Posted on 10/01/2019 5:33:03 AM PDT by Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
The biggest gun control case in over a decade might end up on the desks of America's highest court -- and for once, gun control advocates don't want it to.
Let's explain why:
That includes traveling outside of New York City. Yes, New York City's elected officials passed legislation that prevented gun owners from freely leaving their homes - and even the city itself - with their handguns. One could not legally leave the state with a handgun. Ever. If you owned a handgun and wanted to leave the city with it, you would've had to obtain a "hunting authorization" first.
Some might call that a pretty big restriction on the Second Amendment.
Some gun advocates decided to challenge the order. Frightened that the case would escalate and hit the Supreme Court (where it would most likely be struck down and more importantly, establish a Second Amendment-friendly legal precedent), the state acquiesced: City officials re-wrote the law to allow New York City residents to travel to and from gun ranges and second homes outside the city.
Only it may not be enough. The Court might hear the case anyway.
An excerpt from the argument against the case being heard by the Court reads:
"Amici are professors of law who focus their research, scholarship, and teaching on federal courts, federalism, and the role of the federal judiciary in our legal system. Amici do not all agree on the best understanding of the Second Amendment or the best regulatory policies for firearms. But each agrees that this case is moot under well-established Article III principles...
State law now grants petitioners all that they demanded in federal court. The claims in petitioners’ complaint are therefore moot. No federal court has authority to offer an opinion on constitutional law without a live case or controversy under Article III. An ongoing disagreement about law—even federal constitutional law—is insufficient on its own to sustain Article III power."
Unfortunately for anti-gunners, the Supreme Court has not appeared to yield. Tomorrow, October 1, the Justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case. This revelation and the potential for the case to be heard - and an important 2A precedent to be set - is particularly worrying for anti-gunners, for one reason.
In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that existing prohibitions against the possession of a firearm, including existing bans of "dangerous and unusual weapons", were still valid. Justice Stevens revealed that Justice Kennedy also asked for some important changes to be made to Scalia's original opinion, ensuring that the language in the case's decision "should not be taken to cast doubt on existing gun laws". But Justice Kennedy is gone. A more gun-friendly conservative took his place. That would be Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Building on Kavanaugh's opinion in Heller, that case did something else that anti-gunners aren't happy about: It wiped out the Court's prior interpretations that the Second Amendment mostly existed to ensure a "well-regulated militia be maintained for the free state". Instead, the new jurisprudence now rests on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Except the Supreme Court has heard no cases which flesh out this new precedent or ideology since ruling on Heller.
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, if heard by the Court, is about to change all that.
Justice Kavanaugh is likely to see this case as the first test against (or opportunity to affirm) the individual's right to bear arms. Given his prior written opinions on Heller, the odds the Court will rule in favor of New York City's gun control advocates are slim.
In a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Democrats called for outright banning most, if not all, weapons. One legislator stated, "I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned." New York attempted to push its own version of a ban without any due process. Attorney General Letitia James sent cease-and-desist orders to 16 websites - including 80-Lower.com - demanding they stop selling 80% lowers and AR-15 kits.
These kits include a receiver blank (an unfinished firearm) that the user must complete at home. This is a legal practice long established by the ATF and Gun Control Act of 1968. Nevertheless, New York is now in the fight against the black rifle once again, and companies are working to scrutinize the legal standing of the demands. All signs point to the high possibility the Supreme Court will hear quite a few more gun control cases within the next two to four years.
Yet, we never heard the details of trump’s gun control package. Like obamacare, we just never knew what was in it.
Now folks are brushing it off as dead. I am curious Mr Prez.. just who, besides government and criminals do you think needs freedom to protect themselves?
Guess he will never tell. How convenient.
Uh, there's your hint, right there by your own words...
For later
The goal of the left is to disarm non-violent citizens, and to allow violent criminals to keep their illegal guns.
There is no Trump gun control package. It was a ruse so the dems would expose their communist, confiscation approach to gun control.
Do the corrupt officials in NYC even prosecute “gun charges” against protected class citizens and non-citizens?
It doesn’t matter.
None of them, including Trump, have the authority to start a conversation with me about guns.
I will obey no one on this subject, ever.
What a ludicrous statement. Define "weapon". Gun, knife, baseball bat, cast iron skillet. Define "hunt". If you are at a distance? Bow and arrow, blow dart, crossbow?
A couple of years ago SCOTUS struck down...by a 9-0 vote..an anti 2nd Amendment law passed by the Massachusetts Legislature and upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the highest court in the state).
Obola's appointees voted "aye".So did BillyBob's. And so did the Peanut Farmer's appointees.
The NYC law may be found to have been in violation of the federal “Gun Owners Protection Act”, with respect to federal law permitting transport of guns from a place where the owner is legally allowed to have it, to a place where the owner is legally allowed to have it, notwithstanding the local and state laws of places in between.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150101/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation
Sling shot. Seriously.
When I was a neurosurgery resident we had a case where a 14 year old punk shot a random kid on the street in the head with a BB gun, for fun. It killed him. A BB gun.
The goal of the Left is to keep people defenseless against mob violence, should they ever utter an "unpopular" opinion.
I would like to see, at minimum, that the SC hold that citizens may own and carry, for self defense, ANY weapon or device that police officers are authorized to carry.
Ping
Well that makes 2 of us on FR. Everyone has gone obamacare silent on his gun control package, including the he nra.
Meanwhile police departments are used to bypass posse comitatus.. the dept of Ed, the Irs and Noaa all have fully automatic weapons and we cannot even get a bumpstock.
“Yet, we never heard the details of trump’s gun control package.”
We do know though that he has no problem banning inanimate objects (bump stocks).
I’d have to reread the law but I think that applied to interstate travel. Didn’t prevent totalitarian states from doing whatever they want to their own in-state residents. NY, MA etc don’t recognize the law anyhow-try legally transporting firearms through those states at your own peril. Might as well be East Germany.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.