Second Amerndment Takes A Hit

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Excerpt from the linked article:

"A federal appeals court said a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning firearms on postal property is constitutional, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have let people keep weapons inside their vehicles in post office parking lots."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/usa-postoffice-guns-decision-idUSL1N0ZC2QF20150626

I hope this case goes to the Supreme Court.

Woody

 

[leadcounsel]

Excerpt from the linked article:




http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/usa-postoffice-guns-decision-idUSL1N0ZC2QF20150626

I hope this case goes to the Supreme Court.

Woody

With 4 liberal Justices, a possibility of a 5th in the next year(s) and an unpredictable swing vote, I don't want any gun cases before the SCOTUS.

Did you see what they did this week alone? A lot of liberal victories. The court could easily deliver crushing blows to the 2A right now.

 

[Mousegun]

Any bets that Ruthy G. will call it quits just before El Presidente does same and he can appoint another lib ?

Then we REALLY don't want any gun rights cases brought up.

 

[HankB]

Any bets that Ruthy G. will call it quits just before El Presidente does same and he can appoint another lib ?

Then we REALLY don't want any gun rights cases brought up.

No problem - we have a GOP majority in the Senate to prevent left wing extremists from being confirmed.

:banghead:

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

With 4 liberal Justices, a possibility of a 5th in the next year(s) and an unpredictable swing vote, I don't want any gun cases before the SCOTUS.

Did you see what they did this week alone? A lot of liberal victories. The court could easily deliver crushing blows to the 2A right now.

I think you may be right. I was leaning toward Heller and MacDonald successes, but there certainly has been a lot of uncertainty in the SCOTUS of late.

At any rate, it'll likely take years before it gets that far, and we ought to have a much different court by then. It could go either way, too, depending upon who retires or passes, who gets to make the appointments, and the composition of the Senate.

I'll not make any bets right now.

Woody

 

[1911 guy]

At this point, I fear we have lost all hope of a court that recognizes a plain reading of the Constitution. I view all decisions as a crap shoot. More depends on which side of the bed they got up on than does any legal text or precedent.

 

[danez71]

Any bets that Ruthy G. will call it quits just before El Presidente does same and he can appoint another lib ?

Then we REALLY don't want any gun rights cases brought up.

That's a pretty drawn out process so it would need to start now, really. If it started early next year, the GOP would drag it our as loooooong as possible in hopes for a GOP win and GOP nomination.

 

[BK]

No problem - we have a GOP majority in the Senate to prevent left wing extremists from being confirmed.

:banghead:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!

Good one!!!

You had me going there!!!

I actually thought that you believed they would oppose his appointee!

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Yep the let that crazy lady become AG.

 

[DHJenkins]

What if the post office shares the parking lot with another business?

 

[barnbwt]

"At this point, I fear we have lost all hope of a court that recognizes a plain reading of the Constitution. I view all decisions as a crap shoot."
Then we need to recognize this game for what it is; purely political. We need to drop the nonsense about 'objectivity' and nominate legislative candidates, or (much preferably) get replacements straight up vetted by Scalia since he's been the most consistently respectable jurist up there (Thomas and Alito have their moments, but neither are so frequently quotable). Heck, I'd settle for simply nominating people that specifically do not have an ivy league background, as that's been a poisonous statist well for decades (centuries?)

Also, is it just me, or do we never hear fromt the liberal side of things apart from Kennedy (which is practically the only time they triumph, lately)? I can't remember the last time someone tossed up a Ginsberg quote, except to illustrate nonsense, and I don't even know if the other three even write opinions for all the press they (don't) get. Heck, I haven't even heard Breyer's name in at least months. Whatever Scalia says, regardless his majority/minority status, seems to get at least a mention in the papers, as does Thomas with regularity. Pretty clear that Scalia should have been promoted to Chief, but I suppose it doesn't work that way...

I fully agree that a RKBA case is incredibly dangerous right now. I think Scalia knows it, too. Roberts has plainly shown himself to be unwilling to take a principled stand on partisan issues, obviously believing that if he takes the course of action least disruptive to governmental/societal function it reflects on his objectivity. The result of this situation is that, when the stakes are high, we have four highly motivated liberal justices, three supposed constitutionalists, a fifth noncommittal liberal justice continually siding with the most popular option, and a fourth cowardly conservative that will follow the path of least resistance if there is any. Those ingredients spell multiple 6-3 decisions against us, I'm afraid, especially since the issues before them these days are distilled past the point where cop-outs like 'reasonable restrictions' will be available to get a flake like Kennedy on board.

TCB

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Anybody read Roberts dissent in the Arizona redistricting case where he lambasted the majority for reinterpreting "legislature" to mean "the people?"

I'm shocked he could write that after the Affordable Care Act majority decision he handed down that took similar liberties with the "plain meaning" approach. Talk about not being self-aware.

