HOPE on the horizon for NY/Cali Jow Forumsommandos?

Dems REEEEEing that gun laws may be defined by SCOTUS in a way they can't have control over.

This country cant Balkanize fast enough

There was a thread on this. Mods moved it to Jow Forums like 20 minutes ago

Fuck off

Attached: 89F909BF-A2BE-48BB-A9AB-0C70ED328E9F.gif (400x198, 1.95M)

>NYS implements a laughably unconstitutional gun law
>State attorneys think they're safe because lower courts smacked down the inevitable lawsuit
>Said lawsuit instead gets picked up by SCOTUS
>NYS realizes they have overplayed their hand and fucked up massively by enabling a federal ruling that would likely benefit gun rights
>Desperately announce that the painfully illegal law is now nixed in the hopes SCOTUS will nullify the case
>SCOTUS sees through this blatant bullshit and becomes pissed at how stupid the NYS court apparently thinks they are
>Case resumes its course for SCOTUS
>A few big-name grabbers and reps for NYS write the linked amicus brief to the Supreme Justices, more or less calling them corrupt, biased, illegitimate and then wrap it all up with thinly veiled threats of "curing" the illness of the courts.
It's basically tantamount to being a defense lawyer and pissing in the judge's eye in the hope that he sees things your way.

>"they're trying to rewrite the Second Amendment and thwart gun safety regulations"
Am I the only one here who gets sand in his dick every time they start using their perfidious euphemisms? The NPC meme is real ffs.

Attached: Screenshot_20190713-010352_YouTube.jpg (2220x1080, 504K)

i...is he okay?

and yet throughout all this they wont stop, theyll find another way

Probably bruised up pretty bad, maybe a concussion.

From the previous thread
>The scenario prior to this brief
SCOTUS hasn't announced that they are dropping it yet after agreeing to hear it. They could drop it before October, they could hear it and issue a narrow ruling preventing similar laws in the future, they could extend DC v Heller protections to outside the home, or they might also put a giant fucking smackdown on states who issue chicken shit laws they know are constitutional and then yank right before they hit the SCOTUS.
Anti-gunners are scared of the third option, but every state's AG is going to be livid with rage at NYS if the fourth option occurs. Seriously, I don't know why NYS let it go this far. It was far, far dumber than DC's mayor pushing for a SCOTUS ruling on Heller, and I assume they believed since the appeals court backed them up they would be fine.

However, after this, I would say a ruling that might have gone down 5-4, or 4-5, might go down 7-2. The fact is that they just fundamentally called into question the legitimacy of the courts institutional rights, and then threatened to use public pressure as a weapon to influence rulings. In short, opening expressed their desire to turn the SCOTUS into a political instrument as opposed to the impartial arbiter of the constitution all the while accusing the supreme court of being corrupt. Make no mistake, the not just the constitutionalists will see this as a challenge to the very institution of the courts, they cannot let a threat like that go appeased imo.

Attached: accusing-supreme-court-of-corruption.png (465x309, 25K)

>Interest in the politics of your rights is surprisingly lacking.
It's more that such talk invites REEing and Raiding
Jow Forums is a board of peace

>Make no mistake, the not just the constitutionalists will see this as a challenge to the very institution of the courts, they cannot let a threat like that go appeased imo.
I wouldn't count on that. Roberts is a cuck. It won't surprise me if they drop the case. At this point, all potential 2A victories sound too good to be true.

I sometimes wonder how much of it is driven by nefarious motives, and how much of it is just retards who's understanding of political theory begins and ends with the cliff notes of Das Kapital.

Please, I find it an affront to liberty that the Mods would seek to enable the constant string of defeatist bullshit that does nothing but enable Jow Forums-tier accelerationist 1488 psychopathy, if anything else this thread is anti-Jow Forums.
literally this scene
youtube.com/watch?v=G7jWudJzPUs

>jew run vipers nest that opposes freedom at every corner will roll back the last hundred years of gun laws out of sheer spite of some dumb wop who thinks hes god.
God please let this happen.

