Replies

In this case, SCOTUS likely recognizes that NYC repealed the law in question just to derail the case against it after years of advancing litigation - with reasonably presumable intention of re-instating said law once looming threat of SCOTUS review ends. Such bad-faith action needs be cut off. As precedent, recall SCOTUS ordering DC to end its practical gun ban, which was done - and then a new practical ban promptly enacted in clear bad-faith violation of the ruling. The law in question was so egregious that SCOTUS needs to make absolutely clear “no you can’t do that, and y’all better not try it again - so let’s make this absolutely clear.”

Many cases would never have had a Supreme Court decision if mootness was applied rigorously and consistently. Well-settled case law now recognizes an exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that would have been suitable for federal court decision but for the passage of time or developments in the controversy or as to the parties. This exception to mootness is especially applicable in cases of constitutional rights. I expect the Court to take up the case and adopt at least an intermediate level of scrutiny for gun control laws.

SCOTUS needs to make absolutely clear “no you can’t do that, and y’all better not try it again - so let’s make this absolutely clear.”

You would have to believe that they want to, I don't. They could have made it clear the the Second Amendment was written to protect the citizen from the Government, not the other way around. I do not recall "Shall not be infringed, except........" do you?

“In this case, SCOTUS likely recognizes that NYC repealed the law in question just to derail the case against it after years of advancing litigation - with reasonably presumable intention of re-instating said law once looming threat of SCOTUS review ends. Such bad-faith action needs be cut off. As precedent, recall SCOTUS ordering DC to end its practical gun ban, which was done - and then a new practical ban promptly enacted in clear bad-faith violation of the ruling. The law in question was so egregious that SCOTUS needs to make absolutely clear “no you can’t do that, and y’all better not try it again - so let’s make this absolutely clear.””

There’s that...and then there are several cases in our legal system’s history in which a pregnancy was at issue - and the case was decided AFTER the pregnancy was over. Why? Because the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the case in the first place were capable of being repeated - maybe with the same plaintiff or defendant, maybe with others. So the courts heard the cases (and, IMHO, properly so). That is certainly the case here, if NYC resurrects this law if the USSC rules the case moot, and similar restrictions are in existence right now in other states. The USSC has the opportunity to clarify how the “bear” part of the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted, and it shouldn’t forego that opportunity because NYC is trying to pull a legalistic fast one.