Supreme Court agrees to hear gun right case

[bigrebnc1775]

New York has repealed the law

What exactly is the court going to rule on?

keeping it from happening again.

in NYC, and other areas

The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over hypotheticals. As the law is no longer in effect, there is no longer an actual case or controversy. This is not the field of this battle. There are plenty of states and cities that have highly restrictive regulations. Pick any one of them and instigate a pro forma case.

They will hear the case to prevent New York City from having this ordinance again. Hell, they may even rule any law restricting or INFRINGING on citizens right to be arms shall be illegal.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They will hear the case to prevent New York City from having this ordinance again. Hell, they may even rule any law restricting or INFRINGING on citizens right to be arms shall be illegal.

At the very least, that any law infringing this right must meet the “Strict Scrutiny” standard, as is applied to any laws impacting any of the other explicitly-enumerated Constitutional rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They will hear the case to prevent New York City from having this ordinance again. Hell, they may even rule any law restricting or INFRINGING on citizens right to be arms shall be illegal.

At the very least, that any law infringing this right must meet the “Strict Scrutiny” standard, as is applied to any laws impacting any of the other explicitly-enumerated Constitutional rights.

Firearm restrictions are a violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This just in Supreme Court took the case and listen to oral arguments
Justices fire warning shots at Supreme Court hearing on gun rights

 

[M14 Shooter]

This just in Supreme Court took the case and listen to oral arguments
Justices fire warning shots at Supreme Court hearing on gun rights

I really don't see how this will be ruled anything but moot, but you never know.
if the 5 conservative justices - do - take on the case, it demonstrates a mindset that should terrify the anti-gun loons.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This just in Supreme Court took the case and listen to oral arguments
Justices fire warning shots at Supreme Court hearing on gun rights

I think it is very notable that the Justices that are quoted in this article as indicating that they'd like to dismiss this case as “moot” are the ones that are not going to like the ruling that the Court will have no honest, rational choice but to make, if it does take this case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They will hear the case to prevent New York City from having this ordinance again. Hell, they may even rule any law restricting or INFRINGING on citizens right to be arms shall be illegal.

At the very least, that any law infringing this right must meet the “Strict Scrutiny” standard, as is applied to any laws impacting any of the other explicitly-enumerated Constitutional rights.

Firearm restrictions are a violation of the 14th amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This just in Supreme Court took the case and listen to oral arguments
Justices fire warning shots at Supreme Court hearing on gun rights

I really don't see how this will be ruled anything but moot, but you never know.
if the 5 conservative justices - do - take on the case, it demonstrates a mindset that should terrify the anti-gun loons.

New York City’s lawyer stuck firm to his position that any issues are for another case about the new law and any future violations. He continually assured the justices that there would be no consequences for gun owners as a result of the past city rules and that in the future any “reasonably necessary” stops would not constitute a violation of new laws.

“Is a cup of coffee reasonably necessary,” Gorsuch asked him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This just in Supreme Court took the case and listen to oral arguments
Justices fire warning shots at Supreme Court hearing on gun rights

I think it is very notable that the Justices that are quoted in this article as indicating that they'd like to dismiss this case as “moot” are the ones that are not going to like the ruling that the Court will have no honest, rational choice but to make, if it does take this case.

Only justice Samuel Alito clearly considered the controversy ripe for decision, insisting that it is “unfair” to the gun group to decide the case is moot. He pushed New York City’s counsel to discuss the Second Amendment and then injected a hypothetical situation for contemplation, asking whether a gun owner from the city could now stop at their mother’s house and help out with chores for an hour or whether this would violate the law.