Supreme Court poised to hear first major gun case in a decade

The Hill ^ | 12 01 2019 | John Kruzel

[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 men’s 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

[House Atreides]

For any FReepers interested ina deeper dive into this case, the following hot link will lead to much information and coverage

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

[Yulee]

Catch 22 law?

You can own a gun, with permission, but you can’t transport the gun outside your home.

How did you ever get the gun to your home?

Does Amazon/UPS/US Mail etc. have the right to transport the gun to you?

Can you have the gun picked up and delivered to where you will be target shooting?

This really sound like if you owned a weapon before they banned transport of weapons, the weapon can stay with you, but any attempt to use the weapon outside of your home is criminal.

[Reno89519]

Maybe we get Heller II and the beginning of a reset to recognize the Second Amendment. I guess it’s overly hopeful but it would be nice to see that the second amendment needs to be observed respected by states and that gun owners can carry their guns anywhere and anytime, to and from their homes, etc.

[Lurkinanloomin]

They only took this case because they can make a very narrow ruling that applies nowhere else.
Other cases with wider implications were denied cert.

[21twelve]

I used to live in NJ and would have a shotgun in my truck all the time in case I wanted to swing by the trap range after work. Then they changed the law (30 years ago??) that you could only have a gun in your car going to or from the range or hunting. (Not sure about concealed carry at that time - I only had long guns back then.)

[yesthatjallen]

You can own a gun, with permission, but you can’t transport the gun outside your home.

That's it.

[justme4now]

No court, including the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on gun rights!

Our Rights are Natural Rights and a Right of self protection from man and most importantly ... from Government!

=======================

The vast majority of people who believe that the government has the right to regulate gun ownership by passing new laws ... have a poor understanding of our Constitution!

Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment ... made by both sides, revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms.

What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!

What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government.

This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do, our Constitution is a limit on government.

That is why Marxists, Socialist, Progressive Democrats, et al. have such a disdain for our Constitution ...
It is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.

Read the Second Amendment closely.
Nowhere does it state that the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the government cannot infringe on that right.


The framers of our Constitution believed that our right to bear arms is a natural right , not a right to be given to us by government.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s it, that is the whole 2nd Amendment. Where does it say that the government gives us any right?

It doesn’t, it only says that the government cannot infringe on this right.

The following quote sums it up nicely ...

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.
(Ayn Rand)

2ND AMENDMENT

[ronnie raygun]

The laws apply to the law abiding citizen, criminals can do what they dammed well please

[Thud]

Sure the Supremes could significantly expand gun rights here. They could also duck out at the last minute and hold only that the NY law was a gross violation of the interstate commerce rights of New Jersey gun ranges. IMO the odds favor the latter.

[justme4now]

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

(Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787)

[broken_clock]

Read the Second Amendment closely. Nowhere does it state that the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the government cannot infringe on that right.

Precisely. Good post!

[VikingMom]

IMHO, the biggest question to be answered tomorrow is whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg appears in person for arguments or if Roberts announces that she will be “working from home” the rest of the year. Once all the smoke and mirrors are cleared away from the current impeachment circus, it becomes obvious that the potential for President Trump to appoint another Justice is what is really at stake, which is why the Ds are pushing so hard for a vote in the next two weeks.

RBG is clearly NOT going to be on the bench (or anywhere else on this earth) for much longer and if she is replaced with a judge who actually uses the Constitution as a basis for deciding cases, the Left is going to start losing all of the gains they have made in the last 50 years! They know this very well and need to have an ongoing investigation so as to deny the President the opportunity to nominate anyone to her seat when she does finally pass away.

[kingu]

The thing I don't understand is why would any city spend tens (and possibly even more) of millions of dollars on this? The entire concept that they'd have the ability to make you keep your private property within the city limits and not permit you to take it out of the city without an additional permit.

I'm contemplating actually reading the decisions in the cases to see what flawed logic allows the usurping of the takings clause, the entire ‘settled law’ concept of interstate commerce which is utterly discarded, etc, etc. There's a thousand reasons to toss NY’s law right out the door - how it made it through the appeals process to this point... That's going to make some fun reading.

[Da Coyote]

It is long past time that we will obey.

Guns will be here whether or not the Supreme Clowns want them or not.

Sorry libs, but you have exposed yourselves.

And we cannot unsee the ugliness.

[teeman8r]

The right of the people, to keep and bear arms...

[reformedliberal]

RBG is clearly NOT going to be on the bench (or anywhere else on this earth) for much longer
_________________________________________
I’m not so sure of that.

I know several elderly (84-95), some with major long-standing medical challenges, who just keep trucking. One survived an infected gall bladder and its removal in their early 90s. They are financially comfortable and can afford very good, consistent medical care.

RBG is wealthy and can afford the very top tier of medical interventions. I personally expect her to outlast POTUS’ 2nd term. Note she is not on 24/7 oxygen yet. One of those I referred to is, has been for 3 years and her underlying condition is progressive. The only visible symptom of RBG’s decline is she is very thin. She may be experiencing unintentional weight loss, which, while indicative of decline, is not, in itself, terminal.

The human body is incredibly resilient.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

Ping

[gibsonguy]

That’s ok, I don’t want THIS SC to take up wide ranging 2A case. We need another Justice. We do not have a conservative court. We 4 hard core libs, 3 conservatives and 2 swing votes.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

And a CCW is the same as a DL in that if you can carry in one state then you can carry in all states.