For any FReepers interested ina deeper dive into this case, the following hot link will lead to much information and coverage
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.
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.
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.
The laws apply to the law abiding citizen, criminals can do what they dammed well please
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.
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.
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.
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.
#Black Guns Matter!!
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.
“...as a vehicle for expanding Second Amendment rights...”
Might you, more correctly, mean “as a vehicle for securing, yet again, Second Amendment rights” ????
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.
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.
How can there be any argument about the scope of the Second Amendment. The wording of the amendment is crystal clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringement is the placing of any obstacle in the way of a person owning (keeping) and carrying arms i.e. guns, knives,crowbars, broadswords, nuclear devices or anything else that can be deemed a weapon(arm as in armament). That means no laws, no regulations, no taxes and some et ceteras.
5 to 4
I just started reading through it, and it looks like Sotamayer is trying really hard to argue that the case is moot.