We May Be Getting Good News from the Supreme Court on Monday

ammunition microstamping

By Microstamper at en.wikipedia, CC BY 2.5, Link

On Monday, the justices, by a 6-3 vote, dismissed the [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York] case as moot. The same day, they added ten held-over Second Amendment petitions to the Court’s calendar. These are petitions that were being held pending the Court’s decision in the New York case. The justices will discuss these petitions Friday, with decisions likely to be released on Monday.

Five of the petitions challenge various states’ “good reason” restrictions on the right to carry a weapon outside the home. Eight states issue carry permits provided that the applicant meets certain objective criteria (e.g. a criminal background check) as well as the vague subjective criterion that the applicant demonstrates a justified need to carry a firearm, often determined by a local sheriff. This has long been thought unconstitutional, and with good reason: No other constitutional right can be conditioned on the subjective determination of a local official. I wouldn’t want a Sheriff Sheldon Whitehouse determining whether I can carry a gun.

Another petition challenges California’s microstamping requirement, which requires new pistols to stamp the casing with an identifiable mark for better tracking. Problem is, no gun manufacturer has figured out how to do this. It’s akin to a law saying people have a right to free speech only if they’ve turned lead into gold.

There are also a couple of petitions challenging so-called “assault weapons” bans and high-capacity magazine restrictions, and a petition challenging the federal ban on interstate firearm sales, which for some reason irrationally applies to handguns but not rifles.

– Trevor Burrus in The Second Amendment Will Soon Be Back at the Supreme Court

 

comments

  1. avatar MarkPA says:

    Here’s a strategy.

    Four justices can grant cert. As long as the 2A bar keeps bringing cases to SCOTUS these four can tie-up discussions of which – of all the cases brought to appeal before the high court – are to be accepted. Just four justices can threaten to grant cert whereupon the four loath to extend the right to arms will be compelled to persuade the 5th (presumably Roberts) to side with them against the right to arms.

    Depending on the signals Roberts gives, the four seeking to bring a case will call the shot; they will grant cert as they did to NYSR&PS v NYC.

    Then, the heat is on. The enormously overworked SCOTUS will have to divert its efforts on other cases to its wish to suppress the right to arms. Not easy to do this when there are implications on whatever they write about 2A cases to every other right or power they intend to defend. What of the Congress’ Commerce Clause power? What of the right to abortion? What of the right to gay marriage. If state governments can heap burdens on access to arms then they may be able to do so on access to marriage licenses or abortion clinics.

    Eventually, Roberts might see that it is futile to attempt to ignore the 2A. The costs on other interests of the court may be far too much to endure. If it’s inevitable that the 2A is to be respected, what could be accomplished by delaying the recognition of the right by a couple more years?

    1. avatar Geoff "The waiting, is the hardest part..." PR says:

      The upcoming election is even more critical than ever. It only becomes effectively inevitable the 2A gets respected if one of the hard-left justices needs to be replaced, and we have the ability to seat one by controlling the Senate.

      Even if Trump wins, if they can block in the Senate, they will. We *have* to have both to change the dynamic of the high Court…

      1. avatar william h cihak says:

        Yep……..it is time to vote Republican no matter how stupid or incompetent that republican may be….we need 51 Senators to confirm Trump nominees to the courts……and with another 4 years, we may have the chance to replace two left leaning Supreme Court Justices……that would effectively cancel out Roberts if he acts like the doofus he is……on top of that, it would also allow Clarence Thomas to retire with another conservative to replace him……blocking a future democrat President from replacing him after Trump leaves office….this is not the time to prance around and not vote because you don’t like Republicans……because “Trump tweets mean tweets.” It is time to put on the big boy pants and vote for numbers over feelings…..Trump needs 51 Senators if he wins re-election……remember, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. Any non-vote is a vote to elect democrats……..

        1. avatar LCinCO says:

          I’m sick of this “vote for the stupid incompetent person instead of voting your conscience”, “a vote for the best person is really a vote for the worst person” BS. You guys realize that Amash will probably be running on the Libertarian ticket? No one in DC is more pro-constitution, pro 2A, and or more principled than Amash. He would DESTROY the two senile lecherous fools in the debates. The only hurdle is the LIE peddled by both parties to hold on to power, that a “third party can’t win”. A third party can win easily when the American public starts voting on issues. The two parties keep serving up steaming piles to us, thinking we are convinced we have no other choice.

        2. avatar Dave G. says:

          LCinCO:
          “A third party can win easily when the American public starts voting on issues.”

          Nope. Would that that were only true. Not even Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party was able to pull that off, and Teddy was one of the most popular (former) presidents in the history of the United States.

        3. avatar enuf says:

          No way in hell am I going to vote a straight Republican ticket. The worst possible outcome would be for either party to hold the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Even worse would be if either party were to hold all that plus a majority of the Supreme Court.

          So now it is 2016 all over again with the two parties telling us to pick from their two worst possible offerings. It’s a shit sandwich either way and all the Dems and Reps can offer us is “Do want that shit on stale bread or staler bread?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          The libertarian party is a scam designed to pull away votes from actual pro-freedom parties. Actual libertarians are functionally retarded crybabies.

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          The Libertarian “Party” is just the “more pot for us” club.

          Who is politically dumber LCinCO or enuf? The moronic “3rd party” drivel is rooted in the eurp lovin Wing pansies who dream of a parliamentary system for the US (and “royalty”). Look to Iran and Israel (or UK/eurp) to see how great the dimwit system works.

        6. avatar barnbwt says:

          Yup, and vote RNC no matter how anti-gun, too, otherwise we might get slightly-more anti-gun justices, LOL

          Thomas largely ‘gets it,’ Gorsuch kinda “gets it,’ Kavanuagh could one day ‘get it’ but probably doesn’t really as of today. That’s three votes in favor, because Kavanaugh is half, and Thomas is one and a half.

          We’re a long, long way from pro-gun rulings of consequence, even with a half-dozen compelling attack-fronts on the issue of gun rights. The SCOTUS is simply not an effective tool for our needs; we need real, proven, pro-gun legislators to form a minority bloc and act to make majority-backed gun control bills impractical to pass.

        7. avatar Shadow says:

          Ha ha, now that is funny. My crooked senator is a so-called “Republican”, and she has just been allegedly been caught saying that there needs to be a discussion on “gun control” and “banning weapons of war”. Of course anyone with half a brain in these parts, and who watches her voting record, knows she is an evil Democrat at heart. Sorry, but I will vote for a solid, votes-straight-pro-Second-amendment Democrat over a wishy washy RINO any day. But any more, it is getting difficult to find anyone in Congress that respects the Second Amendment, let alone any other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

        8. avatar Sian says:

          So long as our election system continues to use First Past the Post, a third party by design cannot win, and there’s no way the two dominant parties will ever willing give up that advantage, and voters have to act strategically rather than true to their beliefs if they want their vote to be relevant in any way.

        9. avatar Hannibal says:

          Nope. If I were a single issue voter I still wouldn’t vote for Trump.

          Not gonna vote for a literal moron, especially when he instituted more gun control is his first two years than Obama did in 8.

      2. avatar Paul says:

        Ruth Bader Ginsberg is on life support, keeping her alive, in the hopes that Trump will be defeated, and she will be replaced by someone liberal.

        I suspect that if she’s actually lucid, she wants to retire and put all this behind her. But, her handlers won’t allow her to retire so long as there is a hope for them.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          I’m of the opinion that RBG drinks embalming shakes every day to keep that youthful glow.
          Wish she would step down already.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          These people have immense egos. It isn’t just about doing a good job, it’s about them and their legacy. These people define themselves by their career. Just look at the ages of some of the federal judges. They hang on as long as they can, so they can cling to glory.

          Just look at John McCain. If he truly cared about the Senate and his constituents, then he would have stepped down when it was apparent that his failing health would keep him from doing his job. But no, he clung on to that position until the bitter end because it was all about him.

        3. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          How dare you, Dude! Everything I do, I do for YOU! Maybe my problem is that I CARE too much, or that I’m too humble, or that I work too hard for you! It’s at times like this when I wonder why I even bother doing what I do for YOU! Then I remember that I was chosen by God to do this work and that being a Congressional Representative is my cross to bear. I don’t need your gratitude for the burden I bear, just know: you’re welcome.

          Eric Swalwell 2020

        4. avatar barnbwt says:

          Ginsburg is a political Terminator on a mission from socialism; she is not mentally capable of putting other things ahead of her duty. Both impressive and terrifying that someone would ruthlessly work into very old age like that, but that’s what sociopaths do.

      3. avatar GratiaEtVeritas says:

        Yup, that’s the reason why I am holding my nose and voting for Lindsey Graham this election. He is loaded for bear ever since he saw the charlie foxtrot that went down with Kavanaugh. He seems to be keen on getting judges through. There also needs to be a buffer in case the Dems try to pull votes as they did with Flake and Murkowski on the final vote to gum up the works. 51 is a slim margin to work with and while McConnell seems to be good at counting votes, there needs to be some buffer.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Agree wholeheartedly that we need at least 54 Senators in the United States Senate who will reliably confirm United States Supreme Court Justices who will uphold the United States Constitution — including the Second Amendment.

          Having 54 Senators in the United States Senate who support out Constitution and our rights gives us a tiny margin of error if/when one of the 54 Senators suddenly decides to NOT support our rights.

        2. avatar MikeJH121 says:

          Flake….read Romney. Same kinda idiot different hair. Just like all the morons who said can’t talk bad about McCain. I can then and will. I am an Army Vet, Father before me Air Force and Army Vet, Korea. Grandfather, Pa’s side WWI. Grandfather Ma’s side WWII.

          McCain took his hate for Trump to his grave, as will Romney. That is too much energy wasted. McCain was a RINO to the bone. Typical political class; scummy, backstabbing his voters. Same as Romney.

          Old joke from Emo Phillips. “Grandma was on life support, she was brain dead but her heart was still beating, first time we had a democrat in the family.”

        3. avatar Dude says:

          I can’t stand Lindsey Graham. He’s a performer. I’d vote for him too. Strange bedfellows, blah, blah, blah.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      MarkPA,

      Eventually, Roberts might see that it is futile to attempt to ignore the 2A. The costs on other interests of the court may be far too much to endure.

      That would be true if the United States Supreme Court was interested in truth, integrity, justice, righteousness, and consistency. Sadly, many on the High Court are not interested in those virtues. Instead, they will vote with their feelings.

      To clarify:
      Plenty/most/all courts in the U.S. are quite happy to be inconsistent — allowing government entities to curtail the Second Amendment with “good cause” requirements while prohibiting government entities from curtailing other rights with “good cause” requirements. And it is always the same justification: that it is okay for government entities to curtail rights when those entities are advancing “a compelling government interest” or “public safety”.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        @uncommon: I take your point. “they will vote with their feelings.” But what are the true feelings of each justice? What were the true feelings of Kennedy? To support the right to arms? Certainly not. Yet, there were other issues at stake in Heller. The four who voted to grant cert were betting that Kennedy’s true feelings about the collateral issues would tip is sentiment in favor of upholding Heller’s individual right to a handgun, at least in his home.

