2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: zippz on January 22, 2019, 07:20:53 AM
-
Not quite the carry case we've been looking for but I'm sure we'll get some good precident out of it. Probably change Hawaii's place to keep law.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
At issue is a challenge to a provision of a New York City gun law that regulates where a licensed handgun owners can take their firearm. The law blocks licensed individuals from removing a handgun from the address listed on the license except to travel to nearby authorized small arms range/shooting clubs.
-
Not likely to be argued until at least October and a decision rendered in spring 2020.
zippz, I know it will depend on 1. winning the case, and 2. the narrowness or breadth of the decision, but please give us some specific examples of how you see it possibly effecting Hawaii law.
-
Here's the link to the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/
It appears NYC has an even stricter version of Place to Keep where they cannot take the gun out of the city or to a second home. A win in the case could remove the limitations where we can keep and transport an unloaded gun in Hawaii. Definitely be the finishing blow if that hotel gun ban somehow actually gets into law. Enforcing FOPA. Some related precedent on public carry would be nice too.
-
Here's the link to the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/
It appears NYC has an even stricter version of Place to Keep where they cannot take the gun out of the city or to a second home. A win in the case could remove the limitations where we can keep and transport an unloaded gun in Hawaii. Definitely be the finishing blow if that hotel gun ban somehow actually gets into law. Enforcing FOPA. Some related precedent on public carry would be nice too.
I'm not sure how a narrow decision (which the court has previously rendered in 2a cases) saying that people may take their unloaded, cased firearms to locations outside the city would have any effect here, since we don't have any law similar to that. I guess some legal challenge could be mounted and argued by analogy...
Pretty sure there isn't going to be a word written about public carry, since that appears nowhere in the briefs nor the decisions being appealed, and you can't bring up an issue not argued previously.
But I'll take any 2a win even if it doesn't help us here in Hawaii.
-
I'm sure the case will be narrowly focused, and NYC does have much stricter laws than Hawaii does. However the precedent may help us and commentators are saying there is a chance this case will open up strict scrutiny on 2a cases.
I had a firearms class with some police officers from NYC. They said the licensing is insane there. You have to take a class in NYC to purchase a handgun, or to even touch one. But you can't shoot a gun without a license first. So you take the firearms class in NYC then have to go out of the city to do the live-fire part.
-
Yeah, strict scrutiny would be good, but hard to know how they could rule on that wider than the case at hand. Or better yet, "take all interest balancing tests off the table". But Clifford in his dissent in Young made of point of emphasizing that bearing outside the home is NOT a "core" of the right protected, and thus intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard (and the way intermediate scrutiny has been applied in all the lower courts validating "good cause", etc. has really been "rational basis"). And he was appointed by a Republican...
-
Attorney and scholar Stephen Halbrook on NRA TV today discussing the case. He expresses the hope that the best outcome is one in which the court clearly outlines the standard of review to be applied to 2a cases (i.e. strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review, or text, history and tradition.
https://www.nratv.com/videos/stinchfield-stephen-halbrook-supreme-court-to-hear-nyc-gun-case
And from an article at TTAG re the case:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/01/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-to-ny-state-rifle-pistol-assn-v-city-of-ny/
[Quoting another person writing last fall]: I believe that the day of reckoning for the anti-2A forces is coming. Roberts being Roberts (and I think he’s going to be the key vote given the current composition of the Court), he’s going to want a near-perfect test case before he’ll enforce/expand Heller. There are several in the pipeline that might do the job.
My prediction is that whatever case they take, Roberts writes a narrow opinion that declares that laws that impinge 2A rights are subject to strict scrutiny, and kicks the case back down for determination under that standard. (Thomas will write a blistering concurrence joined by 2-3 others saying that there’s no need to send it back, as there is no way the law in question survives strict scrutiny.) …
Roberts and likely Kavanaugh are going to want to wait for an ideal 2A test case. Best bet right now is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, given that the NYC laws are so draconian as to amount to a blanket denial of 2A rights. We should have a decision on whether they will hear the case early next year.
[The comments section has extensive further speculations about the possible details, and why...]
-
"text, history and tradition" is the only thing which will save the 2A. The levels of scrutiny (rational, intermediate, strict) were invented by the courts so that judges could uphold unconstitutional laws.
