search
top

Good SCOTUS News

We’re going back to the Supreme Court. I agree with Cam’s take on this: “The Court’s acceptance of this case is going to lead to a meltdown by many on the Left. Expect court-packing rhetoric to grow red hot from the likes of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and other anti-gun Democrats who’ve been threatening the Court with ‘restructuring’ if it took a Second Amendment-related case for well over a year now.”

I believed the rhetoric about court packing was actually squarely aimed at the Second Amendment. Why do I say this is good news? I have heard from people who would know that there was a coalition on the Court that meant Scalia could avoid taking any case he could not win. I am betting that deal has managed to continue. I would not say it’s a slam dunk. This will be a nail biter.

There was a lot of talk about the denial of cert for the felon-in-possession cases last week. I didn’t really comment on them because I didn’t think that meant much. The truth is the lower courts haven’t handled that issue as poorly as they have with understanding the core right. So I wouldn’t really read much into it. To me FIP cases are miles down the road when the lower courts aren’t even getting the basics right, or in some cases outright reversing Heller and McDonald.

54 Responses to “Good SCOTUS News”

  1. Joe says:

    Regarding the Court Packing Issue, the 5 Conservative Justices on the Court could be daring the Democrats to “go there”.

    “Do it. Turn the Court into a Pyongyang Goosestepping Yes Vote Politburo of the Democrat Party. Turn the Country into a 1-Party Dictatorship like Communist China”.
    At that point, the Union would just have to break the f*** up.

    That all said, in the essence of this case going our way, the Court could rule that carrying a firearm outside the home is a right, and that States must recognize either one of open or concealed carry in shall issue action.

    I think the TPOTG view open and concealed carry in equal ways. 1 at least must be recognized.

    • Andy B. says:

      “That all said, in the essence of this case going our way, the Court could rule that carrying a firearm outside the home is a right. . .”

      Forgive me for sticking by my fear of excessive optimism, but a battle isn’t won until you’ve occupied all of the enemy’s territory and ground your enemy’s bones into dust. (And I’ll apologize for that metaphor.) The “conservative” Justices could as well decide to throw this one into the “states’ rights” bin, to score some bona fides on an issue “conservatives” really care about, since it can be extrapolated to abortion, religion, and lots of other things.

      “States must recognize either one of open or concealed carry in shall issue action.”

      Nothing short of mandated “constitutional carry” comes remotely close to recognition of the 2A as a “right”. Pennsylvania is “shall issue” but the last time I went to court was to challenge our Republican County Sheriff who had added his own roadblocks to the process, and he wasn’t to be the last. (If you consider doubling the state codified cost of a permit a “roadblock.”)

      I’m sure Democrats have studied what Republicans have done with the “rights” conferred in Roe v. Wade, and will be prepared to meet the challenge of getting around any 2A “rights” the SCOTUS discovers in this case.

      BTW, I’ll stand by my belief that the “conservative” power-elite don’t care a whit about gun rights, so I don’t share the opinion that “rhetoric about court packing was actually squarely aimed at the Second Amendment.” They may not want to lose the 2A — yet — as a vote-motivator, but there are plenty more things they really value more. The day they deliver more than they absolutely have to on a 2A issue, is the day I’ll change my mind.

      • Andy B. says:

        “. . .the last time I went to court was to challenge our Republican County Sheriff. . .”

        I thought I should come back to explain that I always call out that it was a Republican County Sheriff that I fought, for obvious reasons: Party affiliation is no guarantee of right-thinking.

        I shouldn’t have to say that, but I was shocked at the time how many gun owners were telling me what a pro-gun stalwart that Sheriff was, when I had just got done suing him over his violation of state gun laws.

        “and he wasn’t to be the last.”

        That continued with the next Republican Sheriff who, as alluded to, almost doubled the state-codified fee to apply for or renew a carry permit; but most gun owners I spoke to took an attitude that if he was a Republican, and could come up with a good excuse (his office needed the money, the better to stand up for Law And Order), then it must be OK, or maybe even “pro-gun.” So, having learned my lesson — more than once — it wasn’t going to be me who challenged a Republican Sheriff on a gun issue, when gun owners were loving him all to pieces.