        What are Robert’s true feelings? I find it hard to believe that his true feelings on the right to arms are strong enough to trump his sentiments about his legacy on the Supreme Court. Pick a case likely to turn on some crucial issues and he will feel compelled to decide. Sacrifice his major interests to preserve a minor interest? Hard choice.

        There are some issues that are so deeply entrenched that SCOTUS is highly unlikely to undermine them. The assumed power to interpret the Constitution is one which SCOTUS wouldn’t reverse. The power of Congress to regulate “interstate commerce” is one that SCOTUS wouldn’t like to tamper with.

        Pick a case where the Court would have to undermine some such sacred principle. Roberts would have to decide that he is willing to go down in history as the 5th justice to make a mess of this principle. To what end? To delay recognition of some aspect of the right to arms for a couple of years? Not going to happen.

        If Trump wins the 2020 election it will be clear that he will appoint at least one and likely two more justices. At that point, SCOTUS will almost certainly take cases and rule to uphold the right to arms. Gun control will be a lost cause at that point. Conversely, if the Democrat wins the reverse will be true for another generation.

        Yes, Uncommon, you are right. The real question is what drives the true feelings of the 5th justice? To some, there are other issues vastly more important than guns.

    3. avatar Felix says:

      The reverse is plausible too: the four gun haters threaten to certify a weak case and Roberts sees a way to stop the madness and get rid of gun cases for a long time.

      I see Roberts as a weak sister and too unpredictable for either side to want to take the chance. It may be that there are so many pro-gun cases pending that he sides with gun rights, but he really is unpredictable. On the other hand, all the pending gun cases are against gun control laws. I don’t recall a single Supreme Court case which gun controllers brought to undo a gun rights law; they have relied on legislators so far.

  2. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    I get a feeling we’ll get a small win and lots of additional losses. I hope I’m wrong.

    1. avatar Geoff "The waiting, is the hardest part..." PR says:

      Not granting cert. isn’t a hard loss, it’s just a punt that can be brought up again, at any future court session.

      A loss to worry about is when cert. is granted, and gets ruled against. That’s a ‘hard’ loss.

      There’s a web page that shows current SCOTUS 2A cases and their status :

      https://airtable.com/shrcrC5FsedZqIi3T/tblMclNyymYiklOOg/viwM47ZZsFWQo69Vf?blocks=hide

      I’m gonna hold off on further SCOTUS bitching until those cases are denied or granted cert..

      If none of them is granted, then I’ll be concerned. There may have been a back-chambers strategy by Thomas & Co. to moot NY Pistol and grant one or more of the others. All we can do is wait…

      1. avatar Templar says:

        as this article aptly states, ruling against the 2A sets up precedents that would destroy lots of other rulings.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        While it doesn’t grant legal precedence there is a fairly important legal consideration of stare decisis. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are just that; the exception to the rule. The longer a law stands, the harder it is to get rid of it.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Not holding my breath. It’s not like my state Stasi pays attention to that pesky constitution…

  4. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Any good news pertinent to Gun Rights, Constitutional Rights won’t be because of politically inept nitwits on this forum that perpetuate the slander and libel that began almost 4 years ago by the democrat party to overthrow a duly elected POTUS. That’s my vote and 63,000,000 other votes the Rat Party thinks they can trash.
    I’ve had enough of these self described gun owners who attempt to talk the talk while riding in a wagon that others pull. These spoiled brats are just as much a threat to gun rights as bloomberg, o’rourke et al. All these POTUS bashing potty mouths do is regurgitate the hate they’ve been fed and in doing so they put a sht grin on the face of the democrat party. And who is their choice for a POTUS that can do better? They don’t ever say. Their only chance to advance the cause in Nov. is to trash the POTUS with the hope something sticks and suckers votes from gullible gun owners. If anyone thinks this democrat sleaze isn’t going on…Think again.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020..

  5. avatar Elvis Montalban says:

    Nice straws there, that you’re grasping at.

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      *Snickers, and goes back to counting rounds muttering*

      Fools folly thinking SCOTUS is going to act as they should’ve in the last 81 years.

  6. As far as I am Concerned the Constitution says it all.

  7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am not convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver a righteous decision on our inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Even if there are two additional conservative Justices on the High Court, I can still envision them selling us out.

    And why would conservative Justices sell us out? Why not? Many/most people only care about profit for themselves.

    Case in point: I recently asked a nearby farm for permission to run a cable for 400 yards underground across the edge of their property, entirely at my expense and in a fashion that would not impact their ability to use their property in any way, shape, or form. That cable would provide a substantial benefit to our neighbors and increase the farm’s property value something like $20,000 to $100,000 (for reasons that I will not explain here.) All the farm wanted to know was how many tens of thousands of dollars I would pay them. The fact that there isn’t tens of thousands of dollars to be had did not matter to them and they denied me permission since “there was nothing in it for them”.

    Let’s be honest: a LOT of people are selfish, self-absorbed, greedy, dishonest, irrational, and emotionally erratic curmudgeons. Job and business titles do NOT change that fact. That includes people at all levels of government. Given those simple facts, I will never expect a righteous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court until after they actually deliver it.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Now that you’ve pulled the pin on that ‘curiosity grenade’ for your story, we please need more details before we can agree that your neighbors were selfish. Why did you want to install the cable, for what purpose, and what would have been the advantage(s) to the neighboring farm you wanted to cross?