SCOTUS is absolutely going to rule on this after that terrible amicus brief. The SCOTUS takes its reputation very seriously and a rambling screed about how they're corrupt puppets of the GOP and NRA is a gigantic insult to them. Not to mention openly threatening them at the very end. They're not going to let this go unanswered.

I hope the justices are as petty as the rest of us and this is truer than the New York Jewocracy realize

Nah his skin is all dark it prolly burned him

The question is, how hard will they tell NYS to fuck off? Are we talking extending Heller extended to all places a person may legally be, which would be based, or is this going to be a nuke the ATF situation?

After the way Cuomo came after Kavanaugh during his hearing, I guarantee he'll do everything in his power wipe that shit eating grin off his face forever.

>It's more that such talk invites REEing and Raiding
>Jow Forums is a board of peace
I'm sorry, two facts:
1. Jow Forums is not a place for civil and focused discourse. Any discussion of your rights will get drowned out by the million German and British "are so-and-so group white?" and a million of other ridiculous non-2A related things and ideologies.
2. Jow Forums was built on the premise of weapons ownership. It's our fundamental principle. When we say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED it isn't a statement of fancy or preference. It is a fierce and certain rebuke of the notion that freedom is subservient to safety and that we hold it to be self-evident that there can be no "FREE state" without the "RIGHT of the people to keep and bear ARMS"

Kavanaugh and Thomas, at the very least, are going to be leaning on him heavily to take this case.

>Mods moved it to Jow Forums
Mods suck cock, film at 11

Attached: 1546298212229.jpg (247x206, 8K)

Oh I fucking hope so.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 49K)

LOL the yid wars. Jews vs. Wops, as a native New Yorker I know the hatred is real.

My guess is they'll punt on procedural grounds just like they have on every major gun case since Heller. Like it or not, Heller has become legal speak for "This is how we made guns a state issue."

Don't get your hopes up.

My guess is that they'll extend Heller and add a long section dedicated to telling the NYS that they should never, EVER insult the SCOTUS like that.

and are a response to this.

Preventing a weapons (primarily firearms) board from discussing their rights is like putting blinders on a horse and letting it walk off a cliff.

I get that people (and the mods) get tired of the same spiteful Euros (mostly brits) and dejected accelerationist Jow Forumsacks spouting off about the browning of America and the Jews. But that is no reason to stop the rest of us from talking about the right that allows us to have /akg/s and /arg/s and /brg/s without speculating like a bunch of twelve year old airsoft kiddies.

Also no Jow Forumsacks I am aware that immigration is a huge problem and I'm also aware that Jews disproportionately inhabit the banks and entertainment industry, I don't trust them either.

Just once Id like the supreme court to cone out and say, in clear language
>you have a right to own weapons explicitly for the defense of your person, property, and freedom, from anyone who would take them, up to and including your own government.

I mean it just can't be more fucking obvious than it is what Heller is being treated as. The SCOTUS is clearly and without question okay with (at this point) almost every Circuit Court in the nation narrowing Heller from the bottom, and they're doing it intentionaly. Short of categorical bans on broad classes of firearms, Heller is toothless and designed to hand the issue to the states, to wit they will be provided large unilateral movement.

Thanks user

What did he say? Post got deleted.

I'm desperately hoping that the come out and say you're going to have to amend the constitution.

Worse, it's one branch of the government literally shit talking YOUR branch of the govenrment and calling you a faggot who is drip-fed semen and who should be castrated and forced to wear a dress because no one will notice any different.

Oh, and then they want you to make a judgement call in their favor

>perfidious
someone has actually been reading their word of the day calendar
good for you

What is the specific law? What is the best case scenario

I was wondering the other day how long it would take them to threaten the SCOTUS directly and apparently I didn't have to wait long for the answer.

Attached: ballsy.png (427x137, 12K)

Some of the shit is fully insane and just makes them sound unhinged. Desperate even.