        • Mike V. says:

          You are right about about party affiliation. In Tennessee, we’ve had the most success when there was a Democrat governor and Republican state legislature. With a Republican governor, not so much.

        • Andy B. says:

          You’re familiar with the old saying “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” In any form of conflict there are no permanent “friends” or “enemies”; only temporary assets and liabilities.

          Using WWII as an analogy/metaphor, the Soviet Union was our ally, represented as our “friends” for propaganda purposes, until they weren’t. Long before the war ended, both the Soviet Union and the western Allies were maneuvering for their own advantage. Churchill supported the anti-fascist partisans in Greece, but before the end of the war allowed (and some say aided) the Nazis in annihilating them, because as a Tory, he was a pro-royalist, and otherwise didn’t like their dominant political philosophy. So, old “friends” in the major conflict, had to be eliminated, once that conflict appeared to be ending and the next phase to be faced.

          Until gun rights activists absorb and master that principle, and stop believing they have principled, altruistic “friends” in high places, they can learn nothing tactically, and our conflict will be nothing but a continuing forlorn hope.

  2. Ken says:

    This is well into tea leaf reading territory, but what do you make of the re-wording of the question presented, compared to what the petition raised?

    • Joe says:

      How did they reword it, and what is your take on it?

      • Ken says:

        The question presented in NYSRPA’s petition was “whether the second amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense”

        Certiorari was granted, limited to the following question: “Whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the second amendment.”

        The latter seems more vague to me and I’m wondering what the change by the court may predict about how the case may go.

        • Joe says:

          “whether the second amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense”……………….. Ok then; someone on our side failed English in the Subject Vs. Predicate Department in school at some point in time.

          I swear. to. god……..If our side’s lawyers are that braindead, a Conservative Court won’t be able to save us, by any means whatsoever.

          Referring to another case, the Caniglia V. Strom Oral Arguments were an event I honed in on. Our side’s lawyers were awful AF.

          • HappyWarrior6 says:

            Well Joe!!! Is all mouth frothy and the thread has already devolved into OFWG opining on the destruction of the republic, so that could only mean the wording change must be a good thing! Keep calm and “carry” on! Just another say in munchkin land.

    • Andy B. says:

      “what do you make of the re-wording of the question presented, compared to what the petition raised?”

      Nothing is changed for no reason.

      Josh Blackman again has a reasonably rational discussion at Volokh:

      I see this slippery change as a way for the Court to issue a very, very narrow decision that will leave the issue unsettled.

      Nevertheless I foresee any decision that is at all positive being claimed as a Famous Victory by my fellow gun rights advocates, even if almost none of us wakes up the next morning with an iota more practical freedom than the day before. But there will always be 2025, if only we elect a POTUS who will appoint the right kinds of Justices.

    • BillTheCat says:

      I think the question rewording indicates different assumptions held by the Court vs. the Plaintiff.

      The plaintiff’s question assumed that with NY prohibiting open carry and denying concealed carry, NY denies people the right to carry outside the home (if 2a has not otherwise been placed out of reach (felon, insane, etc.)). So something like this:

      ihaz2A = (ihazopencarry || ihazconcealedcarry) && mecitizen && menofelon && menotinsane && menotusedrugs && megoodboi

      By rewording the question, I think the Court is *not* assuming this test at all.

      The rewording indicates that the Court *starts* with a different test, implicitly recognizing the validity of an approval process:

      ihaz2A = (ihazopencarry || wasvalidresponsereceivedfromCCappprocess)

      So the Court recognizes that an application process is allowed even when the state forbids open carry (May-Issue is okay). This may not matter to the outcome, but it is notable difference, I think, and one can now say with added surety that the Court recognizes a state’s right to may-issue CC policy.

      If an application process can exist, the question before the Court is now examining the decision-making within the approval process for the application.

