruling went beyond that.

A case involving procedural questions about how licenses were issued happened to be the vehicle that allowed the Court to address fundamental matters involving the right:
  • The ruling clarified that the Second Amendment is not substantially limited to the home as many lower courts tried to portray, and;
  • The two-step approach to evaluating cases that developed to justify rational basis or means-ends decisions is not acceptable.
NYSRPA was not the end of all gun control as some hysterics in the media claim, but it is substantially more than a determination about the role of governmental discretion in a particular type of licensing process.
 
44 AMP said:
I see these rulings are not about the fundamental issues involved, directly, they are about correcting "procedural errors" in the way the state or Federal govt has addressed those issues. Things like exercising authority not specifically granted in law, primarily.
Click to expand...

Certainly, the most fundamental aspect, existence of the individual right, was clarified in Heller. Yet the clarification in NYSRPA went beyond mere procedure and clarified the standard for lower courts to apply in detailing the limits of the right and remaining state power. I would describe that part as substantive.

I have sympathy for the misguided optimism about how far and how quickly the legal protection of the right will expand. With the remand orders we should see magazine limits and "assault weapon" bans fall, but our experience tells us that the distance between should and will can be immense.
 
Last edited:
Both New York and California are responding to the NYSRPA decision by enacting new laws that make pretty much anywhere within a city "sensitive" (and thus prohibited) places: public transportation, sidewalks, ... Then there are the hops they're adding that have to be jumped through to get a carry permit.

Given the specific language in the decision about NOT making it prohibitively expensive or difficult to obtain a permit, it's unlikely that most of these new requirements will withstand judicial review. But ... it will take years before new cases can make it before the Supreme Court. By that time, Thomas may no longer be there, so it'll be a brand new ball game.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Given the specific language in the decision about NOT making it prohibitively expensive or difficult to obtain a permit, it's unlikely that most of these new requirements will withstand judicial review. But ... it will take years before new cases can make it before the Supreme Court. By that time, Thomas may no longer be there, so it'll be a brand new ball game.
Click to expand...

A Grant, Vacate, Remand order (GVR order) is typically used, as with the four 2A cases, when there has been a change in legal circumstances after a lower court decision. Not only did the Supreme Court issue a subsequent precedential ruling in NYSRPA which the lower courts will have to apply in reaching new decisions on the cases, but subsequent changes to laws enacted by some of the states will also now have to be considered by the lower courts.

Hasty changes to state laws may be great PR moves, but will probably not achieve the legal result politicians claim.
 
Last edited:
It could take years to resolve these new laws but there’s the option to go straight to the SCOTUS and by pass all the bull like so many social justice cases seem to do . Keeping in mind the court is tired of the s 2nd amendment being a second class right so they may be inclined to take cases right away
 
Metal god said:
It could take years to resolve these new laws but there’s the option to go straight to the SCOTUS and by pass all the bull like so many social justice cases seem to do .
Click to expand...

And how is that done?
 
like so many social justice cases seem to do .
Click to expand...

SEEM to do....

I think that it right there, seem to do...Very few cases are news items UNTIL they reach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is not a trial court. They don't rule on the facts of a case or the guilt or innocence of the defendant. They rule on lower court decisions and points of law involved.

For that to happen, there must be a case tried in a lower court first. And normally more than one court ruling is involved during the appeals process. There must be at least two courts, the trial court and the court of appeal (the next higher level - Circuit court, District Court, etc ) before a case could go before the Supreme Court. And then they get to decide if they will hear the case.

Cases can even go back and forth at the appeals level more than once before reaching the Supreme Court level.

There is no "direct path" to the Supreme Court. The system doesn't work that way. If it SEEMS otherwise, that is the result of news coverage not being "cradle to grave" complete (or accurate).

The original trial may be in the news, for a time, and even the appeals court's rulings make the news, for a time. But Supreme Court cases are always news, and covered constantly until there is a ruling. How much coverage depends on how big a "hot button" the issue is.
 
44 has it . Once there’s a ruling against , we appeal directly to the scotus . It’s been done many times in history. Sorry didn’t mean to say we appeal a legislated law .

Let me ask this why does the scotus only take appeals of lower court rulings . Why can’t they read the text of a law and simply say , no no that’s clearly unconstitutional or clearly goes against what we just clarified?
 
Let me ask this why does the scotus only take appeals of lower court rulings . Why can’t they read the text of a law and simply say , no no that’s clearly unconstitutional or clearly goes against what we just clarified?
Click to expand...

The same reason other courts also don't.

Courts decide cases and controversies amongst parties. For a court to be able to decide something, someone needs to file in that court and against someone else.

It replaces the mechanism in which someone who wrongs you has it taken out of his hide by you directly. It isn't supposed to be a grand ayatollah who gives you unsolicited advice on how to make yourself right with the cosmos.
 
Metal god said:
44 has it . Once there’s a ruling against , we appeal directly to the scotus . It’s been done many times in history. Sorry didn’t mean to say we appeal a legislated law .
Click to expand...
I still think you have it wrong, but the attorneys present can correct me if I'm off base.

