DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[Dvrjon]

I partially agree, partially disagree with you.

For several of the BoR amendments, there is a balancing test: […], Bruen gets interestingly close, by saying that no balancing test can be performed in isolation, it has to only use "history and tradition" laws.

That level of scrutiny is the originalism (a product of Justice Thomas) that is 2A specific. No other right has a similar time-based restriction on how to evaluate it.

That has nothing to do with your previous claim to which I was responding.

Several justices (I think including the chief justice) said that the 2A needs to be treated just like the any other enumerated right. But Bruen says that the 2A has its own legal theory, not applied to any other right.

You found a conflict in the concept of 2A being treated like any other BoR and the SCOTUS establishment of a unique test for 2A which relies solely on text, history and tradition. (You left out Text).

My response was to simply list other BoRs which hold individualized methods for application which are unique to them.

Your follow-up statement that:

For several of the BoR amendments, there is a balancing test,

by necessity also means that several do not have such a test. The fact that the 2A under Bruen doesn’t hold such a test doesn’t support your assertion that the Bruen process is unique under that single rubric.

 

[SnFour]

That has nothing to do with your previous claim to which I was responding.

You found a conflict in the concept of 2A being treated like any other BoR and the SCOTUS establishment of a unique test for 2A which relies solely on text, history and traditionyy. (You left out Text).

My response was to simply list other BoRs which hold individualized methods for application which are unique to them.

Not sure what that other poster is even trying to say. SCOTUS justices aren’t chomping at the bit to get rid of the right to a jury trial because it’s categorical and absolute. No one serious views the right against self incrimination or double jeopardy as illegitimate because they aren’t subject to time/place/manner restrictions like the first amendment.

There’s different scales and analysis frameworks for different rights. They could’ve ruled that “shall not be infringed” is absolute. They could’ve argued for time/place/manner restrictions. They could’ve argued for strict scrutiny only. Instead we got text, history, and tradition. Is that poster arguing that 2A alone should be subject to rational basis/extreme interest balancing otherwise it’s not sound legal doctrine and can’t be treated as a right alongside the others? That argument makes no sense.

 

[Dvrjon]

26 Jan: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198). Expect relisting within 24 hrs. Relisting will be delayed as no further conferences are scheduled until Feb 20.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

26 Jan: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198). Expect relisting within 24 hrs.

Thanks for the update. Copper Jacket TV had mentioned that the next few weeks SCOTUS isn’t meeting to go over potential cases so it will likely be two or three weeks before this then gets reevaluated.

 

[skb720]

Thanks for the update. Copper Jacket TV had mentioned that the next few weeks SCOTUS isn’t meeting to go over potential cases so it will likely be two or three weeks before this then gets reevaluated.

Do not listen to Copper Jacket TV or Armed Scholar, they're all clickbait. Following the Washington Gun Law channel for real reliable legal matters content.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Do not listen to Copper Jacket TV or Armed Scholar, they're all clickbait. Following the Washington Gun Law channel for real reliable legal matters content.

Way more than just those two guys are bait. Any page with headlines; Breaking News, Click Now or similar alarming wannabe attention grabbers- go ahead and block. That "preacher" out of Phoenix too, don't be impressed by his large number of subscribers- all rookie boys who "wish".

 

[Pythonfan]

Do not listen to Copper Jacket TV or Armed Scholar, they're all clickbait. Following the Washington Gun Law channel for real reliable legal matters content.

But washington Gun Law said the same thing.....so....um.

 

[MarkH]

Not very surprising that Bruen is confusing not to mention convoluted and illogical, it was the brainchild of Clarence Thomas. I have little doubt that when Scotus is realigned after the demise of this regime that Bruen will go the way of Roe V. Wade and be thrown upon the ash heap of American history.

I remember once at a legal conference I spoke about an opinion in my field of practice, federal employee benefits law. I said to the assembled lawyers that it was cogent and sensible, which really surprised me, given that it was a Thomas opinion. Big big laugh!

 

[Dvrjon]

You guys rely on Copper Jacket and Armed Scholar? I’m hurt.



The Calendar is pretty clear…20 Feb: 1/2 day Non-Argument Sessions; 27 Feb: Full day.
{Note: The 1/2 day Non-Argument sessions allow Justices to announce orders and opinions, and admit new members to the Supreme Court Bar.}

Not even Copper Bullet or Armed Scholar could screw that up, but they could spend 15 minutes telling you about it.

Here’s the calendar so you don’t need to watch those guys….

 

[andyman]

if you look at armored scholors videos, almost every title of his video is "breaking news", or major supreme court something.. they may contain some details, but you gotta watch the videos or scan thru it. I just stopped watching them all.

 

[adrkwan]

if you look at armored scholors videos, almost every title of his video is "breaking news", or major supreme court something.. they may contain some details, but you gotta watch the videos or scan thru it. I just stopped watching them all.

He's figured out how to maximize Youtube revenue for de minimis updates.

