Is it a good thing that the Supreme Court will hear a 2nd Amendment case involving handgun regulations in New York City, rather than dismissing it as city officials had asked? What’s the nature of this case and why is it believed to be important?
October 28, 2019 in News by RBN Staff
It’s excellent, regardless of your stance on the 2nd Amendment.
New York City is using power they don’t have to enact unconstitutional laws. No matter how you slice it, that’s wrong. They don’t have to the authority to enact the handgun laws they did.
Here’s the clever bit.
There’s a difference between regular court cases and Supreme Court cases. A normal court case, on a decided issue, rarely makes precedent. Nobody says “look at The State of Kentucky versus Bobby Rape Knuckles for precedent on the issue.”
Supreme court cases always set precedent, meaning that any further cases on the subject …
Let me get this part out of the way. I am and always have been a liberal. Up until quite recently was a registered Democrat. That is was because when I went to vote in a primary I was told I could not have a partisan ballot because I was no longer in the Party. I agree with probably 70 to 80% of the liberal platform planks.
On to the answer to the question. As to whether it is a good thing that the SCOTUS has kept the case alive or not is greatly depends on if the ruling is narrow or broad. It could be narrow and they could admonish NY for being bad and trying to avoid the case by changing t…
The thing about Supreme Court cases is that some rules never get made because nobody has really tried to violate them. For example, there isn’t much case law supporting the idea that state governments can’t violate the 3rd amendment, but that’s mostly because there haven’t been many cases of states doing anything that could get a 3rd amendment lawsuit brought against them to create such case law. Overall, that’s a good thing, because the 3rd amendment isn’t very controversial anyway, and it’s good that states aren’t trying to violate it, but it does mean that we really lack specific case la…
Is it a good thing that the Supreme Court will hear a 2nd Amendment case involving handgun regulations in New York City, rather than dismissing it as city officials had asked? What’s the nature of this case and why is it believed to be important?
I wrote this answer for a different question on a completely different site, but I believe it is appropriate here:
On Monday, December 2, the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York”. NYC tried to change its law to get this case taken off of the docket, but SCOTUS would not take…
It’s a very good thing, for reasons completely unrelated to the case itself.
New York City changed its gun laws, making it impossible for a gun owner to leave the house with their weapon under any circumstances other than going to one of seven approved gun ranges. A lawsuit was filed. The city kept the law in place as it fought through the appeals process, and then changed it when the second to last appeal was lost in an effort to prevent the case from reaching the Supreme Court.
No matter how you feel about guns, or the Second Amendment, you have to be glad that the Court decided not to let …
After @Joseph Troise wrote several factually incorrect comments under another answer, he blocked me and continued to violate bnbr under my comments.
This is very important. Totalitarian New York legislators are the worst kind of anti civil rights pukes. The passed a law that they knew was unconstitutional, but counted on leftist judges to uphold it. They passed a law that law abiding gun owners were prohibited from taking a firearm ANYWHERE other than one of 7 ranges. They held out hope until the last appeal paved the way for a SCOTUS smackdown, which they knew they would lose, so they tried…
New york is called the empire state. That means it likes to push people, and other states around.
The last statement from the court was that the motion to dismiss because the rule was changed meaning the case is moot will be considered December 2, so in theory the court could dismiss the case, however I feel it’s unlikely at this point.
The plaintiff in this case argued that even though NYC changed its rules, it could change them back at any time. Given NYC’S history of oppression and corruption this is completely possible.
There is a huge difference between NYC and the rest of the state. Ther…
Gun control advocates hate the idea of any gun control case reaching the Supreme Court, because the 2nd Amendment is explicit. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
Can’t tax it, regulate it, or restrict it IN ANY WAY…. at any level of government.
Any honest reading of the 2nd amendment says that there is no limit to what ARMS an individual may possess and keep upon their person or have available for use at any time.
ARMS means ANY weapon useful for war,from a pointy Stick to a fully armed and operational aircraft carrier with complete ready for war loading.
And all it takes is ONE case with the correct ru…
The case is an extension of a long term legal effort to enable more people to carry handguns.
This case is based on a challenge to some existing NYC law that prevented the transport of handguns to anywhere other than the owners primary residence or shooting range, and thus prevented owners from, for example, transporting a handgun to their vacation home, or to shooting competitions, etc.
The law itself was altered some time ago, those limitations no longer apply.
But the challenge still existed even though the law was changed, which is why some people thought the challenge should be dismissed …
