Running a tie with Californication for who is the most crazy and has the most libtards.
Posted on 01/22/2019 8:04:22 AM PST by NRx
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will examine New York City’s ban on carrying a licensed and unloaded handgun outside the city limits, the first Second Amendment challenge it has accepted in nearly a decade.
The decision to hear the case in the term that begins in October may signal that the reinforced conservative majority on the court is ready to consider more laws that restrict gun rights.
New York’s law is not replicated elsewhere: It permits transporting handguns only to firing ranges within the city. Those who challenged the law have a licenses to keep a handgun at their homes. Petitioners included those who want to take their guns to firing ranges or competitions outside the city, and one who wanted to take the gun to his second home upstate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled for the city. It said petitioners had not shown there was inadequate access to one of the seven firing ranges in the city, that petitioners could not rent a firearm if they wanted to go to a range elsewhere, or that the upstate homeowner could not get a permit to keep a second handgun there.
The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups supported the lawsuit, and said it was time for the court to clarify what the right to keep a firearm for personal protection means.
“The City does not even attempt to argue that what petitioners seek — the modest ability to transport their licensed firearms, unloaded and locked away separate from ammunition, to a shooting range or second home outside city limits — poses any threat to public safety,” the challengers’ brief said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That comment is triggering and I demand you provide me with a safe space. (do I really need /sarc?)
In NYC, that buzzard is a moderate.
NYC’s uppance is long overdue to come.
Must have missed that. It will be interesting to see the oral arguments on this when it comes up.
When the 2d amendment was ratified it did not apply to states which were free to do damn near anything they wanted consistent with their constitutions. Militias were state created and the fedgov had to be prevented from interfering with them.
I’ve said it before and I stand by it: Anyone that claims to be a Christian and yet supports abortion “rights” is a liar, and I can prove that.
Oh great. I have zero confidence in this court right now. ZERO!
:)
I do not believe that is correct. There was at least one state decision that cited the Second Amendment. Shall not be infringed is much more inclusive than "Congress shall make no law".
It was only after the 1830's when the Supreme Court ruled the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, that infringements on Second Amendment rights started being upheld in the State courts.
Yup.
Wonder if this has implications in Westchester county and also upstate which only allows hunting and target possession UNLESS you specifically apply for a full exception to full carry.
This may not be a good thing. We can easily get a bad precedent if this goes wrong.
It requires 4 justices to grant certioari. I have long thought that 2A cases weren’t being heard because Kennedy could not be trusted, so even Thomas and Alito were voting not to hear the cases, knowing they’d get a bad result.
Apparently, they think they can get a good result now. They place a great deal more trust in John Roberts than I do.
Not good. I do not trust this SC with the 2nd. Roberts is has gone full lib. The last time we won 5-4 but it was very close.
“With Roberts in there then the results of this may not be good.”
This is the problem people seem to be ignoring.
It was true of the second amendment as well as state supported religions. Nor was there freedom of speech and assembly with regard to the South.
Article I, Sections 9 and 10.
Barron v Baltimore was the first BoR case before the Court in 1833. And the Court found (unanimously) that the prohibitions in the BoRs were inoperative unless the Constitution expressly made the states subject to the prohibitions.
The third clause (of Section 9), for example, declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the government of the United States.... the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation... declares that “no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.” This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation.
The founding generation had died off. Their principles started being ignored.
The Courts can only rule on the cases brought before them.
Marshall was a critical member of the founding generation and he looked first to see what Hamilton thought by examining relevant portions of the Federalist
From a Second Amendment perspective, Tom Hardiman's the one we want. This would also make a nice poke in the eye for those demanding a woman-for-woman replacement for Ruth Bader-Meinhoff.
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.