 

[treelogger]

You found a conflict in the concept of 2A being treated like any other BoR ...

You're reading way too much into my comment. It wasn't me who found the conflict, it was the justices: In the hearing, several complained that the 2A is being treated differently from other rights. While at the same time ...

and the SCOTUS establishment of a unique test for 2A which relies solely on text, history and tradition. (You left out Text).

...

The fact that the 2A under Bruen doesn’t hold such a test doesn’t support your assertion that the Bruen process is unique under that single rubric.

... the court's own Bruen decision established the "text, history and tradition" procedure, which is qualitatively different from what is done for other rights (which are also different from each other). No other field of law has the history and tradition part, in particular not the one that is time-limited to roughly 1870.

In a nutshell, what I'm pointing out is: The court is now tripping over its own feet. On one hand, it wants the 2A to be treated differently (see Bruen), just like other rights have their own specialized tests (for example "prior restraint", applies to 1A only). On the other hand, if someone does treat the 2A different (as Hawaii did, by referring back to old gun-related laws as justification under Bruen), the very same court wants the 2A to not be treated differently.

We can now start speculating why the court wants to have it both ways (and I have done that speculation), but the above part is much simpler than speculation.

 

[pancakes]

if you look at armored scholors videos, almost every title of his video is "breaking news", or major supreme court something.. they may contain some details, but you gotta watch the videos or scan thru it. I just stopped watching them all.

F- those kinda youtubers. I block them. I dont waste my time on that sht. Its just click bait with no actual news.

 

[shroom]

Copper jacket videos are just long enough to shove a 2 minute gold/silver ad into them.

 

[pancakes]

Copper jacket videos are just long enough to shove a 2 minute gold/silver ad into them.

anyone buying gold and silver at these prices are bagholders

 

[GoldensRule]

I remember once at a legal conference I spoke about an opinion in my field of practice, federal employee benefits law. I said to the assembled lawyers that it was cogent and sensible, which really surprised me, given that it was a Thomas opinion. Big big laugh!

Heh, heh, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.....

 

[GoldensRule]

26 Jan: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198). Expect relisting within 24 hrs.

I just dusted off and polished my SCOTUS crystal ball. It's track record is terrible and has been so ever since Thomas and Alito have been on the court.

I peered deep into it's core and a vision materialized of a court that pushes off this case as far to the end of this term to avoid the backlash from a very objectionable ruling.

I turned the crystal ball around and looked again and aside from seeing Thomas getting another brand new motorhome from another billionaire, I see an amicus brief being filed by the US DOJ arguing that LCM's will endanger the lives of ICE agents.

It's a very sarcastic crystal ball with a mean streak.

 

[GoldensRule]

You're reading way too much into my comment. It wasn't me who found the conflict, it was the justices: In the hearing, several complained that the 2A is being treated differently from other rights. While at the same time ...


... the court's own Bruen decision established the "text, history and tradition" procedure, which is qualitatively different from what is done for other rights (which are also different from each other). No other field of law has the history and tradition part, in particular not the one that is time-limited to roughly 1870.

In a nutshell, what I'm pointing out is: The court is now tripping over its own feet. On one hand, it wants the 2A to be treated differently (see Bruen), just like other rights have their own specialized tests (for example "prior restraint, applies to 1A only). On the other hand, if someone does treat the 2A different (as Hawaii did, by referring back to old gun-related laws as justification under Bruen), the very same court wants the 2A to not be treated differently.

We can now start speculating why the court wants to have it both ways (and I have done that speculation), but the above part is much simpler than speculation.

Bruen is among the most illogical and irrational rulings from a morally corrupt if not insane Justice since Chief Justice Roger B. Taney authored the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

 

[Dvrjon]

In a nutshell, what I'm pointing out is: The court is now tripping over its own feet.

I agree, but the problem lies not in the process laid out, but in the lack of specificity (or the abundance of ambiguity) which the Court provided as guidance. Now we have to define exactly what is an arm versus an accoutrement. Creative minds find that Large Capacity Magazines are analogous to community powder storage (magazines). And the restriction of the right to carry a firearm in public isn’t a 2A issue, but actually a property rights issue.

The Bruen 2A Gordon Knot is so loosely laced, no sharp blade is needed to untie it…dull minds seem to be working well to unravel it.

 

[Jimi Jah]

I just dusted off and polished my SCOTUS crystal ball. It's track record is terrible and has been so ever since Thomas and Alito have been on the court.

I peered deep into it's core and a vision materialized of a court that pushes off this case as far to the end of this term to avoid the backlash from a very objectionable ruling.

I turned the crystal ball around and looked again and aside from seeing Thomas getting another brand new motorhome from another billionaire, I see an amicus brief being filed by the US DOJ arguing that LCM's will endanger the lives of ICE agents.

It's a very sarcastic crystal ball with a mean streak.

It sounds rather emotion based instead of logic.