Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted review in the first Second Amendment case in almost a decade, a case supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and perhaps signaling what to expect from the new membership of the Supreme Court.

...Some legal strategists wondered if Justice Brett Kavanaugh – who has a judicial recording supporting gun rights – now sitting in Kennedy’s seat would break the paralysis over Second Amendment jurisprudence. It appears the answer might be “yes.”

Lead counsel in the case is former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who also was one of the lawyers who argued in both Heller and McDonald. Clement is one of the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates in American history, having argued over 90 cases before the justices.

Clement argues that New York’s statute violates the Second Amendment, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to interstate travel.



https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/22/supreme-court-nra-second-amendment-case-new-york/


MAGA is made in such ways. The lefts incremental infringements may be overturned with a new SCOTUS.

It is even possible that by the time the case is heard, there will be yet another pro 2nd amendment justice on the court.

 

The progressive state needs you to not have the ability to defend yourself, and have to rely on the state to protect you. If folks continue to have guns, they will never feel safe from you....

 

And unfortunately for progressive states, there is this pesky thing called the 2nd amendment.

It shall not be infringed.

 

Not exactly earth moving, but a start.

 

New Yorks gun laws are insane, and the city even more so.

This may turn into something.

 

They should have taken on the licensing provision as well - the state does not have standing to issue a license for the exercise of a right.

 

Most gun laws like NYC's are racist in nature to begin with..

 

Im reading on another forum that it may mean statewide concealed carry.

 

Jim Crow laws.

 

It might.

 

To the hypeliberal, radical Democrat Left, things (ALL things) mean what they WANT them to mean -- for our 'common-good'... of course! And those opinions about what things mean (or ought to mean, according to what mood they're in) change often -- but consistently AGAINST the principles upon which this country was created in the first place!

One small example: in the Constitution, the only references to the word "welfare" pertain to "general well-being". Not one word about handout welfare or any "free-stuff" in the modern understanding of the word at all. And, you won't find the word "welfare" mentioned even once in any of the Amendments to the Constitution.... And yet, just try to find one single radical Democrat who doesn't froth at the mouth in support of "free-stuff" welfare as an absolute ENTITLEMENT, guaranteed by the government!

Thus, they "think" some things are permanently in the Constitution which do not even exist there. And, they want to say that other things that are part of the bedrock foundation of the Constitution, like the 2nd Amendment, don't really mean what they say, and should be done away with... again, "for our 'common-good'"

 

You can see why the constitution infuriates them.

 

So no infringements of any kind.....right?

 

RGB would say yes on infringements. But the SCOTUS is changing. Its the circle of life.

 

So is that a yes or no from you?

 

Only on a very limited basis, including documented and dangerous mental illness, past criminal history, and where there is indiscriminate force, like a missile, or those antique door guns that fired when someone opens a door.

Otherwise, and as with the rest of my rights, I shouldn't have to appease anyone to apply them.

 

And, if any of those infringements were applied to the right to an abortion, the right to vote, the right to kneel during the anthem, the right to not go to church or the right to marry whoever you choose, she'd say no.

 

She's not likely to be around much longer. Its the circle of life.

 

So you believe the constitution should not be followed as written?

I dont see where the founding fathers made those exceptions

 

Oh there is lots of infringements on those things

 

The founders understood that criminals and the criminally insane were not safe.

It was understood it didn't apply to them, as they would be imprisoned/executed or institutionalized.

This is an example of how context helps.

RGB isn't a contextualist.

She's feelz based.

 

Where is that written down? Federalist papers? Nope.

I call bs. You got some feelz about that. Lol

 

If I post a video, will you spend the hour watching it?

RBG really liked this guy...

 

No I wont spend an hour watching Scalia talk about his feelz.

And Scalia liked RBG

 

He does the exact opposite, and Im providing you an opportunity to learn about extra-textual assumptions.

But you don't seem to want to be better informed.