Skip to comments.
Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions
USATODAY
| Dec. 1, 2019
| Richard Wolf
Posted on 12/01/2019 6:58:09 PM PST by PROCON
Link only.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; armedcitizen; banglist; guncontrol; gunrights; newyork; nra; rkba; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: PROCON
I don’t trust Roberts to ever do the right thing.
Compromised blackmailed weak little fucher.
21
posted on
12/01/2019 10:03:47 PM PST
by
Secret Agent Man
(Gone Galt; Not Averse to Going Bronson.)
To: PROCON
Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictionsHow can gun rights be expanded when the Second Amendment demands gun rights shall not be infringed?
22
posted on
12/01/2019 10:27:13 PM PST
by
higgmeister
( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
To: Secret Agent Man
One thing is CERTAIN. - Roberts is NO Constitutionalist.
Yours, TMN78247
23
posted on
12/02/2019 12:07:48 AM PST
by
TMN78247
("VICTORY or DEATH", William Barrett Travis, LtCol, comdt., Fortress of the Alamo, Bejar, 1836)
To: Cyclops08
Cant see the article as it is behind a paywall.
There is no paywall at all!
24
posted on
12/02/2019 12:10:36 AM PST
by
Brown Deer
(America First!)
To: Brown Deer
“There is no paywall at all!”
That is true, must have been an assumption. But there are 24 hidden 3rd party trackers my blocker is stopping. But it still let me view and read the whole thing despite them being blocked. :)
25
posted on
12/02/2019 3:22:40 AM PST
by
Openurmind
(The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. ~ D. Bonhoeffer)
To: wastedyears
???? They can mow down unconstitutional laws which will “expand” the rights of those living in oppressive States...
Besides, they also couldn’t institute ObamaCare by themselves but Roberts managed - now they have a chance to make a difference along the lines they are there for...
26
posted on
12/02/2019 3:51:59 AM PST
by
trebb
(Don't howl about illegal leeches, or Trump in general, while not donating to FR - it's hypocritical.)
To: PROCON
Yes the “right to bear arms” means the right to carry them around.
27
posted on
12/02/2019 7:51:16 AM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
To: PROCON
You cannot expand a God Given Right unless a Tyrannical Government has attempted to take it away.
They are now admitting that we have Tyrannical Government at the State Level, something that we as Conservatives have known for decades.
Let me know when they finally admit the same Tyrannical label applies to the Federal Government.
To: PROCON
They may and they may not.
29
posted on
12/02/2019 11:27:59 AM PST
by
itsahoot
(Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
To: ctdonath2
SCOTUS needs to make absolutely clear no you cant do that, and yall better not try it again - so lets 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?
30
posted on
12/02/2019 11:33:26 AM PST
by
itsahoot
(Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
To: itsahoot
SCOTUS has an axiom of issuing the narrowest ruling possible, lest a broad verdict unduly disrupt way more than the large amount already considered ... leading to the narrow wording of _Heller_ and subsequent carry case (name escapes me). This case, per a law & enforcement that flagrantly ignored those verdicts, may very well require a sterner & broader statement better approaching “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”.
SCOTUS tries real hard to play nice with legislators, axiomatically assuming all legislation is passed in good faith. The growing Conservative wing of the Court is growing tired of stupid legal games.
I can hope.
31
posted on
12/02/2019 11:41:03 AM PST
by
ctdonath2
(Specialization is for insects.)
To: mylife; Joe Brower; MaxMax; Randy Larsen; waterhill; Envisioning; AZ .44 MAG; umgud; ...
32
posted on
12/02/2019 12:12:48 PM PST
by
PROCON
(Molon Labe)
To: PROCON
oral arguments before the court.
Good link. Thank you.
One of the reasons for the Supreme Court to make a ruling is that the tactic of repealing a law that has been accepted for review takes advantage of the 'presumption' principle of law. It is "presumed" that a law passed by whatever government entity claims authority is legitimate until the courts rule otherwise. As a result, New York could pass exactly the same law again if the Supreme Court makes no ruling, and it would be in effect until the case made its way to the Supreme Court again. So it would be in effect 90% of the time, over and over again.
It is a way to legally harass gun owners with the intent of either making them criminals or providing so many excuses for harassment that the gun owners just give up. Every now and then, for a short time, the law would go away (leaving some ex-gun-owners in jail and/or guns confiscated until they win a separate action for relief). And as long as there is no Supreme Court decision - just a repealed law - those imprisoned or whose weapons were seized actually have no cause for a change. They were 'guilty' when they were charged/harassed and there was no decision that the law was intrinsically invalid.
And having a New York City lawyer with no continuing authority 'declare' that stopping for coffee or gas would be okay is no protection at all if the written law does not say the same thing. Any judge could declare something different.
Of course, I wish the Supreme Court would make a clear, unambiguous ruling that struck down all these sorts of harassment tactics, with prejudice against any in the future. But I'm not holding my breath.
33
posted on
12/02/2019 12:52:19 PM PST
by
Phlyer
To: PROCON
To: PROCON
After reading the article , I hope they do take up the case and clarify that a rule of this sort can never be implemented.
To: PROCON
Uh, USAT, if some branch of government infringes on gun rights, or any other Constitutional rights, and SCOTUS slaps them down, that’s not ‘expanding’ rights. It’s protecting them from being diminished and violated! Duh.
36
posted on
12/02/2019 8:15:56 PM PST
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: PROCON
Just because they rescinded this law doesn’t mean they’ve given citizens the right to bear arms without infringement. The court needs to clearly state this law was unconstitutional so it cannot be re-implemented tomorrow. Further, to fully clear anyone charged or restricted by the law.
37
posted on
12/02/2019 9:58:33 PM PST
by
Reno89519
(No Amnesty! No Catch-and-Release! Just Say No to All Illegal Aliens! Arrest & Deport!)
To: PROCON
SCOTUS could create a simple response this case. Not a “ruling” but an advisory to state legislatures. In effect, state what level of scrutiny will be applied to future cases. I would recommend that ANY law which attempts to reduce a citizens rights should face “strict scrutiny”.
38
posted on
12/03/2019 7:40:16 AM PST
by
taxcontrol
(Stupid should hurt - dad's wisdom)
To: ctdonath2; PROCON
“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 cant do that, and yall better not try it again - so lets 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.
39
posted on
12/03/2019 8:06:29 AM PST
by
Ancesthntr
("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson