Dungannon Gunner Posted November 4, 2021 Share Posted November 4, 2021 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". Link to comment
El Chapo Posted November 4, 2021 Share Posted November 4, 2021 The NRA tried to sabotage District of Columbia v. Heller. Their credibility is nothing. Now they jump on the bandwagon? No thanks. Link to comment
Dungannon Gunner Posted November 4, 2021 Author Share Posted November 4, 2021 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? Link to comment
Blackwater 53393 Posted November 4, 2021 Share Posted November 4, 2021 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!! Link to comment
Nickel City Dude Posted November 4, 2021 Share Posted November 4, 2021 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. Link to comment
John Kloehr Posted November 4, 2021 Share Posted November 4, 2021 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. Link to comment
Dungannon Gunner Posted November 4, 2021 Author Share Posted November 4, 2021 Ditto on the Tennessee law Link to comment
John Kloehr Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 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 everyperson so degrading himself, by carrying a dirk, sword cane,French knife, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistols, eitherpublic or private, shall pay a fine of five dollars for everysuch offence, which may he recovered by warrant before anyJustice of the Peace, in the name of the county and for its use,in which the offence may have been committed ; and it shall bethe duty of a Justice to issue a warrant on the application oroath of any person applying; and that it shall be the duty ofevery Judge, Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, Coroner and Constablewithin this state to see that this act shall have ita full effect: Provided nevertheless, that nothing herein contained shallaffect any person that may carry a knife of any size in aconspicuous mannor on the strop of a shot pouch, or any personthat 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. Link to comment
Nickel City Dude Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 DG If you could post the second day it would be greatly appreciated. NCD Link to comment
Muley Gil SASS # 57795 Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 "...nothing herein contained shallaffect any person that may carry a knife of any size in aconspicuous 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. Link to comment
Dungannon Gunner Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.