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

The Hill ^ | 12 01 2019 | John Kruzel

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

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.

[M-cubed]

#Black Guns Matter!!

[Gay State Conservative]

In 2016 SCOTUS overturned,by a 9-0 vote,a Massachusetts law that was a clear infringement of one's 2nd Amendment rights...a law that had been upheld as constitutional by the state's highest court,the "Supreme Judicial Court".

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.

[Future Snake Eater]

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!

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.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Exactly right.

[PubliusMM]

“...as a vehicle for expanding Second Amendment rights...”

Might you, more correctly, mean “as a vehicle for securing, yet again, Second Amendment rights” ????

[SecAmndmt]

Zero confidence that Judge Roberts takes the originalist position. The only one I trust on that would be Judge Thomas.

[SauronOfMordor]

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 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.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

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.

[justme4now]

Unfortunately the People have gotten soft or lazy or both and have allowed the courts to decide their fate!

It is not in our best interest to allow government ... which includes the congress as well as the courts, to decide our Rights for us!

As the following quote from Thomas Jefferson points out ... Liberty once gotten can be a difficult thing to keep!

I just don't believe that the People have the will or the stomach to fight as our founders had hoped that they would!

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

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two"?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

"It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356



The first sentence, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots." means that if liberty is to exist, there will forever be a struggle of free people with the forces of tyranny.

And that means that the continued existence of liberty will be nurtured by the results of that struggle, namely the blood of the tyrants and also of the patriots as they stand up to the tyrants.

It does not mean that the patriots are vicious or are terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

It only means that the patriots stand up for their rights and for their liberties, and this will frequently cause the tyrants to kill them.

[Enterprise]

The under story of this is that the City passed the ordinance. When it was challenged, the City changed the ordinance and tried to argue that the case was therefore moot, and should not be heard by the USSC.

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.

[ModelBreaker]

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.

[ModelBreaker]

“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?

[Lurkinanloomin]

To give the appearance of upholding the 2nd without knocking down any of the restrictions except the most egregious.

[Macoozie]

“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.

[Jim Noble]

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.

[Jim Noble]

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

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.

[Sparticus]

The under story of this is that the City passed the ordinance. When it was challenged, the City changed the ordinance and tried to argue that the case was therefore moot, and should not be heard by the USSC.

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.

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.

[Enterprise]

"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.

[IronJack]

The law also ignores the “bear” clause (bear claws ... get it?), which forbids the government from infringing upon the right to CARRY arms.