Cases involving violation of a state law are first prosecuted in a state court. If the alleged perpetrator loses, he/she then appeals to a state court of appeals and, if they lose there, to the state's supreme court.

If they still lose, and if they believe the law is unconstitutional, AND if they have deep pockets or can interest some national organization in their case, they can then appeal the state law to a federal district court. Or anyone with an objection to a federal law can directly file a federal lawsuit in a federal district court. Either way, if the petitioner loses in the district court the next step is the circuit court of appeals, NOT the Supreme Court. I have never heard of a way to appeal directly to the Supreme Court following a loss at the district court level.

You wrote that it has been done "many times." In what cases has it been done?
 
Why can’t they read the text of a law and simply say , no no that’s clearly unconstitutional or clearly goes against what we just clarified?
Click to expand...

Because that's not their job.

And, it never has been.

First off, there has to be a case, a case brought by someone who has standing to bring suit, AND had a claim of having been harmed (or would be harmed) by the law in question. THEN that case gets tried at the state level, and the process goes on the way AB described it, until/unless the plaintiff gives up, or the Supreme Court hears it and makes a ruling.

Look at the Heller vs DC case for one example. In that case, it took YEARS, just to find someone who had standing (Lived in DC) AND had a case that their virtual handgun ban harmed him. No "state level" (in that case DC) could even be filed until someone with both standing and a claim to harm was found and filed suit. (IIRC, it took about a decade before anyone meeting the requirements and willing to file suit was found) AND, was someone who could keep the appeals open until the case finally reached the high court.

you, or I, (or the rest of the country) may read a CA or NY or other state law and clearly see its nuts, its unconstitutional, its wrong etc., but if we don't live in that state, we don't have standing to file suit about it.

Federal law, we do have standing, since we live in the US, BUT standing alone isn't enough. There must be some claim of harm, and that claim is not, and will not be recognized until the verdict of the (lowest level) court on a case filed there.

The Supreme Court is not, and never was any kind of watchdog. Its not their job to tell Congress what to write or not write into a law. Nor is it their job to correct (or even explain) when any other segment of the govt misinterprets their rulings, UNTIL a case about that comes before them.

Our legislators and our administrators at all govt levels are supposed to be smart (and honest) enough to do their own research, and not write or do things they know are not Constitutional. Sadly, seems like too many are not, either from ignorance, or by intent.
 
In the past, there were limited circumstances in which cases could be appealed directly from a District Court to the Supreme Court. The most familiar such case is probably United States v. Miller, which was an "APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS." Cases can no longer go to the Supreme Court in that manner.

Some would consider appeals of constitutional issues from the highest Court in a state to be a "direct appeal" because such cases do not go through the lower federal courts. The Supreme Court describes the process as "Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue)." While some state cases may not go through the lower federal courts, they have gone through equivalent state court systems that would hardly seem to be "direct" appeals to the Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority to act as a trial court of original jurisdiction is limited to "Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." Congress has granted lower federal courts concurrent jurisdiction for most of those cases, which are generally routed to the lower courts rather than the Supreme Court. Actual Supreme Court cases of original jurisdiction are rare.
 
44 AMP said:
For whom???
Click to expand...
It's gonna put an end to these arbitrary laws once and for all.

If you know your judicial history, you already know that the high court has, on more than one occasion, declined to hear bans on "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines, the two of which invariably go together. And I've always believed I knew why — because gun-rights supporters on the court didn't feel comfortable with the rest of the bench, including Roberts.

But that has changed. It's simply a matter of time before the court hears an equivalent appeal from one of the circuits, and that's gonna be the end of it.

How was I not clear about that the first time?
 
I applaud your optimism, and I hope the Supreme Court does do away with all the BS gun control laws, but I'm realistic enough not to count on it.

Not because they wouldn't do what is right, but because of our system, and that system restricts the court to only acting on cases that come before them.

I'd love to see the entire NFA 34 go away. But I'm not holding my breath about it, or other long standing gun control laws being overturned by the current court. Some (more) gun control laws MIGHT BE, and that I would count as a good thing, but there has to be a specific case brought to the Supreme Court, before they can act.

And, while today's court seems favorable to the rule of common sense about a number of things, the makeup of the court WILL change again in just a few more years. I hope more good will come from the current court before that happens, but it will happen, and we could wind up back where we have been, for a long time to come. Or, possibly even worse. Also possible it COULD get better, but again, I'm not holding my breath.
 
Not because they wouldn't do what is right, but because of our system, and that system restricts the court to only acting on cases that come before them.
Click to expand...

Isn’t that true for other courts as well ? With these new guidelines, I don’t see how we don’t start seeing most Of these laws fall . I’m not sure what you mean by you are realistic ? Are you saying you’re expecting the lower courts to ignore the Supreme Court’s precedent
 
Metal god said:
Are you saying you’re expecting the lower courts to ignore the Supreme Court’s precedent
Click to expand...
Look what the lower courts did with Heller and McDonald. I don't expect them to "ignore" NYSRPA, but I do expect them (some of them, like the 2nd Circuit and the 9th Circuit) to play games with it, crafting decisions that they claim are in conformance while actually doing just the opposite of what NYSRPA intends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top