      They will dig into the Constitutionality of NY’s application process. Is it a “reasonable restriction” to forbid concealed carry if there’s no extraordinary danger to the person?

      I tend to see this as Not A Bad Thing(R) with regard to the issue at hand, but I’m an unjustified optimist. I like to think that this reframing assumes that “bearing arms” outside the home *is* protected by the 2A, and acknowledging that the state of NY does have some interest in restricting who, where and how arms may be carried. Now NY must state why a “default deny” rule is acceptable rather than a “default allow” rule. That seems like a hard argument to make.

      I don’t think the Court would have granted cert if it didn’t recognize that “bearing arms” outside the home was an important right.

  3. Shawn says:

    Two outcomes if they actually hear it: the rule in favor of the state or the ruling is so narrow in scope it become effectively meaningless and New York will simply ignore it like all the other places before.

  4. Sebastian says:

    I’m not sure how much I’d read into the rewording of the QP.

    • 432 says:

      It sounds like the court is going to refuse to consider weather requiring a permit to carry is unconstitutional.

      Does that sound correct to you?

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        Yes. This is about whether people can carry at all outside the house. Whether a permit is constitutional or not is another case.

        Gotta take baby steps to not scare the elites.

        Forcing NYC to allow CCW, even if that means an expensive permit, is a step to change the culture there, and reduce the fees/process in the future.

        • 432 says:

          Thank you, Patrick Henry.

          What concerns me is the fact that it seems certain the court will not ban permits to enjoy gun rights.

          Firstly, the idea of requiring permits to enjoy a right appear contradictory to me.

          Secondly, I think allowing permits will make restrictive states become “shall issue” in name only, just like we have seen with ownership of handguns in NYC. Carry permits that require lots of expense training, long waits, etc will put them out of reach of the average Joe who can’t or won’t have the means or patience to comply.

          The huge majority of courts despise gun rights. These courts will rubber stamp any onerous restrictions… just like we have been seeing for years now.

          Frankly, I am afraid that a “win” here will be meaningless. I certainly hope I am wrong.

          • Sebastian says:

            Permits for right exercise has some precedent in the First Amendment context. So the court might not want to wade into that off the bat. It’s pretty clear they didn’t want to rule as broadly as the plaintiff’s QP was asking for.

            Ever serve on a voting body where you’re not sure how the votes are going to come down? Even if you have a pretty good idea, and I suspect they do, it tends to make one cautious. Thomas is a shooter himself, much like Scalia was. I don’t know about the rest of them. But I suspect the rest are not shooters. If I were Thomas, this would make me supremely cautious.

            • 432 says:

              Yes…

              I was reading about NYC “permit” process to own a handgun.

              It is no right at all:

              https://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Gun-in-New-York-City

              I am afraid this is exactly the kind of thing the court will okay… and even if they don’t explicitly do this, all the lower courts will enthusiastically agree that is the just fine.

              The permit for First Amendment expression I can think of are parade permits. I haven’t thought of any others.

              • BillTheCat says:

                Well any assembly really, whether a parade, protest, event, particularly if it will disrupt use of infrastructure (roads, parks). But you’ll note that these application processes must be viewpoint neutral and are default-approve rather than default-deny.

  5. Zundfolge says:

    If court packing succeeds and doesn’t trigger a second civil war (or second revolution, whatever we want to call it) then America deserves to die and Americans deserve to lose everything..

    • BillTheCat says:

      If court packing happens, the court will be “unpacked” or “repacked” the next time ‘R’ holds control. There is the risk that a packed court will aid implementation of federal rule-making to create a permanent ‘D’ majority, but I don’t think things can happen that fast in our system, by design. If they pack the court and the legislature/exec is allowed to rotate one full cycle through R control back to D control, woe to the vanquished (us).

      • 432 says:

        The USA is not far from a permanent Democrat majority. Once the illegal immigrants and their kids start voting, I think it is practically assured, especially with universal mail in ballots. Add Puerto Rico and DC becoming states and the GOP is finished on a national level.

