Supreme Court agrees to hear gun rights case after nearly a decade of inaction on Second Amendment

[gh1950]

I am hoping that in this case, the strict licensing laws, which are borderline unconstitutional, will work in favor of the gun owners.

As in "you go to this much trouble to make sure they aren't crazy, or a criminal, why can't the gun owner carry off premises"

The application process for a license is rigorous and administered locally. Every application triggers a local investigation by police into the applicant's mental health history, criminal history, [and] moral character.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 87 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The licensing officers “are vested with considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant a license application, particularly in determining whether proper cause exists for the issuance of a carry license.”

In the case now before the Supreme Court, the licensed permit holder could not take his gun from his home in NY city to his vacation home in upstate NY. I don't see how SCOTUS can avoid ruling that at least that much of it violates Heller.

For the legal wonks, it's going to interesting to see how much precedential value the libs will give Heller. If they blow off Heller as precedent, it opens the door for the conservatives to return the favor if something involving cases like Roe v. Wade come along.

 

[tmoore912]

 

[palmettomoon]

"NRA has supported the plaintiffs in this suit for years", how exactly? No details.

 

[tmoore912]

"NRA has supported the plaintiffs in this suit for years", how exactly? No details.

NY State Rifle & Pistol Association, who filed the lawsuit in 2013, is the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York.

 

[aFarewellToKings]

Doesn't say NRA has supported the suit. Just that they supported the plaintiffs.
Not the same thing.

 

[gh1950]

Doesn't say NRA has supported the suit. Just that they supported the plaintiffs.
Not the same thing.

The NRA funds many of these kind of cases without appearing as a party. There is a committee of the NRA that reviews cases, and authorizes how much money to put into the case.

Being as the money is usually paid out as attorney fees, the amount and cases would be protected by attorney client privilege.

 

[aFarewellToKings]

The NRA funds many of these kind of cases without appearing as a party. There is a committee of the NRA that reviews cases, and authorizes how much money to put into the case.

Being as the money is usually paid out as attorney fees, the amount and cases would be protected by attorney client privilege.

Irrelevant.
The statement was "NRA has supported the plaintiffs in this suit for years". Nothing in that (necessarily) means they supported the case, whether they did or not. That may be what was meant, but not what was said.
Don't tell me lawyers aren't picky with their wording. (Depends on what the meaning of the word " is" is. )

 

[gh1950]

Irrelevant.
The statement was "NRA has supported the plaintiffs in this suit for years". Nothing in that (necessarily) means they supported the case, whether they did or not. That may be what was meant, but not what was said.
Don't tell me lawyers aren't picky with their wording. (Depends on what the meaning of the word " is" is. )

Well, if we are parsing words, it's very difficult to support "plaintiffs" if there is no suit

I suppose you can make whatever you want out it.