Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions

USATODAY | Dec. 1, 2019 | Richard Wolf

[PROCON]

Link only.

[Secret Agent Man]

I don’t trust Roberts to ever do the right thing.

Compromised blackmailed weak little fucher.

[higgmeister]

Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions

How can gun rights be expanded when the Second Amendment demands gun rights shall not be infringed?

[TMN78247]

One thing is CERTAIN. - Roberts is NO Constitutionalist.

Yours, TMN78247

[Brown Deer]

Cant see the article as it is behind a paywall.

There is no paywall at all!

[Openurmind]

“There is no paywall at all!”

That is true, must have been an assumption. But there are 24 hidden 3rd party trackers my blocker is stopping. But it still let me view and read the whole thing despite them being blocked. :)

[trebb]

???? They can mow down unconstitutional laws which will “expand” the rights of those living in oppressive States...

Besides, they also couldn’t institute ObamaCare by themselves but Roberts managed - now they have a chance to make a difference along the lines they are there for...

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yes the “right to bear arms” means the right to carry them around.

[Kickass Conservative]

You cannot expand a God Given Right unless a Tyrannical Government has attempted to take it away.

They are now admitting that we have Tyrannical Government at the State Level, something that we as Conservatives have known for decades.

Let me know when they finally admit the same Tyrannical label applies to the Federal Government.

[itsahoot]

They may and they may not.

[itsahoot]

SCOTUS needs to make absolutely clear “no you can’t do that, and y’all better not try it again - so let’s make this absolutely clear.”

You would have to believe that they want to, I don't. They could have made it clear the the Second Amendment was written to protect the citizen from the Government, not the other way around. I do not recall "Shall not be infringed, except........" do you?

[ctdonath2]

SCOTUS has an axiom of issuing the narrowest ruling possible, lest a broad verdict unduly disrupt way more than the large amount already considered ... leading to the narrow wording of _Heller_ and subsequent carry case (name escapes me). This case, per a law & enforcement that flagrantly ignored those verdicts, may very well require a sterner & broader statement better approaching “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”.

SCOTUS tries real hard to play nice with legislators, axiomatically assuming all legislation is passed in good faith. The growing Conservative wing of the Court is growing tired of stupid legal games.

I can hope.

[PROCON]

Here's a link analyzing today's oral arguments before the court.

Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule

[Phlyer]

oral arguments before the court.

Good link. Thank you.

One of the reasons for the Supreme Court to make a ruling is that the tactic of repealing a law that has been accepted for review takes advantage of the 'presumption' principle of law. It is "presumed" that a law passed by whatever government entity claims authority is legitimate until the courts rule otherwise. As a result, New York could pass exactly the same law again if the Supreme Court makes no ruling, and it would be in effect until the case made its way to the Supreme Court again. So it would be in effect 90% of the time, over and over again.

It is a way to legally harass gun owners with the intent of either making them criminals or providing so many excuses for harassment that the gun owners just give up. Every now and then, for a short time, the law would go away (leaving some ex-gun-owners in jail and/or guns confiscated until they win a separate action for relief). And as long as there is no Supreme Court decision - just a repealed law - those imprisoned or whose weapons were seized actually have no cause for a change. They were 'guilty' when they were charged/harassed and there was no decision that the law was intrinsically invalid.

And having a New York City lawyer with no continuing authority 'declare' that stopping for coffee or gas would be okay is no protection at all if the written law does not say the same thing. Any judge could declare something different.

Of course, I wish the Supreme Court would make a clear, unambiguous ruling that struck down all these sorts of harassment tactics, with prejudice against any in the future. But I'm not holding my breath.

[ModelBreaker]

Thanks

[mythenjoseph]

After reading the article , I hope they do take up the case and clarify that a rule of this sort can never be implemented.

[Still Thinking]

Uh, USAT, if some branch of government infringes on gun rights, or any other Constitutional rights, and SCOTUS slaps them down, that’s not ‘expanding’ rights. It’s protecting them from being diminished and violated! Duh.

[Reno89519]

Just because they rescinded this law doesn’t mean they’ve given citizens the right to bear arms without infringement. The court needs to clearly state this law was unconstitutional so it cannot be re-implemented tomorrow. Further, to fully clear anyone charged or restricted by the law.

[taxcontrol]

SCOTUS could create a simple response this case. Not a “ruling” but an advisory to state legislatures. In effect, state what level of scrutiny will be applied to future cases. I would recommend that ANY law which attempts to reduce a citizens rights should face “strict scrutiny”.

[Ancesthntr]

“In this case, SCOTUS likely recognizes that NYC repealed the law in question just to derail the case against it after years of advancing litigation - with reasonably presumable intention of re-instating said law once looming threat of SCOTUS review ends. Such bad-faith action needs be cut off. As precedent, recall SCOTUS ordering DC to end its practical gun ban, which was done - and then a new practical ban promptly enacted in clear bad-faith violation of the ruling. The law in question was so egregious that SCOTUS needs to make absolutely clear “no you can’t do that, and y’all better not try it again - so let’s make this absolutely clear.””

---

There’s that...and then there are several cases in our legal system’s history in which a pregnancy was at issue - and the case was decided AFTER the pregnancy was over. Why? Because the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the case in the first place were capable of being repeated - maybe with the same plaintiff or defendant, maybe with others. So the courts heard the cases (and, IMHO, properly so). That is certainly the case here, if NYC resurrects this law if the USSC rules the case moot, and similar restrictions are in existence right now in other states. The USSC has the opportunity to clarify how the “bear” part of the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted, and it shouldn’t forego that opportunity because NYC is trying to pull a legalistic fast one.