What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Status
Not open for further replies.
An interesting piece in the Minneapolis paper regarding the upcoming SCOTUS gun case out of NY. I haven't linked to the article because it's behind a paywall that most of you probably don't have, but I'll try to summarize it.

Basically, the author sort of reads the "tea leaves" pertaining to the case based upon the process whereby the Court accepted review.

The NY case involves a law that said that you can't get a conceal/carry permit unless you can demonstrate a "special need" for self-defense." The two plaintiffs were denied the permit. One of the plaintiffs claimed a need based upon a string of recent crimes in his neighborhood. The second simply stated he had no need for the permit.

The plaintiffs lost in the lower court and petitioned the SCOTUS for review. It takes four justices to accept cert, so observers assumed it would be quickly granted, given the makeup of the court.

However, cert was apparently considered multiple times without an order accepting it. Finally, on like the third or fourth conference where it was discussed, cert was accepted. But it was accepted with a completely different "issue" to be decided.

Instead of the broad issue as to whether the second amendment authorizes law abiding citizens to carry guns outside their homes, a much more narrow issue was imposed by the court, basically asking whether the state's denial of petitioners applications for conceal carry permits for self defense violated the second amendment. The re-writing of the issue by the Court is very rare.

The author suggests that this change was first necessary to get at least four votes to grant cert, and that it forecasts a decision based entirely on the facts. The "facts" surrounding the two different petitioners are starkly different, which suggests a decision that allows for some gun control. A law requiring a demonstrated need for self defense meets the second amendment requirements, but if you use that to just deny all applications, it doesn't fit within the second amendment.
 
13 year old in Brooklyn center mn was Making a tik tok video and accidentally shot a 5 year old in thr house. 5 year old is dead
 
There are also so many amazing little details.

The dude pulled a gun on someone else in a road rage incident AT THE SAME INTERESECTION years ago.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
There are also so many amazing little details.

The dude pulled a gun on someone else in a road rage incident AT THE SAME INTERESECTION years ago.
Click to expand...

A gun with a laser site!

I love that his wife tried to act like he was targeted and assassinated...you can tell she had Faux News interviews and speaking engagements at political events going through her head!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top