TexasCHLforum.com

Supposedly the court has had cases just like this before, but always turned them down.

The difference is Amy Coney Barrett.

I am excited at this thought.

Grayling813 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:05 pm

TomV wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:49 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:11 pm

chasfm11 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:33 am My name is Thomas. I have zero faith in SCOTUS doing the right thing in protecting the 2nd Amendment outside of the home. I will humbly and publicly apologize to the Court if i turn out to be wrong. The odds are in my favor, however.

We know Roberts is a vote against the 2A and along with the leftist side of the court.

Grayling, why do you say this? When has Roberts made a decision on gun rights that leads you to this conclusion?

Turn it back to you...when has Roberts voted for the 2A? The number of times Roberts has voted with the socialists on important issues is what I based my comment on. A number of people smarter than I have made the assertion that Roberts is no friend of the 2A.

Because you asked...Roberts is quite good on 2A. I know, hard to believe.

He was on the right side of D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. These are the best SC 2A opinions in my dad's (and maybe grandpa's) lifetime.

Hoodasnacks wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:33 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:05 pm

TomV wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:49 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:11 pm

chasfm11 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:33 am My name is Thomas. I have zero faith in SCOTUS doing the right thing in protecting the 2nd Amendment outside of the home. I will humbly and publicly apologize to the Court if i turn out to be wrong. The odds are in my favor, however.

We know Roberts is a vote against the 2A and along with the leftist side of the court.

Grayling, why do you say this? When has Roberts made a decision on gun rights that leads you to this conclusion?

Turn it back to you...when has Roberts voted for the 2A? The number of times Roberts has voted with the socialists on important issues is what I based my comment on. A number of people smarter than I have made the assertion that Roberts is no friend of the 2A.

Because you asked...Roberts is quite good on 2A. I know, hard to believe.

He was on the right side of D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. These are the best SC 2A opinions in my dad's (and maybe grandpa's) lifetime.

And other than those two important cases, I believe (but am probably wrong) that 2016's Caetano v. Massachusetts was the only other 2A case heard by SCOTUS during Robert's time there, and it resulted in a unanimous decision to vacate the Massachusetts conviction of a woman who had a stun gun for self-defense. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 8_aplc.pdf) There was one in 2019 that also involved the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, but after SCOTUS agreed to hear the case New York City and New York State amended their laws and effectively eliminated the reason for the case; SCOTUS simply determined the case moot at that point and bumped it back to the lower court. So I don't think that one can count.

Hoodasnacks wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:26 pm In a 5-4 situation like that I think Roberts may move to a 6-3 anyway. If he is in the majority, he can determine who writes the opinion. An opinion written by him as opposed to Thomas is much different. That said, I don't think Roberts has been bad historically on 2A. He voted with the majority on Heller while Chief Justice--and he had Scalia write the opinion.

I think Roberts will vote with the majority on this because he likes to be on the winning side, with no real care for the case or issues being heard. I have very little respect for him and think he acts as a weathervane of sorts. Which way is the wind blowing and he will go that way.

I read an article on ScotusBlog that put forth the theory that the four conservative justices voted against hearing 2A cases prior to this because they did not know which way Roberts would rule and did not want a bad precedent set. They heard this one because they have Barrett on their side now and feel confident they can get a ruling expanding 2A rights now.

Did you hear about ACB's $2 million book deal? Reward for her decision on the stolen election??

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/1 ... als-483028

srothstein wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:39 pm

Hoodasnacks wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:26 pm In a 5-4 situation like that I think Roberts may move to a 6-3 anyway. If he is in the majority, he can determine who writes the opinion. An opinion written by him as opposed to Thomas is much different. That said, I don't think Roberts has been bad historically on 2A. He voted with the majority on Heller while Chief Justice--and he had Scalia write the opinion.

I think Roberts will vote with the majority on this because he likes to be on the winning side, with no real care for the case or issues being heard. I have very little respect for him and think he acts as a weathervane of sorts. Which way is the wind blowing and he will go that way.

I respectfully disagree. I think Roberts is pro-2A but he views his role as CJ to maintain stability and minimize the amount of time that the court looks political. That means he works to avoid 5-4 decisions. When he can't, as mentioned above, he will often join the winning side and write the opinion so that it is as palatable as possible. Put another way, I think he votes strategically/pragmatically in these situations not necessarily for the side he actually thinks has the better legal argument.

Applied to this case, if there are 5 votes to overturn the NY law (and by extension the other courts that have ruled there is no 2A right outside the house or that "may-issue" is OK), he will probably vote with them and write the opinion. Assume for a moment that Thomas wants to write an expansive "blockbuster" opinion putting the 2A on the same level as the 1A. That would mean strict scrutiny, most restrictions would fall, etc. If Roberts thinks this is too much, he could write a more narrow opinion. Yes the NY law will fall and the 2A applies outside the home but crafted with a different "tone". Instead of getting greater clarity due to established 1A standards, he'll split the difference. THOSE restrictions fail but the door is left open for others to potentially be upheld although such determinations will be made in the future. I believe that this is the most likely outcome.

SA-TX

srothstein wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:39 pm

Hoodasnacks wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:26 pm In a 5-4 situation like that I think Roberts may move to a 6-3 anyway. If he is in the majority, he can determine who writes the opinion. An opinion written by him as opposed to Thomas is much different. That said, I don't think Roberts has been bad historically on 2A. He voted with the majority on Heller while Chief Justice--and he had Scalia write the opinion.

