Am I the only one hearing even Kagan and Sotomayor piling on the solicitor general here? https://www.cbsnews.com/live-update...carry-law-new-york-rifle-association-v-bruen/
"But New York officials warned that if the Supreme Court invalidates its rule, that decision could have a domino effect, jeopardizing not only those other states' laws, but others that restrict public carry in places where people congregate, like airports, arenas, churches and schools." Because violent criminals won't carry guns in those places until the laws are changed.
One of the Amici that went last offered that gee all these southern states instituted Sherriff must approve style gun control schemes just post civil war and so we can all agree these are perfectly reasonable and historic laws. Like..... dude actually signed off on laws out right intended to disarm freed blacks and former abolitionists who moved to the south post war as being the exact same scheme New York uses... and thinks that's gonna fly.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?514699-1/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-assn-v-bruen-oral-arguments Here's a link that you can replay on if you didn't hear it live.
Here's an interesting amicus brief from "THE BLACK ATTORNEYS OF LEGAL AID, THE BRONX DEFENDERS, BROOKLYN DEFENDER SERVICES, ET AL." https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...01034102_20-843 Amici Brief revised cover.pdf
Yeah they rightly point out this law is if not based explicitly in racial animus like the southern post civil war laws were, then at least it has an incredibly one sided disparate racial impact.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/...PWk6PVFEbuWggJraAkp3u-c2t6ZJak6D1LE7ca8D7zylw Scotus blog has produced an article summarizing for those who are readers not listeners
I like this: "And the point of a constitutional right, he stressed, is that you don’t have to satisfy a government official that you have a good reason to exercise it." And Roberts surprised the heck out of me with this: " No matter what the right is, he responded, “it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment right are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”"
Thomas' position seems muddled to me. It is as if he assumes that the second amendment right to defend oneself is restricted to defending yourself against other humans and not defending yourself against wildlife.
I liked this: "During arguments Wednesday on New York state’s strict gun laws, the high court’s conservative majority signaled that it is likely to rule that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms precludes states from insisting that individuals show “proper cause” before being licensed to carry a firearm for self-defense." Chief Justice John Roberts: “You don’t have to say when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner that your speech is particularly important,” Roberts said. “The idea you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.” Kagan: https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/202...-like-scotus-will-expand-carry-rights-n426808
What do you mean? He seems to indicate that rural areas would be required to be relaxed under any scheme that would tend to indicate wildlife as well as persons. But 2a is chiefly for persons because humans don't encounter dangerous predators much anymore on the whole.
To me he is projecting the idea that any notion of self defense really isn't relevant in rural areas. That could be a very slippery slope to go down.
Yeah that's not what he said in any way shape or form. He indicated the idea that you could say "well its a pop dense area so the government has a more compelling interest in limiting carry" doesn't apply to rural areas IE the .gov argument even taken on its face doesn't apply to rural areas and so the law must be changed at least as far as that even under their own theory. That's Thomas poking a hole in their argument, not agreeing with it.
It is likely the SCOTUS will squash the New York law. And associated laws from around the country will go down with this decision. Democrats just never learned how be leave well enough alone.
I tend to agree but its not 100% certain yet. Kagan and Sotomayor wanted to kick it down lower for more fact finding. Roberts might agree with that, Breyer would too that would mean they only need to convince one other to pile on and Kavanaugh is pretty squishy. Likewise, Kavanaugh wanted to limit the reach of the decision, Roberts is always on board for that, Kagan and Sotomayor and Breyer would limit if they couldn't kick down or fend off. I think they're going to make it shall issue only, and not go any farther than that including not ruling on the general right to carry question.