        • Sebastian says:

          Anyone selling permanent majorities is selling bullshit.

          • 432 says:

            I hope you are right. There are countries that have political parties that dominant for many decades (the PRI in Mexico had power for 71 years for example).

          • Andy B. says:

            “Anyone selling permanent majorities is selling bullshit.”

            There also is the phenomenon of political parties adopting the policies they formerly opposed. With their embrace of “The Southern Strategy” the Republican Party essentially became the Democrat Party of the late 19th, early 20th century.

            If I could pound one thing into people’s heads, it would be there exists no “ideology” except maintaining raw power, and to maintain it, the power-elite will espouse whatever they need to. The conversion of the Republican Party into The Party of Trump will probably be the clearest illustration we will see in U.S. history, and arguably was forewarned by their recognition of the efficacy of the Southern Strategy, immediately post-1968. Ronald Reagan’s embrace of targeted gun control as governor of California provided an early prediction of future tactics.

    • Andy B. says:

      I encounter a lot of talk about “civil war” “on the right” and would like to make the following observations:

      Civil war is only justified if one faction (the “offending” one) imposes some policy that is clearly unconstitutional, and all small-d democratic cures fail, including SCOTUS decisions and the failure of the defending faction to achieve control of the legislature.

      Otherwise, if the offense is that factionally offensive, but does not violate the constitution, the cure is to amend the constitution to address the threat. E.g., threats to pack the SCOTUS would best be met with a constitutional amendment to define the structure of the court — something the Founders probably should have done in the first place. (Our last actual Civil War was arguably caused or exacerbated by the Founders failing to define clearly whether secession was permissible, and if so, the process for undertaking it.)

      While SCOTUS-packing may violate long-standing convention (151 years?) it is not unconstitutional, and there is plenty of precedent for it prior to the Civil War. But in principle it is similar to Mitch McConnell blocking Obama’s nomination of Garland to the SCOTUS; not totally without precedent, but violating long-standing convention, while not being in any way unconstitutional. Certainly Faction R pissed off Faction D, but there was no civil war; but neither has there been any serious proposals to amend the constitution to define a formal cutoff date for lame duck POTUSs to nominate SCOTUS Justices. Instead, the pissed off Ds are prattling about court packing.

      At present it looks to me like both factions prefer to ignore democratic processes while going around pissed off and threatening violence. To me that sounds like unnecessary trouble brewing. I think it happens when the faction that is talking the most about violence is confident they can achieve permanent power that way, and that leads to over-confidence that the troops will be home by Christmas.

    • Andy B. says:

      “If court packing succeeds and doesn’t trigger a second civil war. . .”

      I also had forgotten the following:

      According to a 2019 Quinnipiac University poll, 51% of American voters believe the Supreme Court “should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” But the partisan divide was stark: 69% of Democrats favored restructuring, while just 32% of Republicans agreed.

      Yes, we all know the unreliability of polls, and 51% is a pretty narrow majority, probably within the poll’s margin of error; but if you are thinking Americans in general would be so outraged by “restructuring” of the SCOTUS that they would mount the barricades, I suspect you’ll be disappointed. Plus, that 32% of Republicans suggests even those in the Trump bubble will not prove dependable.

      Imagine if someone held a civil war, and no one came? ;-)

    • Alex says:

      Court-packing can’t be that big of a deal, otherwise the GOP wouldn’t have blocked Merrick Garland for 8 months and then rammed thru Amy Covid Barret in a few weeks.

      • BillTheCat says:

        You mean if the Republicans thought the threat of court-packing were real they would have approved Garland, and since they didn’t they must think court-packing is an empty threat?

        I don’t think that follows. As I recall, court-packing wasn’t anything people seriously considered to be on the table in 2016. Keep in mind, the Democrats eliminated the filibuster in like 2013 despite Cocaine Mitch saying, ““You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think”. Which they did, and for the same reason that short term benefits to one party can turn into long term benefits for the other when control changes.

