The case likely won’t be argued until Autumn, so we’ll have to wait for this one.
I wouldn’t count your eggs just yet, this is the first 2A case in a decade and will set the tone for all other case’s, hopefully SCOTUS will make the right decision, if they rule in favor, then the democrats will do cheetah flips and gorilla stomps, if they don’t rule in favor, then we know where they stand with the 2nd amendment.
“Indeed, Corlett could potentially dismantle more than a decade of judicial decisions interpreting the Second Amendment, imposing prohibitive limits on lawmakers’ ability to reduce gun violence.”
This story is on Vox, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tone, but the statement above is certainly a mis-characterization. A ruling for the plaintiffs wouldn’t impose limits on any ability to reduce gun violence, it would impose limits on lawmakers’ ability to infringe in the second amendment — which infringements they like to claim reduce gun violence.
The “Proper Cause” requirement in itself is an infringement and should rightly be eliminated.
While we’re at it, reciprocity enabling concealed carry across state lines should also be universal nationwide, just like a drivers license.
And the last sentence in that piece has contradictory phrases in it. “The future of gun control in the United States could be quite grim — and Corlett could mark the moment when lawmakers’ power to fight gun violence falls apart.”
Merged two threads on the same topic. ~Moderators
The glass is half-full here. The fact that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear a 2A case is a good thing. They have kicked the can down the road for years. But the supposed “conservative” majority has proven to be anything but conservative. A 2A victory is, at best, a 50-50 proposition. Here’s where Scalia will be missed. Not only for his proper interpretation of the law and Constitution, but more so for his gravitas and ability to sway the conversation. John Roberts is a good man, but not a Scalia.
All day yesterday, I kept hearing on the radio news (on conservative talk stations, no less) that the ruling could “expand 2A rights across the country”. Excuse you?! The word you were looking for is RESTORE.
OR… it could dash all our hopes and rule that the right to bear arms is limited to the home.
Am I nervous? Yes.
I’m extremely hopeful. I think the pro 2A judges know they have the votes. The main question is how far will the majority decision go.
I think what frustrates and angers me the most right now is the speed at which the government system moves. Waiting till Autumn is still a way to kick the can down the road. This I feel can only weaken the pro 2A position in today’s environment.
I wasn’t that excited when my friend sent me a link after breaking the news about it. I live in a very restrictive, anti⎼2A, pro⎼criminal county. After I naively applied for my CCW and took the required CCW course before applying to show good faith, I was very disappointed. I spent over $300. All was perfect on my end but I just didn’t fit into any categories that the Sheriff considers appropriate when handing out CCWs. That would be VIPs like actors, people who generously donate to the Sheriff, and retired fire fighters and LEO. Someone later told me that my county will never abide by the law. They will fight as against all odds, like tying up cases in courts indefinitely. The anti 2A stance is deeply entrenched here and has been for many decades. The democrats and a few powerful families have this place under lock and key.
I would love to see one of the lawyers arguing the case (or someone filing an amicus brief) mention that New York expects their drivers license to be valid in other States, but they do not recognize other States Concealed Weapons Licenses. It’s another example of NY Law being unconstitutionally arbitrary!