Skip to comments.All For Naught? Supreme Court Indicates Gun Case May Be Moot
Posted on 12/02/2019 8:18:21 PM PST by Trump20162020
For the first time in 10 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard a major gun-rights case. But the drumroll of anticipation seemed to fade, as the debate in the high court Monday focused almost exclusively on whether the case should be dismissed as moot.
At issue was a New York law that allowed New York City residents to have a permit for a gun at home but barred them from transporting the gun elsewhere except to seven New York City shooting ranges. Three handgun owners who had such "premises licenses" challenged the law as a violation of their Second Amendment right to bear arms because they could not transport their guns to shooting ranges and competitions outside the city or to second homes.
The problem for those gun owners was that New York state and New York City abandoned the challenged law this year after the Supreme Court said it would review it.
"New York City and New York state actually gave them everything that they had asked for before this argument," said New York City corporation counsel James Johnson after the argument. "That was made very plain in this argument today."
Indeed, it was, and the court's liberals drove home the point.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointedly asked: "So what's left of this case?"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor piled on: You're asking [the court] to decide a case "in which the other side has thrown in the towel and completely given you every single thing you demanded in your complaint."
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
They new the case may have been moot before agreeing to take the case. I can only hope they press forward.
The second this case is dismissed for mootness NYC will pass an even more restrictive law.
Mark my words.
Sotomayor and Ginsberg will be further saddened.
Speaking of them, which one croaks first? I wonder.
My gun cases went moot when they fell into the river in a tragic canoe accident.
NPR should not exist. It is negative knowledge. What can NPR report on anything that has already been covered by a myriad of privately owned and “objective” news sources? Abolish this rabid purveyor of leftist CRAP. It has no purpose other to keep their leftists “journalists” employed and, or course, disseminating propaganda. Kellyanne, where are you?
The real villain here is John Roberts.
Like Rosenstein, a female dog he may be but now that Trump knows everything that Obama knew he will be OUR female dog.
Seriously, ALL of the Obama dirt and skullduggery must by now be known...and is being used against them.
Why would they accept the case, if there is nothing there? Don’t they know these things before taking on cases?
Is this how utterly incompetent our government and even the “supreme” court is?
“The problem for those gun owners was that New York state and New York City abandoned the challenged law this year after the Supreme Court said it would review it.”
Curious if they are seeking an autopsy of that NY/NYC law time of death, and burial in case they (NY/NYC) try to Frankenstein the corpse.
how abotu hte safe act in NY? Or the impending gun confiscation act in virginia? Or Or Or?- Many cases that are not moot-
He'd switched places with an Elvis impersonator, years before, but...
But me and Sebastian, we had us a deal.
If I wanted to trade back, he'd let me.
It was all written up in the contract.
The thing was... I lost my copy in a barbeque accident.
I think it has a certain ring to it, "BBQ accident".
the sick thing is- NY spokesperson came on and said “When we heard it was going to trial, we “GAVE” Them what they wanted”
BS! They didn’t GIVE anything- It was never theirs to take- NY’ers had their 2n’d amendment rights STOLEN from them- NY should be sued over this- for infringing on 2n’d amendment
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointedly asked: “So what’s left of this case?”
What’s left is absolutely nothing stopping NYC from re-enacting the law once SCOTUS dismisses it, having repealed the law only when facing prospect of epic smackdown a la _Heller_ but for “bear” instead of “keep”.
I have a great (but unfounded) hope that the Supreme Court will make a sweeping ruling barring states attempts to restrict the bear portion of the 2nd Amendment, using this NYC law as a springboard.
How about: “As the defendent recognized in removing the law, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms in and outside the home without infringement. It is not the prerogative of the government to ask why or where, not the prerogative of the government to infringe upon a citizen’s right keep and bear arms.”
The modern coward dressed in black.
And for the rest of us, we remember what John Taney said in the Dred Scott decision...
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
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.