        Only in the last couple years has court-packing started to be conveyed as something the Democrats would seriously consider. That one party would seriously propose to do it, knowing it would be turned against them in subsequent sessions, seems foolish to me, but there you are. Maybe the lesson of the filibuster never really sank in, or they are content with mutually assured destruction as a response to losing procedural battles over and over.

  6. RAH says:

    I am not surprised. I foretold that a carry case would be heard soon. There is 5-4 obvious split. Yet Robert’ likes narrow decisions that do not mean much. The rephrasing the question presumes carry is a right. Yet debates how much regulation can be allowed,

  7. Richard says:

    A win here would be important for NY residents and those of the other 7? states that are May Issue but Won’t. Not necessarily definitive though because there are many ways to restrict a right. The Supremes need to craft a decision that will prevent the lower courts for continuing their campaign of nullification against Heller and McDonald. I really don’t know how to do this. Perhaps actual standards about the level of scrutiny but these would have to be very detailed to shut down the nullification effort. Sadly, I don’t see the court going here. Having to litigate every case at the Supreme Court is a recipe for continued denial of rights.

    Meanwhile in America, life goes on. We already operate under a shall issue or constitutional carry system. The Left is experimenting with new ways to make permits useless. Eliminating preemption seems to be a thing. Then leftist cities, where the need for personal protection is most acute, then go hog wild with restrictions. Another is allowing private entities to establish gun-free zones with criminal sanctions beyond the trespass law. We all know how much the corporate oligarchs love us.

    • Andy B. says:

      “. . .there are many ways to restrict a right.”

      I’m a home-body I guess, and not a [carry-permit] “reciprocity maven”, so forgive me if I’m wrong:

      Pennsylvania seems to be among the most liberal of “shall issue” states, with minimal requirements for obtaining a carry permit, and few codified restrictions on where concealed handguns can be carried. But I believe there are many “shall issue” states where, for just one example, your permit does not allow you to carry your handgun in establishments that serve alcohol, or in “gun free zones” around schools, etc. Restrictions like that can be used to make carrying impractical for anyone hell-bent on obeying the law. Then, permit-holders can start running up against property rights, if businesses choose not to allow guns to be carried on their property. E.g., the question of whether employers can ban guns in the cars of employees, on their parking lots.

      • Richard says:

        School stuff is Federal but otherwise correct. We need to get public accommodation laws applied to 2A issue. Not up this time though.

      • BillTheCat says:

        In my experience, concealed carry people don’t really give two shits about an establishment’s posted “no guns” sign. If they are discovered, they might be trespassed. The odds of being discovered if a CC person is doing things correctly are about 1%, and the odds of that discovery being reported and made an issue are probably about 30% (these numbers are from my highly scientific research on my own instincts, you understand). Point being, the chances are low and the penalties are survivable.
        Bars and courthouses are another matter. I’ve seen people carrying while having a drink at a bar – and I don’t really give a hoot – but it’s very rare. I think most good people who CC do so in a manner that generally complies with the government’s wishes if not those of anti-gun private establishments (looking at you Starbucks).

        • Richard says:

          I don’t care about being tresspassed but getting arrested because the government has outsourced the definition of a crime to a private entity is another matter entirely.

    • RAH says:

      The problem of Shall issue versus May issue has been cropping up. The 4th Circuit upheld May issue for MD. That did not affect Va, because they already had Shall issue. NY is May issue, but so restrictive . The question implies/ assumes carrying is a right ,but how much can a state regulate permits. Permits are assumed to be constitutional is my take on the question.
      If SCOTUS keeps this narrow to NY regulations schemes then it does not address the issue of the split in 9 th Circuit and 4 Circuit since those circuit court decisions are related .

