A bit from The Volokh Conspiracy's Josh Blackman on the highlights of the decision:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/br ... step-test/
Having read it and not being a lawyer, my take has been the court put a stop to 2-step tests and interest balancing in favor of text informed by history with regard to the constitution.
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
227DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 8:44 am A bit from The Volokh Conspiracy's Josh Blackman on the highlights of the decision:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/br ... step-test/
Having read it and not being a lawyer, my take has been the court put a stop to 2-step tests and interest balancing in favor of text informed by history with regard to the constitution.
Yes because once means end scrutiny was adopted by a circuit, it boxed in the 3 judge panels and district courts in that circuit, that was the circuit rule. District and circuit court panels are now freed of those restrictions. Hope we don't have to wait another ten years for another major firearms ruling upholding 2A.I haven't checked Westlaw, but this paragraph probably placed red flags on dozens of circuit court cases. And almost all Second Amendment scholarship that was premised on the two-factor test has now been vitiated.
The lower courts are going to scramble, and try to find language in the majority, and in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, to stick to their old ways. But it will be much tougher.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
228CA9 has ruled against 53 (if memory serves) 2A cases since Heller, erroneously on purpose, using the two step. In California, there is currently a magazine case and assault weapon case that were GVRd by SCOTUS with "see NYSRPA." Bonta is already arguing that assault weapons are unusually dangerous (despite his acknowledgement that CA legal ones are good for self defense) and that the Sullivan Act (the one NYSRPA just eviscerated) totally supports a ban under text, history and tradition.
Magazines were remanded to the district court. AWB still to be determined. The big question is if they'll be injoined for the 5 to 10 years it will take to get them back to SCOTUS after CA9 swallows Bonta's load of horseshit. It's very frustrating.
Magazines were remanded to the district court. AWB still to be determined. The big question is if they'll be injoined for the 5 to 10 years it will take to get them back to SCOTUS after CA9 swallows Bonta's load of horseshit. It's very frustrating.
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
229California courts seem to work on the premise to out live the plaintiffs.
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
230Funny you say that. The latest motion filed by Young's attorney (HI carry case) stated just that. Dude's old, dude's been at this 10 years, dude's a Vietnam vet. Give him his fucking permit before he dies.sikacz wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:55 am California courts seem to work on the premise to out live the plaintiffs.
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
231Actually the banning of guns in certain areas or cities has a historical record. In the Old West post Civil War era many towns passed laws the required people to check their guns at the Town Marshall/ Sheriff's office when entering the town. That doesn't mean everybody did so but it was another law that when they didn't added to a sentence or fine for other violation and charges.featureless wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:20 am
NYSRPA said long-standing sensitive places restrictions are likely constitutional and making all of Manhattan a sensitive place was not. Does the sensitive place hava a historical analog? May be constitutional. Does it not have a historical analog? Not constitutional. Really, it provided very solid guidelines. Just CA and NY legislatures don't read such things.
Types of bans were answered in Heller. If it's in common use and not dangerous and unusual, it's protected.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180968013/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8 ... -the-1800s
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
232Yes, there were some laws here and there. Were they common? Were they tradition? Were they wide spread? I don't have the answers, but my bet is no to all of them.TrueTexan wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 12:13 pmActually the banning of guns in certain areas or cities has a historical record. In the Old West post Civil War era many towns passed laws the required people to check their guns at the Town Marshall/ Sheriff's office when entering the town. That doesn't mean everybody did so but it was another law that when they didn't added to a sentence or fine for other violation and charges.featureless wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:20 am
NYSRPA said long-standing sensitive places restrictions are likely constitutional and making all of Manhattan a sensitive place was not. Does the sensitive place hava a historical analog? May be constitutional. Does it not have a historical analog? Not constitutional. Really, it provided very solid guidelines. Just CA and NY legislatures don't read such things.
Types of bans were answered in Heller. If it's in common use and not dangerous and unusual, it's protected.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180968013/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8 ... -the-1800s
A law where and there does not meet history and tradition. It is an outlier.
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
233Read the articles they were more common, than most imagine, in the larger towns of the sparsely populated area of the west. Mainly in the cattle boom towns and some mining towns, such as Tombstone, AbIlene Kansas, Dodge City, Fort Worth among others.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
234How many of those places were states and/or subject to the 2A at the time? I don't know, not trying to be difficult.TrueTexan wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:43 pm Read the articles they were more common, than most imagine, in the larger towns of the sparsely populated area of the west. Mainly in the cattle boom towns and some mining towns, such as Tombstone, AbIlene Kansas, Dodge City, Fort Worth among others.
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
235I doubt those towns and regions were concerned with the constitutionality of their laws. Most people were probably too ignorant to know there was a constitution and a bill of rights.
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
236Many had become states and if they were not states, they were Federal Territories and under federal jurisdiction with federal marshals and federal courts. The prime example is Oklahoma. It wasn't a state until 1907, but it was under federal control and had federal court based in Fort Smith, Arkansas.featureless wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:55 pmHow many of those places were states and/or subject to the 2A at the time? I don't know, not trying to be difficult.TrueTexan wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:43 pm Read the articles they were more common, than most imagine, in the larger towns of the sparsely populated area of the west. Mainly in the cattle boom towns and some mining towns, such as Tombstone, AbIlene Kansas, Dodge City, Fort Worth among others.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS
237Regardless, we see today how well courts and politicians follow constitutionality. I don’t believe they were any better then. If laws were unconstitutional 100 to 150 years ago. It doesn’t make them any more acceptable.