"In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny. To be sure, the Court never said something as succinct as "Courts should not apply strict or intermediate scrutiny but should instead look to text, history, and tradition to define the scope of the right and assess gun bans and regulations." But that is the clear message I take away from the Court's holdings and reasoning in the two cases." Heller v. District of Columbia ("Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 at 1271 (2011) KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
-
Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, party to the case, states during this interview today on Cam and Company on NRA-TV that the case will be heard this spring:
https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-tom-king-new-york-city-firearms-case-taken-up-by-scotus
-
Tom King has no way of knowing when oral argument will take place. Nobody, including the lawyers in the case, will know until the date is made publicly available by the Court for everyone to see.
-
Tom King has no way of knowing when oral argument will take place. Nobody, including the lawyers in the case, will know until the date is made publicly available by the Court for everyone to see.
He didn't qualify it all with a "maybe" or a "could" or even "I hope" or "I want" or "they should"... just stated it as a flat out fact. He didn't mention how he knew this, while no one else does. Let's hope the lawyers who actually argue the case before SCOTUS, whenever it happens, will have their factual claims well supported.
-
The petitioners' brief is due on March 8th. The response is due on April 8th. Typically, the justices are given 14 days to review a brief. That would put oral argument sometime in the last three days of oral arguments for this term (April 23-25). Keep an eye on the docket and the arguments calendar. If oral argument is to take place this term then it should be scheduled within the week of March 8th. Either side can ask for an extension of time to file their brief. If either does and if it is granted then oral argument will take place next term unless the court issues an opinion without oral argument, which is unlikely.
-
For those who might like to read the speculations re this case by the anti-Second Amendment side (they seem to be "concerned" ;)):
The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/court-hears-gun-rights-case-ny-rifle-pistol-association-v-city-ny/581017/
Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-review-gun-restrictions-for-first-time-in-nearly-a-decade/2019/01/22/d6b36496-1b47-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html
Slate https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html
CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case-on-transporting-handguns.html
-
Seventeen minute interview of Paul Clement, who will be arguing this case before SCOTUS, with Cam Edwards of NRA TV. Gives the general outline of the case and his beliefs about the larger issues that may be involved, such as appropriate levels of scrutiny that apply in such 2a cases. He also seems to believe that the case will be heard in the fall, contrary to NYRPA leader Tom King who stated it WILL be heard this spring.
https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-paul-clement-attorney-representing-new-york-gun-owners-in-scotus-case (https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-paul-clement-attorney-representing-new-york-gun-owners-in-scotus-case)
-
is any gun association helping with this financially? As in paying for attorneys?
-
is any gun association helping with this financially? As in paying for attorneys?
The NYSRPA is the New York affiliate of the NRA. Pretty sure NRA is at least partially funding the effort, just like they did in California when Clement was the attorney who argued for Peruta at the Ninth en banc.
-
If new york was smart, they would quickly withdraw this law. It would be a delaying tactic only, but IMO gun control states have more to lose than gain in the supreme court.
---------------------
I would not assume that this has no bearing on hawaii.
They can choose an obscure, most restrictive law to issue a sweeping ruling. A law as egregious as this one probably makes it easier to issue such a ruling than a more "reasonable" gun control law. The supreme court could clarify that all gun restrictions such as this one, permitting, etc etc has to clear a high bar instead of allowing the states to pass restrictions and conditions willy nilly. That potentially affects laws such as 2 week wait times, permitting, magazine bans, etc. Since this law prevents gunowners from transporting their firearms outside of the city, the SC could "go nuclear" and allude to the right to bear arms extends beyond the home to public places. *BOOM*
At worst, even a narrow ruling puts states like NY, CA, and HI on notice that their continued enroachment (such as the hotel bill and assault rifle ban) on 2A rights is not acceptable and that the supreme court will pick away at the more restrictive gun laws to more correctly define Heller.
-
These anti 2a states are only thinking about themselves.
Same thing for Young vs. Hawaii. If I were NY, CA, MA, I would call HI and say take one for the team. If not, then it becomes law of the land. Well to late for CA, but east coast should tell Hawaii to concede.
-
I rather see Young go to SCOTUS this year. But knowing our slow moving judicial system, it could and probably be years before it gets a hearing. And since the 3 judge panel ruled in his favor, he should be allowed to carry until the en banc or SCOTUS rules against him.
-
I rather see Young go to SCOTUS this year. But knowing our slow moving judicial system, it could and probably be years before it gets a hearing. And since the 3 judge panel ruled in his favor, he should be allowed to carry until the en banc or SCOTUS rules against him.
I was thinking about that. How come the law isn't applied until the appeal?
-
I was thinking about that. How come the law isn't applied until the appeal?