      My read on the judges is that Thomas will go for a more broad base decision that applies to all states. Roberts will try to restrict it to NY only. Gorsuch will go broad but open to the power of the state to regulate permits. Yet Gorsuch is not a fan of administrative law. Barret is known to go for broad. Her dissent on the felon can have gun rights was interesting. I do not see her for having the decision be so narrow it only applies to NY. Kavanaugh is a squish, so I thinks he goes for narrow. That leaves 4 for broad and 5 for narrow.
      I know that basing our rights on the bias and preferences of 9 people seems wrong. But it is the reality. Logic does not play into as much as presumed bias. Those that think the government can regulate us, will go for narrow. Those that don’t will go broad.

      • Andy B. says:

        “Those that think the government can regulate us, will go for narrow. Those that don’t will go broad.”

        How will the ones who think they (or their faction) should govern us go? Because that’s all of them.

        • RAH says:

          Those that think Government should rule us will vote for NY law and no carry allowed.. Sotomayer does not believe in the 2 A. Kagan may feel constrained by Heller which said we have the right to carry, but left it open. So her vote would be how to regulate to favor the state wishes.Breyer will go narrow . As will Roberts. Hence my 5-4 split. Kavanaugh could go either way,but I think not.

        • Andy B. says:

          “Those that think Government should rule us will vote for NY law and no carry allowed…”

          I’m sorry, you just can’t get me to believe that anyone who has come within sniffing distance of the pinnacles of power really believes in the 2A.

          The only thing we have going for us is that our votes are still expected and needed on the so-called “conservative” side. So, the Republicans will take their SCROTUS Justices aside and tell them to finesse the outcome just enough not to change things in any practical way, while keeping their vote-getting charade going for a few more years. What did Heller/MacDonald buy us? But the hope that springs eternal in the 2A breast bought them another decade of us scrambling to the polls on the theory that appointment of a couple more Justices would buy us eternal bliss, and pretty soon it would be 1967 or even 1932 again.

          • RAH says:

            You are more pessimistic than me. It has gone beyond GOPe telling SCOTUS judges to finesse. it. I doubt the split on may or shall issue will go away if they finesse it. If SCOTUS did not want to decide , they would not have taken up the the case. Apparently 4 judges decided it is time to resolve these disputes on how restrictive states can regulate the manner of carry.
            MD shall issue has also appealed to SCOTUS on Md restrictive carry regulation. So that case may get taken up since it very similar. Those 4 obviously decided it is time to decide what manner states can regulate. It will not just apply to NY law.
            Now who was the 4 judges that granted cert? Thomas, Alito , Gorsuch and Barret is my guess.That is why I put Kavanaush as the swing vote.

            • Richard says:

              In addition to the problem with the leftist states, there is a problem with multiple circuit and district court judges essentially nullifying Heller and McDonald. One would think that the court institutionally would want to do something about this. Of course the leftist justices want these decisions nullified and we are left depending on the squishes not being willing to kick the can down the road again.

              As an aside, it seems contrary to any sort of responsible governance to keep cert votes secret.

            • Andy B. says:

              “You are more pessimistic than me.”

              Obviously. But being wooed by Republicans 30+ years ago made me that way. ;-)

              “If SCOTUS did not want to decide , they would not have taken up the the case.”

              “Keeping Up Appearances” ain’t just a BritCom, you know. Other people than me were beginning to comment on the 2A inaction by all those alleged “conservatives.”

              I will always add, that I wish more than anything else to be wrong.

            • BillTheCat says:

              It’s hard not to put our own thoughts into the minds of judges as a form of optimism, but like Andy I tend to “expect the worst, hope for the best” kind of guy with the Court. Thomas is somebody who’s pretty consistent, Alito too, but the rest of them have yet to prove they have any principles or core political philosophy at all. Some, like Roberts, have demonstrated a baffling lack of spine.

              My own personality, after hearing explicit threats of court-packing and delegitimizing the Court for years from Schumer, et al, and watching what happened to Kavanaugh, would be a classic “Fuck me? Fuck you.” kind of reaction, were I Roberts, but I am not Roberts, clearly.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUxLpRWHQZA

  8. countertop says:

    You can’t read anything into a denial of cert in any individual case. Period.

