NRA fighting for us! Today's Supreme Court arguments

[Dungannon Gunner]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2021/20-843

 

This Wednesday, November 3rd, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the NRA backed case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This is the first Second Amendment-related case that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear in over a decade, and it is centered around whether or not a "special need" is required for law-abiding citizens to be able to exercise their right to "bear arms". 

 

[El Chapo]

The NRA tried to sabotage District of Columbia v. Heller.  Their credibility is nothing.  Now they jump on the bandwagon?  No thanks.

[Dungannon Gunner]

21 minutes ago, Chacón said:

The NRA tried to sabotage District of Columbia v. Heller.  Their credibility is nothing.  Now they jump on the bandwagon?  No thanks.

Care to explain?

[Blackwater 53393]

NRA has been involved in this one from the beginning! GOA and SAF from early on.

 

 I may not agree with everything that has gone on with ANY of the gun owner rights advocates, and certainly some more than others, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend!!  I will continue to support them so long as they are on my team.  If you don’t, and you wind up on the short end, don’t bitch!!

[Nickel City Dude]

Thanks for posting the link.  I listened to the full 2 hours and I feel that the gun rights side has put forth the better argument.

[John Kloehr]

Listened to it today, agree the plaintiff attorney had far better presentation.

 

I have also read most of the briefs in the case, the defense did a much better job on those.

 

Difficult to read the questions presented to council. Some seemed to go far beyond the issue at hand, but SCOTUS is not known for making sweeping rulings; the court tends towards very narrow decisions.

 

But I do not think the bench will send this back for further litigation even though this came up several times; the issues at hand seem sufficiently ripe.

 

- special need requirement (not for every citizen)

- subjective criteria (may issue)

 

I did enjoy the challenges to prior citations. Some from plaintiff council, and one from the bench.

 

Clearly calling out the defense law citations were either mis-characterized or clearly incomplete. I think the bench made it clear that all pleadings would be carefully scrutinized and carefully verified.

 

I am now searching for the Tennessee law cited by the defense. I'm curious.

[Dungannon Gunner]

Ditto on the Tennessee law

[John Kloehr]

Found it (expand to see my bold, I quoted the entire law because I love the language used):

 

Quote

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee,
That from and after the passage of this act, each and every
person so degrading himself, by carrying a dirk, sword cane,
French knife, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistols, either
public or private, shall pay a fine of five dollars for every
such offence, which may he recovered by warrant before any
Justice of the Peace, in the name of the county and for its use,
in which the offence may have been committed ; and it shall be
the duty of a Justice to issue a warrant on the application or
oath of any person applying; and that it shall be the duty of
every Judge, Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, Coroner and Constable
within this state to see that this act shall have ita full effect
: Provided nevertheless, that nothing herein contained shall
affect any person that may carry a knife of any size in a
conspicuous mannor on the strop of a shot pouch, or any person
that may be on a journey to any place out of his county or state.

 

So if you open carry a knife, you may conceal a firearm.

 

Clearly, it would be wrong to give the impression one was unarmed if one was indeed armed.

 

So really, just a law against going armed completely concealed. This is my understanding of the past. History and tradition. Nothing wrong with being openly armed for self defense, concealment was the mark of ruffians and scalawags and rapscallions. Honest people carried their arms openly.

 

So it was not a total ban on carry; I'm sure when the bench reviews this law, they will make note of the discrepancy in characterization by the defense. Oh, and if carrying outside your home county, concealment was still legal.

[Nickel City Dude]

DG

If you could post the second day it would be greatly appreciated.

NCD

[Muley Gil SASS # 57795]

"...nothing herein contained shall
affect any person that may carry a knife of any size in a
conspicuous mannor on the strop of a shot pouch..."

 

I do believe that the law is referring to the patch used when loading a long rifle.

 

I can carry a shot pouch with a knife while carrying a 1911.

[Dungannon Gunner]

On 11/4/2021 at 8:27 PM, Nickel City Dude said:

DG

If you could post the second day it would be greatly appreciated.

NCD

It was just the 1 day couple of hours. I know, just seems like it should be a longer session. Time limits are the same no matter the case.