My limited understanding is that the law, as applied, was ruled unconstitutional, and the case was remanded back to district court to be reheard in that light: There IS a constitutionally-protected right to bear arms outside the home. There is no right to bear arms outside the home concealed in the Ninth Circuit. Limiting the constitutionally-protected right to bear arms unconcealed to security guards ("and the like") is unconstitutional. Down the road a ways: "Fix it for everyone, not just Mr. Young."
To reword Justice Thomas's famous "bedroom to the kitchen" line from the Peruta dissent to denial of cert: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun outside the home while on duty and in uniform as a security guard."
-
Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, party to the case, states during this interview today on Cam and Company on NRA-TV that the case will be heard this spring:
https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-tom-king-new-york-city-firearms-case-taken-up-by-scotus
He didn't qualify it all with a "maybe" or a "could" or even "I hope" or "I want" or "they should"... just stated it as a flat out fact. He didn't mention how he knew this, while no one else does. Let's hope the lawyers who actually argue the case before SCOTUS, whenever it happens, will have their factual claims well supported.
Well, here we have the petition to SCOTUS, filed yesterday Feb. 12, 2019, from the lawyer for the NYSRPA asking for an extension of time to file briefs. Maybe the executive director of NYSRPA should talk to his hired attorney before stating "facts"?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/88055/20190212144347429_2019-02-12%20extension%20letter%20FINAL.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/Neqlt4R.jpg)
-
Not to jump in on you guys but I wandered on this thread and thought I would clarify a few things as well as my 2 cents. Per who pays, typically New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and many times Shooters Committee On Political Education. At what time I was a card carrying member of all of them. Now I am just a life member of NRA and SAF.
How to get a basic handgun license in NY, every county is different but for the most You fill out the application, provide your 3-5 references (many counties have extreme restrictions on who can be your reference), get your fingerprints. Applications and references are reviewed by the Sheriff and it is then submitted to a judge. Some jurisdictions you must go before the judge. If required (most counties require) you have 1 yr to receive your training and you are required to have a gun registered on your license within that year. Concealed carry is another step. NYC and a few other jurisdictions require you to show NEED and suffice it to say you still have to be well connected. My county just required a second level of training.
Where I see this going is over federal transportation laws of firearms and possibly tie it into commerce. We can all fly into or drive through NYC with a locked and unloaded firearm while in transport to a destination where we also legally possess a gun. NYC residents do have camps and summer homes in upstate NY. There are some great gun ranges and clubs just outside of NYC. Hunters CAN transport their firearms. Other than the Federal Law is written for Interstate transport and this case applies to intrastate I think they will simply apply the one to the other as Interstate law supersedes intrastate.
The day the Senate takes reciprocity to a vote, it ends all of this. It passed the House prior to the elections and is waiting on the Senate. -D
-
Where I see this going is over federal transportation laws of firearms and possibly tie it into commerce. We can all fly into or drive through NYC with a locked and unloaded firearm while in transport to a destination where we also legally possess a gun. NYC residents do have camps and summer homes in upstate NY. There are some great gun ranges and clubs just outside of NYC. Hunters CAN transport their firearms. Other than the Federal Law is written for Interstate transport and this case applies to intrastate I think they will simply apply the one to the other as Interstate law supersedes intrastate.
The day the Senate takes reciprocity to a vote, it ends all of this. It passed the House prior to the elections and is waiting on the Senate. -D
People have been arrested just for having a gun in a locked case at the airport while changing flights and layovers. TSA called the PD on them and they were arrested. So if you're traveling thru NY, make sure the airline always handles your suit case/gun case. Or don't book a flight that will require you to handle them. As in you get your luggage back because the layover is 12 hours or something. If your flight is cancelled/delayed and the airline puts you up in a hotel, make sure you don't collect your luggage. Tell them that they can hold on to it and leave it with them. Or when you're checking in again, BOOM arrested.
IIRC, it was a NFL player who was arrested. He has his George CCW also. And luckily he had the money to fight it in court and win. It was on the national news.
Same goes with CA, but probably not as bad. They have a list of their "approved handguns". I overheard a story of a guy traveling with his VP9 to Alaska and had a layover. Never left the airport, but had to check in again and the TSA guy said "you know this isn't on the CA list of approved handguns and I could have you arrested". Guy had no clue. But TSA was cool and let him continue on. I never looked up CA's laws on traveling thru, so maybe the TSA was just trying to puff his chest. IDK.
-
Can anyone confirm if this is true?
The reason no 2a cases went to the SCOTUS was because there were more anti 2a judges than pro 2a. So any case that went would have a high chance of losing. So now that Trump is replacing a few with pro 2a or more pro 2a than their predecessor, it's open season.