    There are all sorts of vagaries and competing agendas, not to mention other issues and lack of time that are constantly before the court. When an issue is ripe, they will take it up. But they don’t before the time is ripe. Part of that means, having the right justices. But it also means having the right clerks. And it means allowing various cases to play out in the lower courts so they can see exactly how the issue is developing.

    I am hopeful on this one though.

    Look forward to your thoughts on that horrific, pathetic, video of LaPierre on an elephant hunt. He needs to be ditched faster than a New York minute.

    • Richard says:

      You can’t read anything into the denial of cert but repeated denials over 10 years in the face of a circuit split does tell you something.

  9. James Corbally says:

    It looks like they’ll solely target the “special need” requirement, and perhaps little else, although their rewording of it seems to allow a broad range of possibilities.

    How many of the current No-Issue states are such because of such a requirement? Even overturning that would be a victory, although expect them to get creative in their denials in other ways. Perhaps the court might head off a few of those, but nothing obvious comes to mind.

  10. Ian Argent says:

    I have been saying this since before Heller.

    It was 99 years between the Sullivan Act and McDonald. It was 74 years between GCA’34 and Heller. And it was only 14 years between the federal AWB and Heller.

    It takes TIME to change hearts and minds. And, like it or not, the Supreme Court has to work within what’s palatable to the public.

    Hell, for that matter, I would prefer that this get worked out legislatively rather than be imposed. It’s not going to happen for the last hold-out states (Which is why I’m happy that this case is going through). But a tightly-constrained holding is better in the long run for us.

    What I don’t want is a 2A equivalent to Roe v Wade or even the Miller decision, where the legal reasoning is terrible to reach a politically-desired outcome.

  11. Andy B. says:

    “It takes TIME to change hearts and minds”

    The trouble is, if you believe the polls (which I don’t necessarily, and can argue against at length) it appears that “culturally” we are on the wrong side of history, but that deserves a book to discuss it thoroughly.

    A corollary to that is, that the “gun culture” is changing at the same time the rest of the culture is evolving. As a mere “old guy” — even one with a history of taking radical pro-gun positions — I find I can’t really relate to much of the gun culture as it exists today. That is not intended to suggest there is a “right” or “wrong”, or that we had everything right 50 – 70 years ago, it is just intended as a statement that “things have changed”, and having experienced change, I recognize that it often isn’t in ways we will like, if we live long enough to see it. (The discussions of Gun Cultures 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 are a start, but often are too superficial — IMO.)

    To make an analogy, I’m the grandchild of late 19th century immigrants, and much of our family history involves the pain my grandparents went through as they watched their children embracing American culture rather than adhering to their ethnic culture. Everyone who lives long enough is going to experience an approximation of that pain of cultural evolution, even if their ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

    • BillTheCat says:

      > wrong side of history

      Clearly this is the case – allowing the peasants to be armed is a pretty unique thing about the United States and “nature” is constantly trying to pull societies towards flavors of authoritarianism and servitude. It’s frankly amazing that we’ve lasted this long. Compounding this, Americans are losing any sense of shared heritage (which is not the same as history), so the foundation of this country is crumbling beneath us.

      Not intending this to be dramatic, but sometimes I think people “of the gun” are like the elves of middle earth – our time may be past, even though it sucks more for the people left than it does for us. At the same time, if I keep doing my little part and you keep doing yours – sharing, educating, helping, voting, speaking – nothing is written in stone.

      Everything dies, baby, that’s a fact
      But maybe everything that dies some day comes back
      Put your makeup on, fix your hair up pretty
      And meet me tonight in Atlantic City

  12. Joe says:

    “Much of our family history involves the pain my grandparents went through as they watched their children embracing American culture rather than adhering to their ethnic culture”.

