2A cases in the hopper for SCOTUS

[cbhausen]

Just yet another reason to re-elect Trump and do everything we can to send Democrat politicians back to private life. This reminds me... RBG is one tough old bird.

 

[Twangbanger]

That is what was mentioned in an article I just read. If true, I renew my lament...frickin’ republicans and their SCOTUS nominees. Why is it that the democrat nominees only grow stronger and bolder in their positions while the republican nominees usually grow meeker and/or turn on theirs?

Remember that in Roberts, we're not just talking about any Republican nominee, we're talking about a BUSH nominee. From 13 years ago.

Roberts clearly believes he's done all he ever needed to do by signing onto validating the existence of the 2A as an individual right in Heller. Most likely in deference to Scalia. The court has clearly signaled anything further than that will have to await changes in the Court's composition.

Just what America needs - more partisan Bayonet-fights in the States, getting pinballed around lower level Federal courts without being resolved.

Just yet another reason to re-elect Trump and do everything we can to send Democrat politicians back to private life. This reminds me... RBG is one tough old bird.

The CampingKnights will not like it, but this is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!! (Emphasis and 4 exclamation points added for their benefit). It appears Kavanaugh was a possible step in the right direction, but will not be enough. Expanded validation of the 2A will not happen without another Trump term. At this point in time, there's simply no way around it.

And the people telling themselves that electing Biden won't hurt too much, because the Republican Senate will keep him in check, are smoking All-Beef-Wackybacky.

 

[indykid]

Love this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/th...-long-failure-to-protect-the-second-amendment

Gotta like Kavanaugh and Thomas in standing for the second amendment. Too bad the rest of the court doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights.

 

[cbhausen]

Mr. Gottlieb ain't happy:

https://www.saf.org/statement-from-alan-gottlieb-saf-on-supreme-court/

 

[BillD]

Mr. Gottlieb ain't happy:

https://www.saf.org/statement-from-alan-gottlieb-saf-on-supreme-court/

I'm not very happy either.
But as was said, the election hinges on it again.
That said, we have got 198 new judges but the nomination process has been stalled for awhile.

 

[MCgrease08]

Why Did the Roberts Court Punt on Ten Second Amendment Cases?

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard — and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Court’s reviewing Second Amendment issues.

 

[rugertoter]

That is what was mentioned in an article I just read. If true, I renew my lament...frickin’ republicans and their SCOTUS nominees. Why is it that the democrat nominees only grow stronger and bolder in their positions while the republican nominees usually grow meeker and/or turn on theirs?

Because, sadly, the Left believes in what they are doing, but the right? I don't think they have been "believers" in their cause, since Reagan. JMHO

 

[Alamo]

Oh, and McGirt v Oklahoma.

It's not a 2A case, but the outcome may significantly affect state-level exercise of 2A rights for a significant portion of the country, i.e. half of Oklahoma.

The SCOTUS has two cases in which convictions under Oklahoma state law are being contested based on the defendants' tribal membership and the fact that the crimes occurred in eastern Oklahoma. If SCOTUS decides eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation, then state law does not apply in that area, and that would seem to me to affect more than just the crimes in these cases.

More details here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/...ation-status-of-eastern-oklahoma/#more-293501

When the Creek Nation was booted out of southeast US in 1830s, they were sent to an Indian Territory that now includes eastern Oklahoma, and historically that area was regarded as a "reservation." The State of Oklahoma was formed in 1906, and since then state and federal laws have been applied to eastern Oklahoma just like the rest of the state. State and federal authorities read the formation of the State of Oklahoma as terminating the reservation status. Apparently SCOTUS precedent is that an Indian reservation loses its status as a "res" when there is a federal statute that explicitly ends its status as a reservation, and the statute authorizing the formation of the State of Oklahoma is apparently not so explicit. (Note: State of Oklahoma has recently changed its position from "it lost its reservation status" to "it never was a reservation.")

Update: SCOTUS votes 5-4 that eastern half of Oklahoma is "Indian Country," specifically Creek Nation territory. Therefore, the State of Oklahoma may not prosecute Indians for violating state criminal law on the territory of the Creek Nation. Apparently you do not have to be a member of the Creek Nation to be exempt from state criminal law, just a member of some Indian tribe. More specifically, the state convictions of McGirt, an enrolled member of the Seminole tribe, on three sexual offenses are overturned. He (and any other Indian violating federal law) may be tried in federal courts.

As I noted earlier, I wonder what else this impacts besides (non) enforcement of state criminal law against Indians and Indian land. Does the Creek Nation now have jurisdiction similar to other reservations? If you have a state licensed to carry or carry permit, whatever Oklahoma calls it, is it still valid in the Creek Nation territory.

CAVEAT: I have not read the entire opinion, just the summary at the front. My question(s) might be answered in the full opinion. Also, this above is my interpretation of what the court said, your mileage may vary, consult with your provider before starting an exercise program, yadda yadda etc.

Opinion, released today: https://d2qwohl8lx5mh1.cloudfront.net/kKj4BdK6PajTt4Q_WYZgkQ/content


ETA: "Indian Country" is a statutory term, not (just) a slang expression. Cited in the opinion

A neighboring provision of the MCA [Major Crimes Act] defines the term [Indian Country} to include, among other things, “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation.”

The Major Crimes Act basically says that Indians who commit serious crimes in Indian Country can be tried in federal courts.