I know it's fun to talk shit about Jews and, in fairness, they earn that shit. Most Jewish people are just liberal upper-class whites who don't really differentiate from them too much in any profound way. A lot of younger Jews that I know from NYC have very right-leaning libertarian politics. The pro-Israel bit is what bothers people and that's understandable. I would rather the US leave the middle-east behind. While you, an admittedly I, may all find ourselves skeptical of Jewish motives they are likely to find themselves on our side of the aisle for at least this political epoch, better with them then without them in this fight. As long as they shill for the right agenda.

see

Attached: fully-insane.png (512x265, 24K)

Absolute nutters trying to call these cases out as industrialized/manufactured litigation when the pro 2a lawyers are attempting to claw back the rights that were taken away. And as if the act of restoring rights is so egregious that they need to play this victim card when the situation flips on them, doing the exact same thing with party judges ruling in their favor instead of Republicans.

Attached: image0-27.png (900x450, 682K)

My favorite is the closing on 17-18

>Today, fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics”(up five percent from last year); fifty-nine percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”; and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." To have the public believe that the Court’s pattern of outcomes is the stuff of chance (or “the requirements of the law,”Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2612 (Roberts, C.J.) dissenting))is to treat the“intelligent man on the street,” Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, Oral Arg. Tr. at 37:18-38:11 (Oct. 3, 2017),as a fool.The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

tl;dr-
>People increasingly view your court as illegitimate because you're over-politicized and you're no longer viewed as bipartisan, so stfu before we push for you to be dismantled and reformed until you are neutered. Remember, listen to what is POPULAR, not what is legal!

It's inconceivable to these wannabe Stalins that we just want to be left alone. In their minds, they can do no wrong, and they openly despise everyone who does not submit to their whims. They don't realize that gun owners are a plurality of the electorate, and refuse to be kicked around.

Attached: 255.gif (500x416, 499K)

Sure feels good to live in a Republic instead of a cuck Euro nation with an unwritten constitution where your rights are subject to the 51 percent majority

They're going to explicitly mandate strict scrutiny in 2nd Amendment cases. Just like Thomas has been REEEing about since McDonald.

Heller's issue was that it tried to make a definitive stance on personal gun ownership and self-defense while also trying to make sure that as few current gun laws were deemed unconstitutional as possible. The SCOTUS wanted have their cake and eat it too, which ended up with it feeling like a very disjointed ruling.

I'm not going to deny that Heller was a landmark ruling for guns, but it's opened up a new can of worms that has turned state gun laws into a total free for all.

It doesnt help that presidents are basically forced at gunpoint by their respective parties to put in judges that will tow the party line to maintain political capital. Where are all the constitutionalists. Excuse my uneducated assumption, but it seems like the job isnt nearly as difficult as everyone makes it out to be. Read the law in question, read the constitution. If they conflict, law is nixed. The constitution was written specifically so the common man could understand it, and anyone whis actually read it so be able to determine its intent quite clearly, legal education or not. Add in the fact that the framers wrote literally thousands of documents clarifying amd providing context for each and every point of the constitution, i dont understand how coming to legal decisions could be so difficult. They were some of the brightest and well educated men of their time, and the knew exactly what they were doing and why, drawing on hundreds of years worth of political theory laid out in front of them, and piecing together the best parts of what they had at their disposal. They even Included a way to change if need be, with a very reasonable protocol do to so. I dont understand why politicand go so far out of their way to ignore this, let alone get away with it

Technically, telling a judge that they're wrong is actually a normal part of most judicial processes. But you're supposed to be fucking respectful of it, and explain why you think the judge is wrong in excruciating detail. Considering the merits of such arguments is a basic part of any judge's job.
But just calling them wrong because their decision doesn't agree with your political beliefs isn't going to help your case.

What do you mean?

The fact that British have taken the (at one point) literal meme tier conservative argument "what are you gonna do ban knives" and actually gone through with the obvious dead end that is weapons prohibition should be testament enough that our system may be inefficient but it is still preferable to the alternative.

I dunno, it depends how personally they take this attack on their legitimacy and authority. I can almost see them turning NYC into their cock sleeve more or less out of spite just to remind fuckers that their little island city isn't its own state, and no city should determine whole state rights. Especially since Kavanaugh was raked and practically insulted by Cuomo during his confirmation hearing, NY's governor

Excuse typos
>t. Coked up phone fag.

Courts don't like to overreach. Heller was about posessing a handgun in the home. Courts don't like getting into unrelated issues, the issue at hand was DC had a near total handgun ban, Heller ruled total handgun bans unconstitutional, not all gun regulation.

There's a difference between "You're wrong because you misinterpreted x and ignored y precedent" and "You're wrong because you're puppets of the GOP and NRA. Also I found a poll online that says you're too politicized so please rule in our favor or else".

>they accuse you of their own crimes

There are different standards for how judges are supposed to look at things. For example, convictions are supposed to look at evidence and find proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", meaning only the most ironclad proof gets used and if there isn't any ironclad proof, then they can't convict.
Strict scrutiny means they have to nitpick the exact letter of the law and use as little opinion as possible, where a less strict standard might allow interpretations beyond what the legal dictionary says.

Does that mean if Heller was extended beyond the home, we could be looking at statewide constitutional carry, maybe even an end to gun free zones?

Attached: 1565583331477.png (654x498, 291K)

Anyone saying the SCOTUS is going to hoist Strict Scrutiny unto the 2A is delusional considering there's not much to define a strict scrutiny standard right now. The closest we've gotten is Miller; which was a joke, and Caeteano. The court has never definitively clarified what the 2A covers. They need to develop a test first and foremost before they can come up with a strict scrutiny standard.

He means that they'll strike down this particular law in this way, but stop short of making sweeping statements about firearm legislation. So they may say something like "laws cannot be made to unreasonably stop people or inconvenience them from transporting their firearms between their respective properties so long as it is in line with state laws". Which wouldn't stop ALL firearm laws regarding the transport of said weapons, it'd just strike down that particular subset where guns in NYC were basically leashed to NYC shooting ranges and the owner's appartment.

Orange man has installed hundreds of federal judges to do just that.

Oh I don't think it's likely at all beyond a very limited scope. But I think the opinions of the judges and statements will have a fair amount of "get fucked you arrogant pricks" in them

>Does that mean if Heller was extended beyond the home, we could be looking at statewide constitutional carry, maybe even an end to gun free zones?
Concealed carry reciprocity was floated around when Kavanaugh was being heard.

Holy fuck boys, that's insulting. I wasn't taking what you guys were saying too seriously but I started reading through it after seeing this image.

Jow Forums has dirty tranny janny mods who love to torpedo everything that isn't a honeypot or data mining thread

For those that don't know NYC had a city gun permit that forced gun owners to leave their NYC purchased guns in NYC and prohibited them by law from bring them out of NYC for any reason, your guns used to be tied to NYC forever like a curse. NYC killed permit scheme in face of SCOTUS but are still going to get rekt and filled a disrespectful protest brief to help their chances.

Attached: 1562681118680.jpg (700x700, 36K)

>fifty-nine percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”; and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics."
Funny, I wonder what their opinion was back when they forcibly legalized gay marriage despite it being voted down in every state.

its both
its the evil leading the dumb

I don't doubt the ruling from the SCOTUS is going to be spicy from both sides of the inevitable narrowly scoped 5-4 ruling this is going to be. They're going to spank the authors of those briefs like the petulant children they are. Truth be told; I almost look forward to Ginsbergs ruling on this one because say what you want about her politics, woman has a way with words and even if she rules to uphold the regulations she's still going to spew some serious venom.

As to the actual law, it's not going to be an earth shattering ruling. You're probably going to see them say that a firearm owner has a right to legally transport to and from any place where possession is legal.

How could a favorable court ruling help the rest of the country?