    Lol. You see the opposite today. The current crop of Millenials and good chunk of Gen Z are emulating the “Noble Savage”. They’re tearing down American Culture, shouting to the skies that they’re abolish ing the progenitor of White Supremacy and Fascism. Racism, Imperialism, Fascism,and violence never existed until America came along, and in fact, according to the proud “Anti Fascist” Progressive, Racism, Imperialism, and Fascism are Genetic Traits of only White People, and Mixed Race People whom are Majority Caucasian Ancestry (As most mixed race Americans are, to the tune of over 60%).

    It must be…….”Abolished”. You see, If America was just like North Korea, the world would be a great place, indeed. It’s the current path that South Africa is taking once Julius Malema takes over, ya know? Make South Africa like North Korea……..that’ll cure the past of Apartheid. I use South Africa as an Allegory because that’s the new Role Model of the current crop of Progressives is.

    The Cultures and Politics of 3rd World Countries are being recreated here in America. I went through a Bachelors and Masters Degree Program both. Having gone through Academia, they preach Marx/Engels without ever having actually read there works, therefore, not knowing of their lusts for Eugenics and their own racism (Marx was quite the racist, and his affinity for Eugene goes hand in hand with it).

    In the name of “Anti Fascism”……America is becoming akin to North Korea. As a Constitutional Conservative Libertarian, I will be a stranger in a strange land in due time.

    • Andy B. says:

      I suspect anyone who attempts to attribute too much just to being “white” is missing a lot.

      I think immediately of the book “How the Irish Became White.” The author points out that early-on, Irish in America weren’t considered to be racially white (blonde hair and blue eyes notwithstanding), and that even Teddy Roosevelt maintained some of that belief, c. 1900. To become “Real Americans” Irish needed to adopt Anglo-Saxon culture, which was the de facto definition of “whiteness.”

      That was repeated with virtually every wave of later immigration. I remember as a kid in the 1950s, being lectured by a neighbor, who had been a grown man before 1900, that “Italians have [n-word] blood. . .they’re just like [n-words].” There was a reason Japanese-American citizens were sent to internment camps, while German (Saxon) enemy-aliens weren’t.

      I have observed, casually, similar friction between other Northern European cultures. “Homogeneity” (of established ethnic cultures) is often appealed to as an explanation for why Scandinavia could adopt, with reasonable success, levels of socialism that have failed when attempted in Anglo-Saxon cultures. In my opinion, it is a form of “political correctness”, and possibly Anglo-Saxon cultural recruitment, to maintain that all “white” cultures are essentially identical.
      ——-
      BTW, what is a “Constitutional Conservative Libertarian”? Some of the terms sound mutually exclusive to me, but then, the definitions of lots of things have changed profoundly since my day.

      • BillTheCat says:

        > while German enemy aliens weren’t.

        uh.. wut?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_German_Americans

      • Andy B. says:

        Thanks for the reference.

        I took note,

        The government examined the cases of German nationals individually, and detained relatively few in internment camps run by the Department of Justice, as related to its responsibilities under the Alien Enemies Act. To a much lesser extent, some ethnic German US citizens were classified as suspect after due process and also detained.

        [snip]

        A total of 11,507 people of German ancestry were interned during the war, comprising 36.1% of the total internments under the US Justice Department’s Enemy Alien Control Program. By contrast, an estimated 110,000–120,000 Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated from the West Coast and incarcerated in internment camps run by the US War Department’s War Relocation Authority.

        In other words Germans got some due process, while Japanese-Americans got none, and ten times as many Japanese as Germans were incarcerated. I couldn’t trace how that “36.1 percent” statistic was computed, but I suspect it’s explained by those “U.S. DOJ” words.

        But, I guess I should have made clearer that I wasn’t saying that no Germans were imprisoned, only that their imprisonment was achieved in a much more civilized manner.

        FWIW, my father (who was 4-F during WWII) worked next to German POWs who were released during the day to go to work in Philadelphia; I believe they lived in barracks near the Navy Yard. They returned to their barracks at night. I have an impression the circumstances of their capture, and other forms of vetting were applied to the German POWs who were afforded such decent treatment, but the point is that some German soldiers were provided better treatment than most Japanese-American citizens, including women and children.

top