School Shooting in Knoxville

[CPA]

I think one of the neighbors said if the march was peaceful they had no problems. Another one handed out Popsicles to some of the marchers. After walking a while, it was said they left peacefully. A group of students walked out of Austin East about 15 minutes before dismissal today.

 

[Vol737]

I saw the house, and I’m not putting it down by any means......but the fact that these protestors thought the DA lived there shows how stupid they are. I’m wondering if they’ll continue this or if it was a one weekend deal.

Hopefully short lived. I’m up for protesting in front of Mayor Indy’s house though. Another lib running out in front that finds herself on the wrong side of facts.

 

[Grand Vol]

Actually, I told you.

Also, scroll up.

Yeah, but I posted the link first. All I saw was "punted" in your post and I thought you were referring to an older Circuit Court case the SCOTUS declined to hear.

ETA: wasn't legislation

 

[RockyTop85]

Yeah, but I posted the link first. All I saw was "punted" in your post and I thought you were referring to an older Circuit Court case the SCOTUS declined to hear.

ETA: wasn't legislation

I feel like the 9th is going to lose this because of THIS CASE in which government cannot prohibit movement outside of the home. Provided, the SCOTUS kicked it back down to the lower courts since the laws were changed, but it should give one an idea what the SXOTUS will rule on the 9ths decision.

This link?

 

[Grand Vol]

This link?

Yes, I thought you were referring to a case the SCOTUS declined to hear some time ago about the magazine restrictions when you said "punted."

 

[RockyTop85]

Yes, I thought you were referring to a case the SCOTUS declined to hear some time ago about the magazine restrictions when you said "punted."

I understand. The one you linked is actually a different case brought by the same plaintiff.

 

[Grand Vol]

I understand. The one you linked is actually a different case brought by the same plaintiff.

Oh? Because the first was rendered moot?

 

[RockyTop85]

Oh? Because the first was rendered moot?

Yeah-ish.

NYSRPA v. NYC had to do with New York City law against transporting firearms outside the city. New York City repealed that code section and the court dismissed the case and found it moot. Not sure whether that vacates the lower court opinion or not.

Here, NYSRPA challenged the entire state’s discretionary licensing scheme (which is why the defendant is Corlett). Sometimes referred to as May-issue permits.

Yesterday, the court accepted on a narrower question presented:

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Than the one proposed by the plaintiffs:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

It sounds like the court sees it as an as-applied challenge where they can leave the door open for discretionary licensing schemes that meet certain conditions or follow a certain process. I assume they’re mostly wanting to clarify how to evaluate laws after Heller (because both Alito and Kavanaugh complained about how some courts were doing that analysis in separate writings when NYSRPA v. NYC was mooted.)

Should be interesting either way.

 

[Grand Vol]

Yeah-ish.

NYSRPA v. NYC had to do with New York City law against transporting firearms outside the city. New York City repealed that code section and the court dismissed the case and found it moot. Not sure whether that vacates the lower court opinion or not.

Here, NYSRPA challenged the entire state’s discretionary licensing scheme (which is why the defendant is Corlett). Sometimes referred to as May-issue permits.

Yesterday, the court accepted on a narrower question presented:

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Than the one proposed by the plaintiffs:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

It sounds like the court sees it as an as-applied challenge where they can leave the door open for discretionary licensing schemes that meet certain conditions or follow a certain process. I assume they’re mostly wanting to clarify how to evaluate laws after Heller (because both Alito and Kavanaugh complained about how some courts were doing that analysis in separate writings when NYSRPA v. NYC was mooted.)

Should be interesting either way.

Seems kind of like a rehash of McDonald in CCW form.

I've never agreed with "May Issue" States and localities. IMO, it leaves up too much area for someone to say "no" without a valid reason other than "no." Conditions are okay, but to leave it up to someone who doesn't have to have a good reason and/or putting significant hurdles in place (like the old poll tax) to exercise a right didn't sit well with me.