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

[44 AMP]

I think I am realistic in that I expect the lower courts to rule exactly as they have been, each according to the judgement of the individuals who are judges, as they understand their obligations as judges.

Some are, and I expect will remain, "activist" judges, who rule in favor of what they believe should be, and will interpret the law in that light.
Others will strictly adhere to the law and established precedents.
And others will be somewhere in between.

Personally, I don't expect people to be other than they have proven themselves to be, and we find people of all persuasions throughout all levels of our govt, just as we do in society in general.

Some are idiots entirely and strictly bound to their personal ideologies, and some are more reasonable, generally.

 

[gc70]

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.

Lower court judges inevitably test the boundaries of Supreme Court decisions. Such challenges usually lead to the healthy growth of the law as lower courts learn from the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, Heller and McDonald were not enforced by the Supreme Court for over a decade. While not personally keeping tally, I have read that the Supreme Court rejected 140 petitions for 2A cases in the 12 years between McDonald and NYSRPA. Much has been written about the Supreme Court declining cases when neither proponents or opponents of an issue are confident of securing the five votes needed for their view to prevail.

Changes in the Supreme Court's composition and the six votes for NYSRPA suggest there are now enough Justices willing to enforce their 2A understanding by actively teaching lower courts.

 

[zukiphile]

When Heller was announced, a lot of people thought all the big restrictions in their illiberal states would fall in short order. They read the recognition of an individual right to keep a pistol, and extrapolated the dawn of a libertarian fantasy in which DC would try to comply with law. When that didn't pan out we had a couple of years of people swinging the other way and incorrectly reading a "reasonable restrictions" test into Heller.

Now we have a history and tradition test and the state to carry the burden of establishing compliance.

With these new guidelines, I don’t see how we don’t start seeing most Of these laws fall .

Whose history? From what period? NY's history of control laws for the last century was the now stricken Sullivan Act. Does that mean NY can't legislate on this topic? (That's clearly not what the Court found.)

Can a city carry its burden by citation to some western town that posted that all pistols had to be left at the sheriff's office? Can restrictions on demobilized confederates be used as history and tradition?

Is history and tradition sufficient to uphold a regulation the sole purpose of which is to burden the right? Rejecting means/ends analysis and establishing that the burden is on the state are both huge steps, but each is only a step. This can unfold in more than one way.

Which of the nine passes next, and who takes that seat?

 

[Metal god]

Who’s history ? The United States , since it’s the supreme court it includes the whole country and harder to say “our towns history” . History “&” tradition takes away only using one . My concern would be more and more mass shootings and the anti's using the NFA for there history and tradition example .

As for NY & CA changing there laws right away . I'm kinda glad , as I said earlier they are the gifts that keep on giving . CA has a couple hundred thousand ccw permits and already established what there sensitive places are . All of a sudden everywhere is sensitive. Good luck explaining to the court why so many more places are now prohibited places for law abiding citizens to carry when yesterday they weren’t so sensitive.

Same goes for the training, for years/decades the training requirements were just fine but tomorrow they double the time and cost . What was so bad with the previous training that it now needs to double in duration ?

It does help us that both NY & CA came out and basically said because of the ruling they were going to make it harder to get a permit and increase the sensitive places . All the while not actual having any reasoning to do so consistent with the new ruling .

 

[44 AMP]

“The law may upset reason but reason may never upset the law, or our whole society will shred like an old tatami. The law may be used to confound reason, reason must certainly not be used to overthrow the law.” ― James Clavell, Shōgun

This was said by a fictional Japanese lord in a novel, and seems to be the operative principle of many politicians in the US today.

From where I sit, it seems that the people running NY, CA and some other places are thumbing their collective noses at the Supreme Court and its rulings, WHEN they disagree with the ruling.

They seem to be, in effect, saying "we don't care what you rule, we will make the laws WE want, and they will be the law, until/unless you strike it down, and then, we will write others..."

specific to NY, they passed their new "amended" gun control law within DAYS of the Supreme Court ruling. This tells me that they had it made up and ready in advance of the ruling. Which, by extension says that they expected the ruling to go against their existing law, which implies that they KNEW their law was "bad".

I believe that even had the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, they would have passed the new law, anyway. After all, it was ready, all wrapped up and tied with a bow, just waiting for the Legislature's rubber stamp approval and the Gov's signature. And, their justifications would have been the usual, "to make NY safer:...

I grew up in rural NY state, left for good in 79. Never realized how bad NY laws were until I lived somewhere else that didn't have the restrictions. And that's one of the main problems, and the reason so many NY residents don't seem to care, or fight for their gun rights, its because they have been ruled by anti-gun people their entire lives, and don't know anything else.

And things there today are about an order of magnitude worse than they were when I left.

 

[Metal god]

I grew up in rural NY state, left for good in 79. Never realized how bad NY laws were until I lived somewhere else that didn't have the restrictions. And that's one of the main problems, and the reason so many NY residents don't seem to care, or fight for their gun rights, its because they have been ruled by anti-gun people their entire lives, and don't know anything else.

I agree and believe CA is the same . Although I'm old enough to remember when CA wasn't so bad ( before the 90's ) I've lived through this crap so long it's just how it is here now . I hear about other states creating mag limits or AW bans and it makes me snicker a little and it shouldn't . As others shouldn't snicker at CA because they have it so much better .

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

44AMP: "In my state a high capacity (more than 10rnds) magazine ban goes into effect today. If you own them today, you get to keep them, but you cannot buy, sell, trade, or give them to anyone, in this state, ever again. This includes your heirs."

Is there anything in the law in your state that addresses how they know you went out of state and happened to buy 6 more magazines for your AR-15 to match the 6 you already have? How do they know how many anyone has in the first place?

If you don't leave your guns to your children in your will, how do they claim....after you die and your children now own the guns because they claim you gave them ownership years before the new law was passed...that they are not telling the truth?

EXACTLY. What they don't know, they can't act upon. My firearms, mags, and ammo will simply disappear into thin air when I pass.