Originally posted by Huggybear
View Post
X
-
Originally posted by SabineHunter View PostIts kinda funny that some here like Trophy8 and Quackwhacker hate the NRA and espouse the faux 2A outfits like the GOA, etc. The NRA is the best at protecting our 2A, bar none. Any money donated should go to the NRA.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SabineHunter View PostIts kinda funny that some here like Trophy8 and Quackwhacker hate the NRA and espouse the faux 2A outfits like the GOA, etc. The NRA is the best at protecting our 2A, bar none. Any money donated should go to the NRA.
Can you elaborate on how the GOA is a “faux” 2A outfit?
Comment
-
SabineHunter
Originally posted by one66stang View Postoh sir please do some research. While the NRA is by far the largest lobby group that takes up 2nd amendment issues they are very free with your donated money and their take on the 2nd amendment becomes more liberal every day.
Comment
-
So because they've "done more" we're supposed to just blindly ignore what the NRA has become? Trusting one group to protect our rights is what has gotten us here in the first place. Glad to see someone took action and went to the supreme court instead of hoping the NRA got enough new members to talk a big game.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tvc184I absolutely hope this case goes in favor of the men bringing the lawsuit against New York and I think it would be a landmark decision if it goes favorably. I do not think it will quite get to the level of constitutional carry nationwide. Without reading the case yet, I am just guessing but the men only want the right to be issued a permit. If that is true that is all the ruling will be on.
Originally posted by Arrowslinger1 View Posttheres never been anything more hypocritical than a Democrat taking an Oath of Office to Support the Constitution!
Their next move will be to add 4 seats to the Supreme Court, Make DC a state as well as Puerto Rico. Moving the Goal Posts one Liberal agenda at a time!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arrowslinger1 View Posttheres never been anything more hypocritical than a Democrat taking an Oath of Office to Support the Constitution!
Their next move will be to add 4 seats to the Supreme Court, Make DC a state as well as Puerto Rico. Moving the Goal Posts one Liberal agenda at a time!
Comment
-
Originally posted by SabineHunter View PostOkay, then name one organization that has done more besides just bashing them.
I’ve asked you multiple times and I don’t ever recall you answering; what has the NRA done in the past 10 or even 20 years to kill any gun control legislation or overturn any gun legislation?
They don’t get to rest on their laurels and say what positive they may have done in the distant past. And even at that they have capitulated to some bad legislation going back to 1934 that I know of starting with the NFA.
So rather than being a hypocrite, why don’t you answer the above question?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Comment
-
Originally posted by SabineHunter View PostOkay, then name one organization that has done more besides just bashing them.
Comment
-
I wish this great thread about a potentially landmark supreme court case hadn't turned into another debate about the NRA.
Originally posted by tvc184 View PostThat would be OK but I kind of doubt it.
If the men win their case, I think it will be a narrow decision to mandate “shall issue” a handgun license or permit.
I have read hundreds of court cases and many (or most) times they rule only on the question in front of them. I have not read the briefs in this case however it appears that the question in front of the Supreme Court will be, does a person applying for a license to carry a handgun have to show a good cause. The New York state law in question says that on an application for a concealed carry permit, the person must show a valid reason. The men are contesting why they have to show a valid reason.
I could see SCOTUS saying that is unconstitutional to require a person to show a reason to carry but will not strike down a state mandated background check and/or school.
While it is not quite what people call Constitutional carry, it is a huge step for states like New Jersey, New York and California which pretty much deny a person the ability to carry handgun for any reason.
The bottom line is that when SCOTUS makes rulings they usually answer the question in front of them only and don’t branch out into “what ifs”. I have read cases where they ruled against a person however they noted in the decision that had they been asked a different question, the results might have been different. In other words, we saw a pretty good argument that might have won your case but you never made that argument.
I absolutely hope this case goes in favor of the men bringing the lawsuit against New York and I think it would be a landmark decision if it goes favorably. I do not think it will quite get to the level of constitutional carry nationwide. Without reading the case yet, I am just guessing but the men only want the right to be issued a permit. If that is true that is all the ruling will be on.
In my opinion....
Comment
Comment