Posted on 12/01/2019 3:56:03 PM PST by yesthatjallen
The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a potentially landmark Second Amendment case, the first time in roughly a decade that the justices will consider gun rights.
At issue is a New York City handgun regulation that put tight limits on licensed gun owners' ability to transport firearms outside the home. The case presents the justices an opportunity to go further than ever before in defining the scope of the individual right to bear arms.
The big question is whether the conservative justices want to use this case which features an arguably extreme and silly form of gun control as a vehicle for expanding Second Amendment rights and further constricting governmental options for meaningful gun control, said Carl Bogus, a law professor and Second Amendment expert at Roger Williams University.
SNIP
The lawsuit arose after the city denied the mens request to travel with their handguns outside the city to participate in target practice and marksmanship contests. The district court sided with New York City, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court in January granted the gun owners petition for an appeal.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
#Black Guns Matter!!
In the decision handed down the justices referred to the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling as "frivolous".
That gives me hope that SCOTUS now takes the 2nd Amendment seriously.
Yet there are no repercussions for violating the Constitution. If an entity has "standing" and can get their case heard by the SCOTUS, then the unconstitutional law can get overturned. That's about it. Then another unconstitutional law can get put in place. And the long process can start again.
Exactly right.
“...as a vehicle for expanding Second Amendment rights...”
Might you, more correctly, mean “as a vehicle for securing, yet again, Second Amendment rights” ????
Zero confidence that Judge Roberts takes the originalist position. The only one I trust on that would be Judge Thomas.
I think the real purpose was to facilitate confiscation when the time came. If they announced confiscation, you could otherwise take your guns outside their jurisdiction. With this law, if the guns were not at your NYC home when they came, then you would be in violation.
But when you are at that level of thinness, which is where RBG is, it beyond the recovery level. She has no reserves, she will not be able to handle any further issues or complications. She knows it and the Dems know it. She is all skin and bones.
The USSC saw through this nonsense and decided to take the case anyway. I think the court will make a narrow decision that people cannot be prohibited from transporting firearms from their homes to other locations.
On its facts, the case is kind of uninteresting legally. The law is so stupid and unconstitutional that the HOLDING of the case on the facts is necessarily very limited.
In the past, Roberts has been inclined to decide major cases (even if he decides them correctly) in a way that does NOT create any meaningful constitutional precedents. Witness the Masterpiece Bakery case and the Immigration question on the census case. Either of them could have been important decisions and Roberts made sure neither set any important precedent.
I would expect the same out of this case because the facts are so extreme.
“They only took this case because they can make a very narrow ruling that applies nowhere else.”
I had the same reaction. But in that case, why are they bothering?
To give the appearance of upholding the 2nd without knocking down any of the restrictions except the most egregious.
“The entire concept that they’d have the ability to make you “
Control. Thats all it is.
New York City gun laws, the “Sullivan” gun laws, were put in place by the government to disarm its poltical rivals. So they could kill them more easily.
Look it up.
I think the Court will rule that the case is moot and will remand for dismissal.
New York State (where I grew up shooting a .22 in my backyard, IN NASSAU COUNTY) has many outrageous gun laws which are ripe for second amendment challenge, most notably denying licensees in other states right of free passage while not allowing non-resident licenses.
But since the offense against holders of premise licenses has been resolved by new laws and new regulations, this case really is moot - unless the Court wants to tackle the “two class “ license system altogether. Other states have “possession but no CCW” licenses, and I would imagine to declare THAT unconstitutional would require a better case than this one.
The only other angle I can see to carry this particular case forward is the City’s response that a premise license holder can apply for a CCW license if he wants one, when it is well known that no such licenses are ever granted, except to the rich and famous. For example, the President had an NYC CCW license which I imagine was void when he changed his domicile to Florida.
DL reciprocity is the result of an interstate compact approved by Congress.
There is no such interstate compact regarding CCW, it is very unlikely that there would ever be one, and I don't believe congress has the power to mandate it.
You may be right but I would really, really, really like it if Santa brought us a SCOTUS decision establishing strict scrutiny as the standard for all firearms laws.
I guarantee we all want that. Being a bit cynical here though, I think the USSC is taking this as giving the dog a bone case.
The law also ignores the “bear” clause (bear claws ... get it?), which forbids the government from infringing upon the right to CARRY arms.
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.