      1. avatar Dave G. says:

        I Haz a Question:
        Maybe uncommon_sense can’t answer that question on a public forum such as this because of identity/privacy considerations.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Quite possibly the case, yes, so we’ll just need to let it go and move on. In the absence of more information, then, I cannot lend sympathy to an alleged plight that doesn’t present a fair case consisting of both parties’ concerns.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I Haz a Question,

        I am trying to run fiber-optic cabling (for super-fast Internet access) underground in rural areas. When you pass three houses in a mile to get to a private cul-de-sac with 8 houses, there just isn’t any significant amount of money involved, especially when you realize that that only 7 of those homes will subscribe. And if you try to run the cabling down the right-of-way, that bumps the cost up to something like $40,000 per mile at the absolute minimum (and likely higher). If I can run the cabling along the edges of private property, that drops the cost down to something like $6000 per mile — which is doable when you are only going to reach 7 homes. (That requires an investment on the order of $1000 per home.) If we must be in the right-of-way, then the cost per home is at least $6000 which no one can afford/justify in a rural area.

        If I don’t do this, no one else will. Meanwhile, people are floundering at home trying to handle remote work, remote business, and remote learning on horrible Internet access. And I am trying to live on something like $4000 per month for the next several years while I invest a HUGE amount of my own time and money to make my community a better place and help my neighbors to be successful at their homes.

        Imagine a few neighbors who have no electricity. They would greatly benefit from electricity although they cannot afford $6000 to acquire it. If someone asked you if they could run a cable underground on the edge or your property (over a half-mile away from your home) and save your neighbors thousands of dollars, wouldn’t you want to help out given that it costs you nothing, does not prevent you from doing anything that you want on your property, and improves your property value at the same time?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Thank you for the clarification. Given the way you presented it, yes, I would not see a reason to hinder your suggested improvement running through a remote corner of my large property. I wonder if an easement could be filed to provide access by necessary parties (e.g., municipal utility serviceworkers?) to that part of the property, in return for a small concession such as a slight discount on my property taxes.

          My own local neighborhood was in the same pickle for many years, seeing as we’re located in the foothill hinterlands a few miles outside the nearest town limits. AT&T repeatedly declined petitions to install cable Internet because the nearest fiber optic junction is four miles away, and the total layout would involve about fifteen miles’ worth of lines to reach the 1000+ homes spread out here. They don’t deem the ROI to be acceptable. So recently we ended up (collectively) contracting with a smaller company that installed several repeater towers (at $6000 each) all located on the hilltops within line-of-sight of the main tower back in town. Our rooftop micro-dishes are then aimed at the repeaters, which finally provides us with wireless high speed Internet. AT&T could have gone the wireless route and retained several hundred happy customers, but they didn’t see the long game, and have lost nearly everyone in my neighborhood as we all jumped ship and now even have VoIP with the new company. Their short-sightedness has cost them a ton of money.

        2. avatar SnapShot says:

          @uncommon_sense:
          Having lived in a rural community, on and off, for almost 60 years (on an Island, with ZERO internet, unless you count “dial-up”–remember that?) I feel your pain, and I have a legit question.

          And let me be clear: at no time in my life have I been, nor will I ever be, a DemoRat. Pelosi and her self-serving sycophants all “slop” at the same trough as the other hawgs of the Two Party Duopoly. (There–that’s out of the way–so please, no one pick that scab–I’m seriously asking the following question. Thanks.)

          And uncommon_sense:

          I’m seriously asking the following and, regardless of your answers, I think what you’re trying to do is 100% laudable and I HOPE you can change the (greedy) minds of those close-minded people running the farm that is denying you access for your project.

          As you are probably aware, a certain, old-school Democrat, one FDR, signed into law, in 1936, the Rural Electrification Act–and I mention is as you, yourself, likened your intended good works to the need for electricity. For reference, her is a link (which I doubt you’ll need, as you’re no doubt already familiar:
          Rural Electrification Act
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act)

          So…a certain, modern-day, REGISTERED INDEPENDENT has been trying to drum up support to bring HI-SPEED INTERNET to ALL RURAL HOUSEHOLDS in the contiguous United States–but neither party wants to pay the dough to get this done.

          That REGISTERED INDEPENDENT is one Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT)–you know, the Senator whose state imposes ZERO restrictions on 2A rights on its citizens, beyond what the Fed. Gov’t. insists on–unlike, say, NJ, NY, CT, etc….

          My question is a three-parter:

          a) IF Bernie was able to convince both sides of the two WAR PARTIES to actually fund high-speed internet to ALL rural homes, since that WOULD solve YOUR problem, at ZERO (personal) cost to you, would you support Bernie in his efforts to do so? And;

          b) Would you thank him for his efforts, which would actually benefit you via SOCIALISM You know, that same system which COMPLETELY FUNDS the U.S. MILITARY, the FAA, COAST GUARD, COPS, ICE, BP, BLM, EMT’s, (public school) TEACHERS, (paid) FIRST RESPONDERS/FIREFIGHTERS, ICE, BP,, (builds) PUBLIC ROADS and HIGHWAYS, and I could go on? (My brother is a COP, whose salary is 100% paid for by SOCIALISM, but he’s ANTI-socialism, saying “I don’t like THE WORD–my salary comes from TAXES.” Yeah, no sh*t, bro–and TAXES = SOCIALISM.) And finally;

          c) IF Bernie were, somehow, to pull of an FDR/Rual Electrification-like program which FIXED YOUR NEED FOR HI-SPEED WEB ACCESS, at zero cost to YOU (by, let’s say, sitting out the next, unnecessary OIL WAR, and maybe closing a FEW our 800 military bases around the country) WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE (POTENTIAL) VALIDITY of ANY of BERNIE’S OTHER (socialistic) POLICIES?

