Supreme Court 2A Arguments After Action Analysis
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 1 month ago
This comes courtesy of TTAG.
After listening to all of this, I think most of it is right. Roberts will seek to do the thing that pisses off the fewest people, Kavanaugh seems to be solid on this, and Barrett might be the one who makes or breaks this.
Roberts and Barrett seem to be most concerned about “sensitive” places, and will likely try to circumscribe the RKBA that way. They seem to be attempting to let just a little liberty seep out without angering the nobility ensconced inside the beltway.
On November 3, 2021 at 11:54 pm, Longbow said:
The appellant made a poor showing in my opinion. I am not a Lawyer (thank the Almighty!), but I do understand the English language and have the ability to use logic.
The “places” argument was a distraction. Football stadiums and not subways? Does it really depend on the NUMBER of people present? Why not Times Square on New Year’s Eve?
The response should have hinged on who provides security for whom. Period. If the State can guarantee my safety beyond a reasonable doubt, then it might be able to justify a CC restriction in that particular place. That would still be a tall obstacle.
Sotomayor likes the idea that the State can decide who it “allows” to exercise their “right”. The response should be, open carry generally, or concealed carry generally so as not to alarm the rabbit people. A License to exercise a “right” is oxymoronic. The appellant mentioned this argumentative point, but didn’t flesh it out.
This is utterly frustrating to hear someone trained in legal arguments NOT make the proper case at all! Imagine someone who has been to baseball training camp, but after months of preparation, still cannot even swing the bat properly.
After this I wouldn’t be surprised if NY and other prohibitive States get to continue their rights denying regime, with only minor modifications.
On November 4, 2021 at 7:47 am, George 1 said:
Regardless of the SCOTUS outcome, I feel for the good people who must live in NY. I would not care to ever visit the place. I would no more go there, or a number of other openly communist states, that I would go to Afghanistan.
On November 4, 2021 at 8:29 am, Fred said:
So officers of the court were making mild and insubstantial points so as not to offend his majesty the king? My shocked face.
On November 4, 2021 at 9:02 pm, Longbow said:
Having listened to the second half of arguments, I’ll note:
Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood, did a VERY poor job of arguing her points. Her entire argument was encapsulated by, population density… if NY went to Shall Issue there would be a proliferation of people carrying guns around, which obviously leads to more accidents, more shooting over simple arguments, etc., which is the failed argument used against the movement toward Shall Issue. One of the Justices asked her to show where her argument, that most people are incompetent boobs, has borne out in States where Shall Issue has been enacted. She entirely avoided answering the question.
It seems likely that the Court will give a win to the appellants, but it is anyone’s guess what restrictions it will allow.
On December 29, 2021 at 9:34 am, Jsf said:
The mere fact that his so-called issue is before any court in this country tells you everything you need to know abou the evil snakes we allow in government and “our” courts. SHALL NOT INFRINGE is very f..king clear! I just decided that’s what it means to me. The win goes to the BORs.