I'd say the decision not to grant cert on the San Francisco storage law case was an ominous sign for future Second Amendment cases. It doesn't appear that SCOTUS even has the will to enforce key parts of the Heller decision against lower courts that refuse to apply it. If we don't have a pro-RKBA President AND Senate making the next SCOTUS nominations, Heller will be either overturned or limited to such a degree it might as well have been overturned - and that is not hyperbole.

 

[Twiki357]

HankB:
No problem - we have a GOP majority in the Senate to prevent left wing extremists from being confirmed.

Do you mean like John Roberts?

What if the post office shares the parking lot with another business?

If it’s a property rented by the USPS for an office, they have no say over the parking lot.
If it’s government property with units rented to non-government businesses, I don’t know.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

At this point, I fear we have lost all hope of a court that recognizes a plain reading of the Constitution. I view all decisions as a crap shoot

That about sums it up:

In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy made it clear to lower courts that, after he eliminated Glucksberg, the only remaining limit on new judge-made rights is a judge’s imagination

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420564/obergefell-and-constitution

As one media-talking-head said after Obergefell. SCOTUS is no longer about judging, but is about voting.

 

[I6turbo]

That about sums it up:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420564/obergefell-and-constitution

As one media-talking-head said after Obergefell. SCOTUS is no longer about judging, but is about voting.

And further on the notion that SCOTUS has become a political branch. If you read the argument it's pretty clear that we KNEW they were a political branch for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that nobody even discusses how the 4 liberal judges will vote on most things that advance the liberal cause. It's pretty much a given that they'll tow the liberal line.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ealth-care-constitution?target=topic&tid=1110

 

[Red Wind]

Do you mean like John Roberts?

John Roberts is looking more and more like the re-incarnation of Earl Warren or David Souter every year. When they put on those black robes, sometimes remarkable transformations occur.

 

[GEM]

I wouldn't go near a SCOTUS case. Reasonable restrictions Scalia was bad enough. Yes, some people think we had a big win - but Hey - where's the SAFE act being undone?

Work at your state level. Yes, if you live in certain states you are just out of luck and ScotusRKBA isn't coming to your rescue. You need to preserve rights at the state level.

It was really dicey that we got the two decisions, looking at it in retrospect. It could have been a 5/4 disaster.

 

[Radagast]

Indeed. If Sandra Day O'Connor had not resigned before Heller made its way to SCOTUS, the decision would have been against us.

 

[hso]

The wins and losses before SCOTUS this term are a statistical fluctuation with a high percentage of cases that had a high potential for wins on the left. Next term it could be a high percentage of cases that have a high potential for wins on the right. Let's not let this anomaly be the acorn that has us running around squawking "The sky is falling!".

 

[MIL-DOT]

I've always left my CCW in the car when going inside the PO, but do I understand correctly, that I'm not even allowed to leave it in the car, in the PO parking lot ??

 

[morcey2]

I've always left my CCW in the car when going inside the PO, but do I understand correctly, that I'm not even allowed to leave it in the car, in the PO parking lot ??

It depends on the PO, but most are on USPS-owned property and taking a firearm that isn't packaged for subsequent shipping onto the property is indeed illegal. There are a few POs that are on rental property and those are different.

I park on the street if I have to go in to the PO and I lock up my gun. Needless to say, I avoid POs as much as possible. Same with courthouses et al.

Matt.

 

[JSH1]

Same old same old. When someone agrees with the Court's decision the justices are plainly reading the Constitution. When someone disagrees with the Court's decision the justices are making decisions for political reasons. One day they are scholars the next a bunch of idiots.

I don't hear anyone complaining about the logic used by the Court when the decision got the way they want it to.

 

[1911 guy]

The founders wrote plenty and left no doubt what they intended when writing the Constitution. Much grumbling happens when the public realizes that much of the SCOTUS has succumbed to the hogwash of "living document" or some such that lets them insert whatever "interpretation" they choose with no support of corroborating documents (other writings by the founders) and claim that the Constitution can change what it means.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The founders wrote plenty and left no doubt what they intended when writing the Constitution....

Nonetheless, the interpretation of the Constitution and how it applied was a matter for dispute since the ink was barely dry. Marbury v. Madison appears to be the first major constitutional litigation, and it was decided in 1803. McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

So notwithstanding your belief that the Founders left no doubt about what they meant in the Constitution, it appears that questions about what they meant wound up in court even while many of them at least were still alive.

 

[ilbob]

Nonetheless, the interpretation of the Constitution and how it applied was a matter for dispute since the ink was barely dry. Marbury v. Madison appears to be the first major constitutional litigation, and it was decided in 1803. McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

So notwithstanding your belief that the Founders left no doubt about what they meant in the Constitution, it appears that questions about what they meant wound up in court even while many of them at least were still alive.

I think a fairer suggestion might be that some people tried to twist what the document was supposed to mean to suit their own purposes. The people that wrote it knew what they had written was supposed to mean. They probably also realized that there would those who would forget it as soon as it was convenient for them. That is pretty much the nature of politics.