I think Roberts will vote with the majority on this because he likes to be on the winning side, with no real care for the case or issues being heard. I have very little respect for him and think he acts as a weathervane of sorts. Which way is the wind blowing and he will go that way.

I read an article on ScotusBlog that put forth the theory that the four conservative justices voted against hearing 2A cases prior to this because they did not know which way Roberts would rule and did not want a bad precedent set. They heard this one because they have Barrett on their side now and feel confident they can get a ruling expanding 2A rights now.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on this, Mr. Rothstein. I think CJ Roberts cares mostly about his image, his "legacy" in the history books.

chasfm11 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:38 pm <SNIP>This case could be good for us if it goes against NY. It will be terrible if it doesn't .

I disagree with this part of your post. If the case goes against us, then I believe it will just be current status quo. States will be able to choose how stringent they are on issuing LTC (or the equivalent), just like they are today.

For all practical purposes I believe it is well neigh impossible for an average citizen to get a carry license in places like NYC, so I highly doubt any decision could lead to greater restrictions on the issuing of those licenses.

I definitely don't see any SCOTUS decision forcing Texas to be more restrictive, in particular.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:21 am

chasfm11 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:38 pm <SNIP>This case could be good for us if it goes against NY. It will be terrible if it doesn't .

I disagree with this part of your post. If the case goes against us, then I believe it will just be current status quo. States will be able to choose how stringent they are on issuing LTC (or the equivalent), just like they are today.

For all practical purposes I believe it is well neigh impossible for an average citizen to get a carry license in places like NYC, so I highly doubt any decision could lead to greater restrictions on the issuing of those licenses.

I definitely don't see any SCOTUS decision forcing Texas to be more restrictive, in particular.

I agree that a ruling in favor of NY won't force Texas to be more restrictive. However, it would open the door for ALLOWING Texas to be more restrictive at some point in the future, should some "less than 2A friendly folks" gain control in Austin.

Flightmare wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:40 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:21 am

chasfm11 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:38 pm <SNIP>This case could be good for us if it goes against NY. It will be terrible if it doesn't .

I disagree with this part of your post. If the case goes against us, then I believe it will just be current status quo. States will be able to choose how stringent they are on issuing LTC (or the equivalent), just like they are today.

For all practical purposes I believe it is well neigh impossible for an average citizen to get a carry license in places like NYC, so I highly doubt any decision could lead to greater restrictions on the issuing of those licenses.

I definitely don't see any SCOTUS decision forcing Texas to be more restrictive, in particular.

I agree that a ruling in favor of NY won't force Texas to be more restrictive. However, it would open the door for ALLOWING Texas to be more restrictive at some point in the future, should some "less than 2A friendly folks" gain control in Austin.

Good point. But that's essentially where we are at right now, isn't it? There's nothing to stop Texas from following the NYC model on issuing LTC's if the Texas legislature was so inclined.

My point is that I don't think we have anything to lose with SCOTUS hearing this case, other than the possible missed opportunity to get a better ruling somewhere down the line if the court gets more conservative than it is now.

States with no license to carry
States that deny the right to carry
There is something to be sort out

The "restrictions" on carrying is the key.
Would only a violent felony block the right to carry?
Would basic carry training be required?
Would it be only no-more "may issue" states?

Beiruty wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:51 am States with no license to carry
States that deny the right to carry
There is something to be sort out

The "restrictions" on carrying is the key.
Would only a violent felony block the right to carry?
Would basic carry training be required?
Would it be only no-more "may issue" states?

Hopefully SCOTUS will use this as an opportunity to establish a line of what level of regulation is and is not acceptable for states.

My wish is that they apply the same standard as they applied for voting. If I'm not mistaken didn't they rule that charging a fee to vote (poll taxes) and requiring a proficiency test (poll test) were both unconstitutional? That would mean getting rid of fees and testing requirements for a carry permit. Also sales taxes on guns and ammo would likewise be unconstitutional under that standard.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:21 am

chasfm11 wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:38 pm <SNIP>This case could be good for us if it goes against NY. It will be terrible if it doesn't .

I disagree with this part of your post. If the case goes against us, then I believe it will just be current status quo. States will be able to choose how stringent they are on issuing LTC (or the equivalent), just like they are today.

For all practical purposes I believe it is well neigh impossible for an average citizen to get a carry license in places like NYC, so I highly doubt any decision could lead to greater restrictions on the issuing of those licenses.

I definitely don't see any SCOTUS decision forcing Texas to be more restrictive, in particular.

`We actually agree that the decision going for NY will not make Texas any worse. My fear is that the Federal Congress will seize the ruling to codify restrictions outside the home. They are just looking for a way to further restrict people to home defense. This could be it.

srothstein wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:39 pm

Hoodasnacks wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:26 pm In a 5-4 situation like that I think Roberts may move to a 6-3 anyway. If he is in the majority, he can determine who writes the opinion. An opinion written by him as opposed to Thomas is much different. That said, I don't think Roberts has been bad historically on 2A. He voted with the majority on Heller while Chief Justice--and he had Scalia write the opinion.

I think Roberts will vote with the majority on this because he likes to be on the winning side, with no real care for the case or issues being heard. I have very little respect for him and think he acts as a weathervane of sorts. Which way is the wind blowing and he will go that way.

I read an article on ScotusBlog that put forth the theory that the four conservative justices voted against hearing 2A cases prior to this because they did not know which way Roberts would rule and did not want a bad precedent set. They heard this one because they have Barrett on their side now and feel confident they can get a ruling expanding 2A rights now.

In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, the Court decided 8-1. Roberts was the lone dissenting justice. His criticism of the other 8 was quite the read.