Or was it just chance that this one got in. So in the past 10 years, many were trying, but never got their chance.
-
The day the Senate takes reciprocity to a vote, it ends all of this. It passed the House prior to the elections and is waiting on the Senate. -D
This (2019-20) is a new session of Congress. Bills passed by only one legislative body in one session do not hold over for the next session. Reciprocity is dead. It'll never pass in the Dem majority House now, and it never would have passed in the Senatem abnd still won't, because it needed/needs 60 votes. Maybe if Kameltoe or Liawatha win in 2020 they'll get the Congress to pass it. :rofl:
-
Perhaps if Trump goes on the news and says he hates CCW reciprocity, the Dems will vote to pass it.
Can't wait for this NY case to win so we can get on to Young.
-
People have been arrested just for having a gun in a locked case at the airport while changing flights and layovers. TSA called the PD on them and they were arrested. So if you're traveling thru NY, make sure the airline always handles your suit case/gun case. Or don't book a flight that will require you to handle them. As in you get your luggage back because the layover is 12 hours or something. If your flight is cancelled/delayed and the airline puts you up in a hotel, make sure you don't collect your luggage. Tell them that they can hold on to it and leave it with them. Or when you're checking in again, BOOM arrested.
IIRC, it was a NFL player who was arrested. He has his George CCW also. And luckily he had the money to fight it in court and win. It was on the national news.
Same goes with CA, but probably not as bad. They have a list of their "approved handguns". I overheard a story of a guy traveling with his VP9 to Alaska and had a layover. Never left the airport, but had to check in again and the TSA guy said "you know this isn't on the CA list of approved handguns and I could have you arrested". Guy had no clue. But TSA was cool and let him continue on. I never looked up CA's laws on traveling thru, so maybe the TSA was just trying to puff his chest. IDK.
What happens in NY and it happens quite frequently is that people leave the state to overnight in NJ for their layovers, the second they re-enter the state they are "considered" illegal for breaking the in transit protocols. There are cases pending for that and people sitting in jail over it because they are considering NY CA check in to be a "start" when the bags are checked. They tried to do it to someone who never left the airport and that did not fly with the courts but all others have. The problem is getting cases into the higher courts.
One case that HI may be interested in is how the courts viewed the licensing fees in Chicago. They were essentially considered a poll tax because the fees were so high it made it impossible for people to exercise their rights. A friend was assigned to HI for awhile, he said it took over half a day to fill out the forms and the cost was a bit extreme.
Here is the list of cases that SAF is involved in. Whenever a state successfully gets a case into the court both the NRA and SAF jump into them, that is assuming SAF is not the initial to bring the case to court. SAF was the primary to Heller, not the NRA as everyone thinks.
-
SAF was the primary to Heller, not the NRA as everyone thinks.
No it wasn't. SAF was not involved in Heller at all, except for submitting an amicus brief (one of 68 (sixty-eight) such submissions). The case was privately funded by Robert Levy (who didn't own a gun) of the Cato Institute. And the fact that the NRA tried to derail the case is well known to anyone who has read any detail about it.
Here's an audio of Brian Doherty, Senior Editor, Reason Magazine discussing his book Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle over the Second Amendment: https://www.cato.org/events/gun-control-trial
-
(My heroes) Judicial Watch filed an amicus brief today in NYSRPA: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/91491/20190311105725205_Amicus%20Brief%20NY%20Rifle%20Assn%2018-280.pdf
Excerpt:
Amici are concerned that the decision of the U.S
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will allow
state and local governments to undermine citizens’
right to self-defense in a discriminatory fashion.
Amici believe that the freedom to keep and bear
arms is an inherent individual liberty right which
the Constitution must secure for all citizens, and
that states and cities may not infringe upon it
regardless of the nobility of their motives. For
these and other reasons, amici urge the Court
to reverse the Second Circuit’s decision.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Gun control regulations which substantially burden the right to carry firearms are a discriminatory means to deny select citizens the full protections of the second amendment. The court should evaluate the constitutionality of New York City’s gun control regulations based on how much they burden citizens’ second amendment rights. In this case, the burden is great. States and cities concerned about reducing gun violence can and should instead implement other known effective measures – measures which do not require the state to exercise extraconstitutional powers to deprive the people of their fundamental rights.
-
Again, this case is important to us mostly because Young has been stayed pending the outcome of this case at SCOTUS, which could be not until June of 2020, and not likely before December of 2019.
