An upcoming SCOTUS ruling on the shadow docket would turbocharge the Second Amendment—again.
clearly and demonstrably erred
” in applying “accepted standards.” If five justices reach this conclusion, then no gun restriction is safe. Consider Suddaby’s ruling: The judge struck down New York’s ban on concealed carry in public parks, zoos, airports, buses, houses of worship, bars, conference centers, banquet halls, protests, and many medical facilities, including addiction treatment centers. He also invalidated a provision of the law that stopped permit-holders from taking their weapons onto private property, like businesses or homes, unless the property owner expressly consented to their presence.
Suddaby’s efforts to find historical “consensus” were even wackier. At first, he demanded three or more historical analogues, because two “can also appear as a mere trend.” Later, the judge shifted his method, giving “more weight” to old laws in states that made up a “larger percentage of the nation’s population at the time, according to the nearest decennial census.” So laws governing Maine and Rhode Island cannot establish a consensus, but laws governing Virginia and Pennsylvania can.
Norge Siste Nytt, Norge Overskrifter
Similar News:Du kan også lese nyheter som ligner på denne som vi har samlet inn fra andre nyhetskilder.
The Supreme Court May Kick Off 2023 With a Huge Ruling for Gun RightsWithout oral argument, the case could take a hatchet to New York's new concealed carry law—and countless others.
Les mer »
At the Supreme Court, it's taking longer to hear casesArguments that usually lasted an hour in the morning have stretched well beyond two, and on many days it's long past lunchtime before the court breaks.
Les mer »
Ohio Supreme Court: Cleveland doesn’t have to refund millions in traffic-camera ticketsICYMI: Last week's 4-3 ruling likely brings an end to a case filed more than 13 years ago, before Cleveland residents voted in 2014 to shut down the city’s traffic-camera program altogether.
Les mer »
Gorsuch dissent on Title 42: Supreme Court not ‘policymakers of last resort’In a recent case before the Supreme Court, several Republican states argued in Arizona v. Mayorkas that the Title 42 orders — which essentially allow the federal government to prevent certain people from coming into the country during a public health emergency because of the fear of communicable disease (in this case, COVID-19) — must remain in place.
Les mer »
Supreme Court to hear major Big Tech cases that could reshape internet regulationsThe Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next month in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, two cases that will weigh the limits of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields Big Tech companies and other online platforms from lawsuits for hosting and moderating user…
Les mer »