          Once again, I’m seriously asking and, regardless of your answers, I think what you’re trying to do is 100% laudable and I hope you can change the (greedy) minds of those close-minded people running the farm that is denying you access for your project.

          Thank you, most sincerely.

          A concerned, patriotic American.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          no.

    2. avatar Templar says:

      It’s their property. They can do whatever they please. I’m not sure what their reason was. Perhaps they didn’t want to pay higher property taxes? They don’t have an obligation to explain it to you. You’re on here seething about it. It makes me wonder if the selfish person is looking you in the mirror.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Templar,

        You see your neighbor keel-over and ask for help. Here are some of your possible responses, all well with your rights:
        1) Refuse to help in any way.
        2) Ask him how much he is willing to pay you for your assistance.
        3) Go and help as best as you can.

        Which of those three responses are the response of a good neighbor?

        Our nation is degrading to the point that it is because far too many people are douche bags and only care about themselves.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      eminent domain or utility. Get a lawyer and to it the hard way. And for them it can be expensive being a dickhead.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        neiowa,

        I believe that this would definitely fall under eminent domain. Unfortunately, I cannot afford the attorneys to push it.

    4. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “That cable would provide a substantial benefit to our neighbors and increase the farm’s property value something like $20,000 to $100,000…”

      Ah, ha!

      That could be problematic for the farm. Periodically, municipalities re-assess property values for tax purposes. If yours and you neighbor’s property values rise like you believe it will, that risks the farm’s value increasing, and their taxes being raised.

      So, yeah, them being nice to you can cost them some real money.

      You may still have options. 1200 feet may support a dedicated RF link of some sort…

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Geoff_PR,

        Oh, interesting point about their property taxes increasing.

        As for a short range RF link, I believe there are intervening trees in the way of such a link. I also favor the unbelievable reliability of buried fiber over above-ground RF links. Nevertheless, I might find a way to install just such a link to keep the project moving forward.

  8. avatar Phil LA says:

    Imagine the micro-stamping law passes. It would bring a new meaning to policing your brass. Go to the range and leave one spent casing behind, you’ve opened yourself to a potential murder charge.
    Or criminals could carry a pocketful of various spent casings and drop them all at the scene.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I’ve presented that very problem here before. Someone planning to commit a crime could just pick up a few spent casings (with the same serial numbering, from the same unwitting person’s gun) in the same caliber as the weapon he’ll use, then “salt” the crime scene with them. This problem may become prevalent enough down the road (assuming microstamping actually exists) that shooting ranges won’t allow you to pick up your own brass. One of my local ranges has already had a longstanding policy against it anyway, as they collect everything and make money on the back end cleaning and selling them to reloaders.

      1. avatar Dave G. says:

        On the other hand, it’s your brass bought and paid for, and you have every right to pick it up to reload and/or sell yourself. I don’t reload, but my son does, and he can also sell what he doesn’t reload for a little much-needed extra change. One range I go to doesn’t like that I pick my brass up, but they’ve never been so brassy (pardon the pun) as to fight with me over it. Should they ever get that shitty, I’ll just go somewhere else.

        On another tack, if microstamping ever DOES become a reality, I will damn sure insist on picking up every last piece myself to make sure it doesn’t fall into the hands of someone with criminal intent.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        I’ve had a good shouting match with a range officer at a large public shooting range near me. Just try and pick up your brass and they are all over you. They say when the range is cold you are either out changing targets or you are standing behind the painted line six feet from your guns, and you are not permitted to touch brass on the ground.

        These guys are in quasi cop shirts and wear sidearms. I told him I paid for it and I’d be taking it with me whether he liked it or not. Got so pissed off I decided to quit and not go back there (was my second visit, second encounter, different idiot yelling at me).

        I’ve noticed some shooters have made their own net enclosures they clamp to the benches, to contain their brass.

        Now I find out there is a rule about no aluminum or steel case ammo in shooting classes. The public range wants you to donate your shiny and reloadable brass you paid for.

        Fuck ’em, there’s BLM and other open lands out there. A bit more of a drive, but no fat ass Range Officers screaming into the portable bullhorn to put down your own brass.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          For all these same reasons you mention and more, I now spend most of my shooting time out in the desert, literally miles away from anyone who can see or care what I do. And I bring the EZ-Up so no prying eyes can see my guns from above (it’s a good idea, anyway, ‘cuz the sun here in CA).

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          I used to go tons range run by fascists and now I don’t. Surely other options exist

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” leave one spent casing behind, you’ve opened yourself to a potential murder charge ”

      This could work the other way around as well. If someone is on trial for murder, who actually did the murder, and if the microstamped casing is a key piece of evidence, a sharp lawyer could suggest to the jury that the casing might have been randomly picked up at a shooting range. It’s enough to introduce reasonable doubt. And it’s more than enough to completely erase any usefulness that microstamping might have in solving a crime.

      1. avatar Phil LA says:

        Exactly: just like that the “good reason” to have micro stamping is nullified and the only thing that remains is onerous technology, cost and registration.