New York City today filed a request to stay the NYSRPA case pending a proposed rule/law change that would moot the case by essentially granting all the claims of the plaintiffs to transport their firearms (unloaded in a locked case separate from ammunition) to 1. their other homes outside the city, 2. ranges outside the city, and 3. a shooting competition outside the city.
They've asked to stay the case until at least after it is determined whether or not the proposed changes will be put into place and take effect... likely sometime in June (first brief currently due early May).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/96331/20190412152613471_nysrpa%20v%20cny%2018-180%20ltr%204%2012%2019.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dnvDofFMPgUe-A3x5CdOzPhYzCscD3FWDufBYMJpVfVtjwvZ8Rz96VXg
I note this bullshit, er, somewhat contradictory statement: "The Police Department has strongly believed, and continues to maintain, that the present Rule furthers an important public-safety interest." So the Police Department believes that the rule fulfills an important public safety interest, but they're going to repeal/override it anyway. What kind of bullshit is that? "Well, the public doesn't need to be THAT safe, I guess. That was just an extra super-safety layer of infringement. If only a couple hundred more people a year are subject to gun violence, that's no big deal. Go ahead, take your gun out of the city. Or something." (https://i.imgur.com/vTsXkxv.gif)
-
Via notification on Charles Nichols' page: https://www.facebook.com/pg/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/
NYSRPA is NOT on the calendar for October oral arguments.
Even if it was, we might still have to wait until the end of the term in June of 2020 to hear the decision, as the court often delays releasing the "important" decisions until that last week of the session. And let's hope this is an important one... for our side.
-
I find it messed up how free speech gets a front table to SCOTUS hearings (banker vs. lesbos) compared to any 2a right.
-
https://youtu.be/sv-dgA1CSI4
-
I expect an intriguing case if SCOTUS keeps it going. How would NY oppose or defend their case in court if they agree that their law was too restrictive? They going to say we admit we were wrong before and we should have less restrictive gun rights across the nation?
-
The city law still exists, so they can't (yet) claim it doesn't. The state passed a law overriding the city law.
The state can repeal that new law just as quickly as they passed it. The city keeping the unconstitutional law on the books need to be addressed even if it's not enforced.
-
I'm copying and pasting verbatim from Charles Nichols website (https://www.facebook.com/pg/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/) today (also includes a photocopy of the actual announced schedule).
The #SCOTUS November oral arguments calendar is out. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., City of New York, New York, et al, is not on the list.
This surprises me a little. The briefing schedule in NYSRPA is set so that the merits briefing will be completed in time for it to be scheduled during the first month (October) of oral arguments.
On the other hand, given that the respondents filed a letter on July 3rd saying, "Respondents do not intend to address whether the Constitution entitles petitioners (or any other residents of New York City with premises licenses) to transport their handguns..." there might not be any oral argument at all if for no other reason than it would be kind of pointless having an oral argument where only one side (the petitioners) is arguing his case.
[And here is a question posted and Nichols' response.]
Q: Are you confident the case is going to proceed despite NYC's attempt at making the issue moot?
A: SCOTUS decides what is moot. There is absolutely no way to predict what will happen next other than what the respondents said in their letter of July 3rd.
I am optimistic that there will be some 2A case argued next term which is more than I would have said had not the four 2A cases from last term been held.
-
The Democrats weigh in with their brief to SCOTUS re NYSRPA. Gee, who'd 'o thunk this is what they'd argue before the court?
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'" [That these political hacks can write that and keep a straight face is amazing!]
-
Dems want to increase SCOTUS from 9 to 15. Would be funny as hell if Trump wins and Senate retains control of the Senate and Reps get to pick the additional 6 justices.
-
The hypocrisy of Democrats to claim the Supreme Court has always been above political influences, yet they fight tooth and nail to only appoint Democrats to the courts.
If the Courts are somehow void of political ideologies, why bother to mention their party affiliations or associations with past presidents and political leaders during confirmation?
-
The Democrats weigh in with their brief to SCOTUS re NYSRPA. Gee, who'd 'o thunk this is what they'd argue before the court?
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'" [That these political hacks can write that and keep a straight face is amazing!]
Dang! Ya beat me to it! :shaka: these libertard SOB’s need to be hung by their heels and their collective heads buried up to their nostrils in a fire ant hill... for starters I might add......
-
Oral argument calendared for December 2nd.
-
Oral argument calendared for December 2nd.
Sure wish they had video at SCOTUS... I'd really like to see the facial expressions of the justices and attorneys as they trade comments.