Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SackMan518

NY Slimes and NYC Democrats Beg SCOTUS to Drop Their Gun Law Case

Recommended Posts

It revolves around a new NYC rule regarding transport of a weapon in which the gun owner can only carry the firearm from their home to a range in the city but not to an outside of NYC range or to another home outside of the city. While the rule was upheld by Federal and an appeals courts it was successfully challenged by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and accepted by the SCOTUS. So why the big fuss? Well now that the case is going before the SCOTUS a ruling will be made to make future attempts stuck in the mud with prejudice which is going to kill their future plans to reintroduce the rule with different wording starting the whole process all over again. So now the only thing they have left in their bag is to withdraw and declare that the whole thing is moot now that their attempt failed after initially succeeding and that the voters have spoken and this time they're really going to listen to them. Luckily people are smart enough to not buy their calculated retreat and are pushing it forward to put a stake in its heart for good. Hey Cuomo, NY Slimes, and NY politicians - eat a dick!

 

The Justices Should Drop This Case: The New York gun law now before the Supreme Court has already been rendered moot

 

In the more than 10 years since the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a fundamental right to keep a handgun for self-defense in the home, countless laws regulating firearms and their use have survived constitutional scrutiny.

Which is to say: The Supreme Court has been in no mood to expand or clarify the meaning of District of Columbia v. Heller, which the justices have interpreted to apply in all 50 states. Nor did the court take on any other Second Amendment cases in the decade after deciding the Heller case. Lower courts have read the Heller opinion as permitting all manner of gun-control measures, including bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

That disinterest ended in January when a newly reconfigured Supreme Court, rounded out by the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, a quirky case the justices heard on Monday that could soon fizzle out if sanity and common sense prevail.

Justice Kavanaugh, who had made his maximalist views on the Second Amendment more than clear as an appeals judge, had nothing to say during the hourlong hearing. His silence was curious but not surprising. He had been a justice for only a few months when the Supreme Court broke its decade-long reticence on the Second Amendment by agreeing to hear the New York City case. The rookie justice may simply be laying low.

Under the old city rule, gun owners with “premises licenses” could transport a firearm outside their homes, but only to gun ranges in one of the five boroughs. That meant a second home in upstate New York or a gun range across the Hudson River in New Jersey was off limits for a law-abiding gun owner.

The city successfully defended its regulation before a federal judge and an appeals court, which ruled that the requirement didn’t “substantially affect the exercise of core Second Amendment rights” and other constitutional rights, such as the right to travel and the First Amendment right of expressive association.

Despite those victories, city leaders changed course once the Supreme Court decided to give the case a look. The city moved to repeal the challenged regulation, and the state followed suit by passing a law that more or less gave the plaintiffs everything they wanted: The rule would disappear, and gun owners would be allowed to transport their lawful firearms beyond city limits.

“What’s left of this case?” a skeptical Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked on Monday. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said to Paul Clement, who argued on behalf the challengers to the since-scrapped city rule, “What you’re asking us to do, is to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and completely given you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for relief, and you’re asking us to opine on a law that’s not on the books anymore.”

Since, under the Constitution, federal courts may hear only actual “cases” and “controversies,” a dispute in which the government gives the suing party what he or she seeks is considered moot. At best, deciding the case would be no more than issuing an advisory opinion, which the Supreme Court frowns on. At worst, addressing the merits would be a judicial power grab.

Neither Mr. Clement nor the Trump administration, which joined the case in May to support the challenger, voiced any qualms about asking the Supreme Court to skirt its own rules and precedents. Jeffrey Wall, a Justice Department lawyer, suggested at oral arguments that the plaintiffs could keep the case alive by amending their lawsuit and adding a request for money damages — something they’ve never asked for in years of litigation.

In a rejoinder, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that option may be off the table this late in the game. “They’ve had every opportunity to say that they want damages, including today, and for whatever reason, Mr. Clement has, you know, basically said this case is not about damages.”

Judging by their questions, only Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch seemed to be itching to intervene. May they remain in the minority. As Richard Dearing, the New York City lawyer who urged the court to let the case die, put it during oral arguments, “It’s a good thing and not a cause for concern when the government responds to litigation by resolving matters through the democratic process.”

That could be an appealing way out of the case for the justices, who already have their hands full with a docket that includes the fate of Dreamers, abortion regulations, federal protections for gay and transgender workers and, potentially, Donald Trump’s attempts to keep his financial records out of the reach of Congress and prosecutors. Those looming decisions and their repercussions in the political arena will give the voting public plenty to talk about ahead of next year’s presidential election.

More important, New Yorkers have made their voices clear about the gun transportation ban through their elected representatives. The justices would be wise to let them have the last word.


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

 

"But, man, you're never going to get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell... We'll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds... We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here."

 

- Howard Beale, Network

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is misleading. The rule was changed, then voted into law. It;s the stupid fucking NRA that wants the trial to go on, not the Left


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HipKat said:

The title is misleading. The rule was changed, then voted into law. It;s the stupid fucking NRA that wants the trial to go on, not the Left

Yes and if you read my explanation it's solely to prevent NY from pulling any bullshit like this ever again.


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

 

"But, man, you're never going to get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell... We'll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds... We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here."

 

- Howard Beale, Network

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Yes and if you read my explanation it's solely to prevent NY from pulling any bullshit like this ever again.

Yep!! Which I completely agree with you on. But it’s a waste of time and money for a trial because it is it just a rule anymore, now it is a law


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, basically NY knows they are going to lose and are pulling it so the court can't rule against them and they can try to push the shit through in a different form again.  Filthy cork soakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HipKat said:

Yep!! Which I completely agree with you on. But it’s a waste of time and money for a trial because it is it just a rule anymore, now it is a law

The original policy was Draconian and encroached too far on the 2nd Amendment and now NYC needs its pee-pee slapped so it doesn't try this again (which they will if given the opportunity).


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

 

"But, man, you're never going to get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell... We'll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds... We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here."

 

- Howard Beale, Network

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

The original policy was Draconian and encroached too far on the 2nd Amendment and now NYC needs its pee-pee slapped so it doesn't try this again (which they will if given the opportunity).

As a gun and 2nd amendment supporter, I can tell you that the first time I heard that they were fucking with CC rights, I was disgusted. So this has been a good thing, but I don't get why the NRA is still pushing for a trial when it's a done deal


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HipKat said:

As a gun and 2nd amendment supporter, I can tell you that the first time I heard that they were fucking with CC rights, I was disgusted. So this has been a good thing, but I don't get why the NRA is still pushing for a trial when it's a done deal

It will set precedence on the type of law, hence it would be good for them to get the ruling in stone before the asshats try to find another way to say the same thing and the process has to start over again.  If it just goes away, the whole thing has to start over again and if written properly, there is a chance the law could screw gun owners still.  My bet is NYC will alter their permits to read the way they want and it will make ot harder to fight it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DC2007 said:

It will set precedence on the type of law, hence it would be good for them to get the ruling in stone before the asshats try to find another way to say the same thing and the process has to start over again.  If it just goes away, the whole thing has to start over again and if written properly, there is a chance the law could screw gun owners still.  My bet is NYC will alter their permits to read the way they want and it will make ot harder to fight it.

Yeah, OK. That makes sense. Setting  precedence for future possible hearings

  • Like 1

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...