        Or possession of spent brass could be made a crime to prevent such tampering. Chew on that one for a bit.

    3. avatar Someone says:

      We don’t have to imagine it. The law passed and is in force in California. No new pistols on the “not unsafe” list unless they comply with the stupid microstamping requirements. Which in reality means no new pistol models for the Californians who don’t wear police badges.

  9. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Uh huh

  10. avatar Darkman says:

    Just an interesting tidbit concerning the track record of the Supreme Court.
    Decision made by the court on this day in:
    1927: The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, upholds 8-1 a Virginia law allowing the forced sterilization of people to promote the “health of the patient and the welfare of society.”

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      More commonly known as Eugenics. It was quite popular in the U.S. and around the world from 1880 until after WW II when it fell out of favor after. The Nazi’s adopted it as one of the main tenants for the extermination of the Jews. The Supreme Court is and has been a poor judge of what Rights and Freedoms consist of. Because like all things judged. Opinion plays a major role in their judgement. This example is only one of many decisions made by the Court which were Wrong. Eugenics under the 1927 ruling is still legal today.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        SCOTUS went euro prog before 1900 like much of Eastern US “intelligentsia”. Stylish superiority complex and the only way to get invited to the “good” parties. Still in vogue in most of DC and metro hives (and the entire demtard party).

  11. avatar Jeff says:

    If they do grant cert, when would they rule? Next June?

    Anything can happen between now and then.

  12. avatar Neil says:

    I vote #2A. Everything else is derived as you cannot deprive an armed population of its rights.

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      I agree. But they’ve done a great job of assaulting the 1A, 4A, 5A and 10A lately.

  13. avatar Roger J says:

    Roberts can’t wait to shit can them all.

  14. avatar Shawn says:

    Here is my prediction: the court will either not hear any of the gun ban cases or rule its constitutional for the states to ban guns. They will also not hear the case that bans open carry or rule that you have no right to open carry outside of your home therefore allowing to blue states to ban open carry entirely.

    Expect EVERY challenge to be smacked down. The anti-gun gun owner extermination forced will WIN EVERY TIME. I NEVER expect the Supreme Court to EVER rule against an anti gun law passed again. Because right now according to the Supreme Court gun bans are constitutional, registration is constitutional, blanket ban of open and concealed carry is constitutional, that you are banned from taking your guns out of your home is constitutional. It’s not a hard leap for them to say they banning of all guns with door to door constitutional. Or even the outlawing of all gun possession and madagimg the federal government exterminate every single solitary gun owner and every single solitary person Who opposes the government killing every single gun owner is also within the federal government.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      That is to say that the following cases did NOT happen:
      – Heller v DC
      – McDonald v Chicago
      – Catetano v Mass

      NONE, NOT one of these cases were adjudicated by SCOTUS.

      So it has been; so it must be. Because these cases were NOT so adjudicated, no future cases could possibly be adjudicated consistently.

      Do we really understand how our system works?

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        And ever since then what have we got? It has been how many years since the Supreme Court took a second amendment case and ruled in favor of our rights?

        EVERY SINGJE SOLITARY AWB challenge for the past THIRTEEN YEARS SCOTUS has not bothered to hear it. EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY 2nd amendment case for the past ELEVEN YEARS SCOTUS has either not heard or sided with the state. The courts are either hostile or indifferent to gun rights. If you think the courts will ever help us in any significant way you are delusional.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Judges are hostile to gun rights. Not the institution of the courts.
          Don’t like that? Change judges. To do that you have to vote politicians into office that will give you the kinds of judges you want. You have to vote. And, usually, hold your nose while doing so.

          We have a president who seems determined to appoint federal judges who are inclined to support gun rights. And, a Senate that will confirm. That seems to be happening. Judges are getting appointed and confirmed. If it happens for another 4.5 years we will be well on our way to securing gun rights. If that doesn’t happen for more than another 6 months, gun rights are doomed.

          Most importantly, we need a SCOTUS bench that will actively support gun rights. We just haven’t had that for a century. That matters. We were really very lucky to get Heller, McDonald and Caetano to be ruled on. We were lucky to get NYSR&PA to get cert. When SCOTUS doesn’t want to do something it doesn’t have to do it. And, it certainly does NOT want to take cases on the 2A.

          But today, SCOTUS can’t refuse to take cases. There are 4 justices who are eager to take cases and they can force the court to take them. The trick is to get a case to these four which is of such a nature that at least one more will feel compelled to vote to uphold the right.

          Caetano was just such a case. As was NYSR&PA. These were no-brainer cases. Caetano was such a perfect case that she won UNANIMOUSLY. Not one of the liberal justices could bring him/herself to vote against her.

          One of the multiple (hard-to-identify) keys is – I think – to be NOT TOO AMBITIOUS. Messrs. Heller and McDonald didn’t ask for much; merely a handgun in the home. Caetano asked for even less; she only wanted to stay out of prison for having a stun-gun. SCOTUS didn’t actually have to give much to support gun rights. SCOTUS is not going to make a stunning move in a gun-rights case; it will move as slowly as it can. One small step at a time. Bring cases to SCOTUS that allow them to make small steps. To Caetano all they had to say was that the 2A was not just for muskets anymore. They didn’t even have to say that states were limited in any way in regulating stun guns. All SCOTUS had to say was that the Mass Supreme Judicial Court’s reasoning was ridiculous on its face. They wouldn’t have had to say more than that with NYSR&PA.

          But in such cases SCOTUS would has the opportunity to say something more that would set a precedent for future cases. After Caetano it’s going to be harder to defend laws banning modern actions, such as semi-autos. You didn’t read that in Caetano? It’s not there. But read between the lines. After Caetano, how will SCOTUS draw a line on actions? Lever-action but not bolt-action? Bolt-action but not pumps? After NYSR&PA it WOULD have been harder for the lower courts to claim that they can’t find the word “bear” in the text of the 2A. That case represented a perfect opportunity for SCOTUS to say that to transport in the trunk of a car is a form of the verb “bear” and that they were able to find the word “bear” – right in front of the word “arms” – in the 2A. Thereafter, the lower courts Would no longer have been able to say that SCOTUS had not yet found a right to bear arms in the Constitution.

          When SCOTUS is reluctant to rule – as is the case with the 2A – I think that it wants the lower courts to work-up a jurisprudence around the topic. I think that a reluctant court wanted to see where the lower courts would take Heller and McDonald. If the lower courts did something SCOTUS approved of then SCOTUS could continue to avoid making a controversial ruling it didn’t want to make. Now enough time has passed that the lower courts have had their opportunity; and, we would argue, abused it. So, now, SCOTUS’ patience should be running out. This seems to be the case today. A bunch of cases have accumulated in its IN-box. They ARE likely to take a case soon and rule on it.

          In fact, now might be the perfect opportunity for that to happen if one is a justice interested in reining-in the 2A. This is likely the LAST bench that will rule on a 2A case before Trump gets re-elected. (If Trump were NOT to be re-elected then the liberals have their way. They can doom any further development of 2A rights forever.) If you are one of the 5 that wants to keep the 2A cabined as a second-class right you MUST take a case now to keep the holding and dicta under your control just as Kennedy did in Heller and McDonald. Miss this opportunity and that same issue (May-Issue, micro-stamping, AWB) WILL be on the docket in another couple of years when RBG is no longer on the bench. Roberts will no longer be able to temper Thomas’ enthusiasm.

          An ideal case is one in which some other sacred cow would get gored if the right to arms is NOT upheld. I think May-Issue is likely a good topic. If something really is a “right” – and especially if it is an ENUMERATED right – then government can’t withhold that right on a whim. They may still be able to regulate it – even regulate the hell out of it, but not withhold on a whim. Right to speak, publish, assemble, worship, petition; withhold on a whim? Right to council, right to remain silent? Withhold on a whim? May-Issue looks like it is an unfettered power to withhold on a whim. All SCOTUS has to say is that a state’s legislature must spell-out in unambiguous language what their prerequisites are; e.g., 20/40 vision; a qualification of 80/100; whatever. But they can’t say that a sheriff/judge needs to agree that you “really need” a gun. SCOTUS can leave for another day the question of whether a vision test or marksmanship test are pertinent to the exercise of “the right to keep and bear arms”. Or, whether prerequisites such as these “infringe”. It shouldn’t be hard to get a fifth justice to subscribe to so small an advancement in jurisprudence as “need” can’t be a prereq to a right. For if SCOTUS does not so rule then one day someone might ask why it is UN-Constitutional to allow a sheriff/judge to decide that one doesn’t really need a marriage license or an abortion or a ballot.

          Another kind-of-case that would be easy is one involving non-resident permits. Several states forbid or arbitrarily limit non-resident permits. Oregon (IIRC) requires that you be a resident of a neighboring state. Why? SC requires that you own land in the state. Why? IL requires that you be resident on one of a half-dozen enumerated states none of which are nearby. Why? It is extremely offensive to the Constitution to treat non-resident citizens in a discriminatory way; and, particularly so without some plausible rationale.

          We have a long battle before us; and, most of it is political. I don’t expect SCOTUS is going to take a gun-free zone case in the foreseeable future. This will be a battle SCOTUS leaves to legislatures or Congress. What we need SCOTUS for is to break the barriers to developing a gun culture in the 8 or so highly populous states – particularly those which are May-Issue. Once vulnerable Democrats residing in these states can – and DO – apply for carry permits the enthusiasm of the Antis to persecute gun voters will weaken.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    “We May Be Getting Good News from the Supreme Court on Monday”

    Why? Is the building going to burn down?

  16. avatar NJ_DOC says:

    “We May Be Getting Good News from the Supreme Court on Monday”

    Don’t hold your breath.

  17. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

    Oh come on people! Their looking for something they can make a very narrow pro-2A ruling on to throw us a bone. That was the deal that was cut with Kavanaugh to moot NYSR&PA. The Cali microstamp is a no brainer and basically they’ll rule that you can’t require something that doesn’t exist.

    1. avatar NJ_DOC says:

      If SCOTUS takes the California case, the state will change the law, just like NY did, and the case will become moot.
      Better to take a case like the NJ case, and end the “justifiable need” once and for all.

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Not gonna happen.

    2. avatar Shawn says:

      Microstamping Will be ruled as constitutional or the Supreme Court will not bother with it. After McDonald the Supreme Court has decided that the second amendment is a second class right. The second amendment should be to them abolished. The Supreme Court is not our ally; if they were the various bands that were brought forth they would have heard and would have overturned. What happened to the bands from Maryland and Connecticut that were put towards the Supreme Court? The court did not hear it.If you think the supreme court whatever rule in favor of gun rights ever again you are delusional.

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Pretty sure that’s what I said. Except that I think they’re looking to placate us so they’ll take up at least one case where it won’t really hurt the GC movement. The microstamp seems the most likely.