>The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>Arms- Noun; weapons and ammunition
I dont know, seems pretty clear to me.

Name one time the government has ever rolled back a law that infringed upon someone's rights without replacing it with an even worse law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Strict Scrutiny is the highest bar to overcome when defending against a constitutional challenge. It requires laws to be narrow, serve a compelling government interest, and be the least restrictive means possible to achieve that end. It's the standard they use for Freedom of Speech cases, among others.

Ginsburg's statement will be written by Robert's seeing as shes, you know, with the crabs.

I think other ridiculous city permits may exist that this ruling could strike down but I'm not exactly sure

> DAE MUH SHALL GUIZE

There's what you think and what the court thinks. One of these opinions is important and relevant; and I think even you can guess which one it is. Heller cleared regulation and it's stood up to the scrutiny of even the most conservative, origionalist, and strict constructionist justices have said so, go ahead and pitch a fit.

Depending on wording, since a complaintant was going on about travel out of state, your guns could potentially be protected if you were traveling 1 state to the other.

Ie., perhaps you travel through Cali with a cali-illegal AR15, but as long as your destination isnt in the state it'd be legal to pass through and the highway patrol can deal with it

Take a seat user.

Attached: hon._roger_t.jpg (864x576, 493K)

The mod is a fucking dipshit, this thread has more nuanced and in-depth political discussion than Jow Forums would have in a month, all while staying in line with a subject matter relevant to this board. Again, the mod is a retarded mouthbreather.

Weird claim when the Framers allowed private artillery and warships without any special certification

Honestly, would SCOTUS even be willing to make an in-depth clarification of what the 2A covers? They seem very adverse to touching 2A cases as-is.

Heller did not rule against existing gun control laws such as AWBs. SCOTUS needs to define exactly what the 2A does and does not cover (such as magazine capacity limits, types of firearms). All we got was vague talk about weapons “in common use at the time".

>Ie., perhaps you travel through Cali with a cali-illegal AR15, but as long as your destination isnt in the state it'd be legal to pass through and the highway patrol can deal with it
I'm 99% sure we already have this protection, I just can't remember the name of it. I recall reading about it a lot a few years ago.

Mods are most likely Europeans or noguns and are jealous, that's the most logical answer

>mfw nys lawyers call judges not under their payroll biased and corrupt

Also love the feeling you get while reading that they're jealous of the nra warchest

Attached: 1561053259729.png (801x405, 558K)

You realize that DC is now Shall Issue, right?

Framers also allowed the keeping of persons as auction chattel.

1986 FOPA. Peaceable journey clause.

And at this point many new weapons are entering common use, or, rather, more common. Accessories that once were rare (red dots) are now ubiquitous. Higher cap mags are too. And foregrips, and braces

>implying politicians and courts follow the law
>implying the constitution matters to them anymore
That's it, thanks user. Though I also remember reading NY and I think cali basically ignoring it and tossing people in jail despite their actions being perfectly legal for a few months until the feds slap their shit.

You talking about the bad one? iirc he banned bump stocks so I'll never vote for him again no matter how instrumental the courts are. Nice try MIGA boy. I'm so smart.

Blame John Marshall. Honestly though, blame FDR, he was the first president to use the Supreme court as a political device. He appointed 8 justices. The damage that aspiring fascist did to the Republic cuts deep to this day. Judicial activism became the mode because of him. The GOP literally invented a constitutionalist legal society to undo the damage, the Federalist Society. That was in the early 80s its only now starting to bear fruit. Activist judges find a position, say abortion that they support. Then they stretch the language of the Constitution thin to cover their bullshit. Not even against abortion but Roe v Wade is a garbage ruling.

>1776
>you want a cannon to keep a cannon in your house? Sure, just be careful not to drop it in the water when you load it onto your privately owned ship when you go pirate hunting.
>2019
>you want to be able to defend yourself OUTSIDE your home? That's racist, pal.

>name one time
I'm waiting.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Why did it all have to go so wrong?
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED