New York man arrested for using unlicensed gun to shoot robber . . .

[Caballoflaco]

SCOTUS - got to keep up. They have refused to take up a gun case for years since the last two. Next, the court is 4/4 on gun rights with Roberts being an unknown. Heller was ambiguous (no, it wasn't, Scalia was a genius - blah, blah).

Now we are waiting for them, yet again. The theories are they will not take a case because the 4 fear Roberts or the progun justices are planning the golden case that comes from the mountain with tablets of stone on fire that free the guns - Hallelujah. However, they might take a wishy-washy case (like the NYC one) and come up with a wishy-washy decision that sounds good and changes nothing on the ground.

We will see.

Glenn, dude, can you please go beat this dead horse in the thread you started specifically about the Supreme Court not taking cases, or at least limit it to one post per thread.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sorry, just responding to a post wondering why Scotus doesn't ... whatever. A fixation on my part, I guess.

[Wise_A]

I agree but the key factor in who gets prosecuted or not is the District Attorneys not the Sheriffs. The DAs are also elected and thus follow the political winds of their constituents.

Oh, for sure. There's a ton of hand-in-glove cooperation between the local R parties, the sheriffs, the DAs, and the judges. I don't know what they would do around here if it was a felon-in-possession charge. I don't think the good will of the local party and its accompanying Fudds (we have a lot of "I support the Second Amendment, but..." old guys*) would extend to a felon. There was a case south of Albany that I haven't bothered following that I know resulted in a charge, but it's (a) south of Albany, and (b) I don't know the details.

*True story--I had a director of our "We support the EnnArrAaayyy" gun club inform me that nobody needs an AR-15. He was not happy when I asked why he needs a semiautomatic shotgun to shoot trap when a single-shot would do fine. He also told me that nobody can shoot a handgun faster than one round a second with any accuracy at all. We had a hold-my-beer moment.

[HCM]

Oh, for sure. There's a ton of hand-in-glove cooperation between the local R parties, the sheriffs, the DAs, and the judges. I don't know what they would do around here if it was a felon-in-possession charge. I don't think the good will of the local party and its accompanying Fudds (we have a lot of "I support the Second Amendment, but..." old guys*) would extend to a felon. There was a case south of Albany that I haven't bothered following that I know resulted in a charge, but it's (a) south of Albany, and (b) I don't know the details.

*True story--I had a director of our "We support the EnnArrAaayyy" gun club inform me that nobody needs an AR-15. He was not happy when I asked why he needs a semiautomatic shotgun to shoot trap when a single-shot would do fine. He also told me that nobody can shoot a handgun faster than one round a second with any accuracy at all. We had a hold-my-beer moment.

Politics aside prosecutors decide who actually gets charged.

[Wise_A]

Yes, I think we're all aware of that.