Posted on 12/02/2019 6:55:05 PM PST by Enterprise
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to deliver a major win for gun-rights activists during arguments on Monday in the first significant Second Amendment case the justices have heard in nearly a decade.
The case was challenging a New York City gun regulation that barred the transport of handguns outside of the city, even to a second home or firing range. After the court agreed to hear the case, though, the city did away with the regulation and the state passed a law that prevented the city from reviving it.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Yeah, Scalia has not been replaced with his equivalent.
They only took this case because of the egregious nature of the restrictions and that they could make a narrow ruling that had no effect anywhere else.
We will not get a court to uphold the 2nd broadly until President Trump appoints two more justices.
We currently have three conservatives on the court.
This just in -
The Supreme Court heard a challenge Monday to New York City rules that imposed onerous restrictions on gun transportation.
After the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, New York relaxed the challenged guidelines and asked the justices to dismiss the case as “moot,” arguing the new regulations gave the plaintiffs everything they were seeking.
The justices spent the majority of Monday’s argument exploring whether or not they should dismiss the case and gave comparatively little attention to whether the old rules pass Second Amendment muster.
Per: https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-nyc-gun-argument/
Nope. Too many Fudds got us the restrictions we have now. Avid hunters and fishers sold out the rest of us to protect their deer gun, etc., etc.
This wouldn't be a bad outcome. Because it would indicate (to me) that we need more SCOTUS turnover before a national reciprocity case comes before the Court.
Deplorables in NJ and similar Blue States can't carry while there have been awesome gains in pro-carry States. I'd love for SCOTUS to come over the top like Walter Payton and give us national reciprocity. However, my fear of Roberts penning a 5-4 anti-CCW opinion that kills it for the 40+ states with generous CCW makes me clench my teeth and wish for NO carry case at this time.
Maybe I'll change my mind when RBG or some like-minded Justice retires and we get a good guy or gal in there. Until then, I don't want to gamble with the gains we've made at the state level.
When she drops it really needs to come up again.
This is insane for ANY state to ignore an amendment.
Why can’t the other ones be ignored?
Well...some of them are.
And it never favors us.
exactly- how is reinstating their 2n’d amendment right an expansion?
[[Folks, keep the semantics clean.
The 2nd amendment does not confer a “right” to the people.]]
When people talk about their ‘2n’d amendment right’- they are talking generally, not specifically- they don’t mean that the 2n’d A gives them the right- they mean that it confirms their inalienable right-
I would wonder why, if it is so, that the plaintiffs did not include in their prayer for relief that this law too be declared un-Constitutional? It certainly makes some opportunities to exercise the right so inconvenient as to reduce if not eliminate them. Perhaps this is a fatal flaw in New York's attempt to moot the case.
Yes, but try that in practice in NY, NJ, CA, CT, HI, MA, or soon in VA.
It will land you in prison for years. Your life will be ruined. Every dollar you saved would go to lawyers.
It's easy to point and say "But, look! The Constitution!"
But it doesn't matter in practice, because the states can get away with violating the 2nd Amendment all day long, and no one will defend your rights. Not the courts, not the Feds.
I'm skeptical that the court will accept the mootness argument, though the (not so)'wise latina' will likely dissent strongly. Sadly, this case is being brought on extremely narrow grounds.
Yep, I didn’t see it coming. Trump will replace Ginsburg next term and maybe Breyer. I still wish Clarence Thomas would voluntarily step down, allowing President Trump to replace him with someone much younger. We would have a 6-3 conservative majority for 20 years and Roberts could go fly a kite.
Of course it doesn’t confer a civil right. LMAO
It simply acknowledges it.
Thanks for playing.
Try that in Noo Yawk. You will be in JAIL.
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.