        That said, all this talk about Republicans and the SC taking up the side of GC is because the demonicRats are winning on that platform. Like any of us they want to keep their jobs. If we want them to change, we have to cause a change in the political landscape. Fairly simple to do, get out and vote! Assist those who cannot get to the polls by themselves with a ride. Better yet, do as the other side does, set up busing to the polls. Watch how quickly the pendulum swings the other way.

  18. avatar TruthTellers says:

    The anti gun states have figured out a way to keep SCOTUS from making any pro gun rulings, all they have to do is when a case is granted cert to repeal the law and argue the case be made moot. Roberts, in his piss covered cuck robes will agree and nothing pro 2A comes from the judiciary.

    With Congress being a do nothing branch to advance 2A, the executive branch being relatively incapable of doing nothing but enforcing the laws, and the moot game at the judicial level, there’s nothing that can be done to turn the tide. The only other method I can think of is if a really, really pro gun state like Texas or Wyoming passed extreme anti gun laws for the purposes of getting them to SCOTUS and not doing the NY moot strategy and having SCOTUS overturn the laws so they take effect nationwide.

    I say if the anti’s want to play dirty, let’s play real dirty.

  19. avatar Steve says:

    The Democrats have no leadership, therefore they will fail, Roc ran smooth over Nancy and Schumer and America was there to see it

  20. hey ” enuf” turn in all your guns now. because a vote for any “dem” now is a vote for communism. and the all want to take away your guns and ALL of your freedoms. the dem party is no way close to what it used to be. now it is just a bunch of power hungry communist who want to control us. look at all of the gun control laws passed by them. look at all the dem controlled craphole states they have. with strict gun control laws in place and you the gunowner are just a criminal waiting for the right momement for them to send to jail for what ever they can think of. how can you be so naïve to what they do? do you want this country top look like commie craphole venezuala? how do you think they got that way? by having people like you, vote for people like our “democraptic” party who push their socialist (communism) agenda . DON’T fall for it.

  21. avatar Whole Lot of Paid Disinformation in this thread. says:

    I’m seeing so much anti-trump sters in here. So many trying to make it seem like the repubs are somehow as evil as the dems.

    NO ONE CAN TOP THE DEMOCRATS FOR PURE FUCKERY!

    Screw splitting your vote, screw libertarians, screw the green party, and most definetly screw the party of Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Bernie, & Adam Schiwfty!

    1. avatar SnapShot says:

      @ Whole Lot of Paid Disinformation in this thread,

      I’m with you on Pelosi—and you forgot the spineless, political shape-shifter/PUKE-Chuck Schumer–WTH? LOL

      And the following is meant constructively. I will invest my trust (once) that it will be received in the same spirit.

      So, despite our agreement on Pelosi, Schumer, and (I’ll bet) many other Democrats, as well as our shared goals of un-infringed 2a rights, you (and any of us, including ME) destroy your/our own credibility if WE are wrong on FACTS. Before I point out your error, here’s a quote that makes this point more elegantly than can I:

      “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
      –Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

      What is your error? Simply that you lumped Bernie (I-VT) in with Pelosi and the other Dems. Bernie is NOT a Democrat–but he IS two things you overlooked:

      1. The Sen. from one of the (few? Pls correct me if I’m wrong) states that have ZERO restrictions on 2a rights, other than the minimum the Fed. Gov’t. forces on all 50 states, and;

      2. Bernie is a registered INDEPENDENT. And therefore, not of “…the party of Nancy Pelosi, AOC, B—-e, & Adam Schiwfty! (as you clearly stated).”

      Of course, it’s an easy mistake to make, because (IIRC) there are all of TWO Independents in the U.S. Senate, Angus S. King, Jr. (ME) and Bernard Sanders (VT). And of course, in the House, you have the recently-departed-from-the-Repuglicans/Newly-minted-Independent, one Justin Amash, as of 2019.

      There ARE Independents who are pro-2a (I have no idea what Amash’s 2a position is, and that’s irrelevant to my point). My point is, it does US no good to lump Bernie in with the DemoRats–almost all of whom are actually DINO’s, anyway, and thus good for nothing, as are the RINO’s.

      If WE are sloppy with the FACTS, we are no better than “them”—and I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to give “them” any more (rhetorical) “ammo” than they are already astroturfing, in their efforts to subvert our Constitutionally-guaranteed 2a rights—as well as everyone’s 1a, 4a and 5a rights, as a wise man mentioned, upstream in this thread. (And there are other areas of the Constitution that are under assault, currently, as you surely know.)

      Peace and thank you.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Sanders is NOT a Democrat and that’s why his domocratic presidential candidate campaign went nowhere twice. He is even worse than a Dem. – Self proclaimed socialist scum, who loves himself Castro, Chavez and Soviet Union. Don’t forget, Cuba has some swell literacy campaigns and bread lines are a good thing!

  22. avatar Roymond says:

    “It’s akin to a law saying people have a right to free speech only if they’ve turned lead into gold.”

    Bad comparison. More appropriate would be to say they have to address the U.N. and get an impromptu and unanimous standing ovation.

  23. avatar Jim Warren says:

    Pipe dreams. If you think these cases stand a better chance than the last case, you’ve been on the pipe too long.

  24. avatar sunshinerevans55 says:

    This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h. I use details from this Address…. http://www.­6.gp/a72HQ

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    I guess firing pins can’t be altered or replaced so CA has found a foolproof way to identify guns. /sarc

    1. avatar Someone says:

      The point never was the gun identification. It was yet another attempt to make gun ownership harder and more expensive, if not outright impossible.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email