Supreme Court agrees to hear gun right case

[Flash]

You stupid hateful anti Liberty Moon Bats are going to get screwed big time over this case.

The Court is going to rule on strict scrutiny (the real issue), which has always been lacking with the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That will mean that a lot of the filthy ass gun laws that the commie states have adopted will be thrown out.

This case will be bigger than Heller. With Kennedy gone there won't have to be a watering down compromise on the RKABA like we had with the Heller case. The Conservatives on the Court wouldn't have taken the case if they were not ready to rule on strict scrutiny.


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


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

The court on Monday will hear a challenge to an obscure New York City rule that set such rigid restrictions on transporting legally owned guns that it was repealed in July.

But it turns out that wasn't what they really wanted. Backed by the National Rifle Association and the Trump administration, the challengers to New York's abandoned restrictions are hoping the high court refuses to declare the case moot. That would give them a chance to win the biggest Second Amendment victory since landmark rulings a decade ago affirmed the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Faced with a defunct ban on transporting guns outside city limits, the increasingly conservative court majority could render a decision making clear what some justices believe: that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, and that lower courts should view state and local limits on carrying guns in public with skepticism.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You stupid hateful anti Liberty Moon Bats are going to get screwed big time over this case.

The Court is going to rule on strict scrutiny (the real issue), which has always been lacking with the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That will mean that a lot of the filthy ass gun laws that the commie states have adopted will be thrown out.

This case will be bigger than Heller. With Kennedy gone there won't have to be a watering down compromise on the RKABA like we had with the Heller case. The Conservatives on the Court wouldn't have taken the case if they were not ready to rule on strict scrutiny.


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


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

The court on Monday will hear a challenge to an obscure New York City rule that set such rigid restrictions on transporting legally owned guns that it was repealed in July.

But it turns out that wasn't what they really wanted. Backed by the National Rifle Association and the Trump administration, the challengers to New York's abandoned restrictions are hoping the high court refuses to declare the case moot. That would give them a chance to win the biggest Second Amendment victory since landmark rulings a decade ago affirmed the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Faced with a defunct ban on transporting guns outside city limits, the increasingly conservative court majority could render a decision making clear what some justices believe: that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, and that lower courts should view state and local limits on carrying guns in public with skepticism.

You're a bit premature--The court has NOT yet agreed to hear the case..and it might not:

Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court


The Supreme Court’s first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade may not end up changing anything, judging from questioning at arguments on Monday that focused largely on whether the repeal of a New York City law made the case challenging it moot.
“What’s left of this case?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “The petitioners have gotten all of the relief they sought.”

The other three members of the court’s liberal wing made similar points. “The other side has thrown in the towel,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told a lawyer for the challengers.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a member of the court’s conservative majority, asked questions that seemed aimed at making sure that the case was truly moot. But two other conservatives, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, seemed ready to decide the case, saying that the repeal of the law did not settle every question before the court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh asked no questions.
The law had limited city residents who had “premises licenses” from transporting their guns outside their homes. It allowed them to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits, but it barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from any ammunition.
Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster.
After the Supreme Court granted review, the city repealed its law, apparently fearful of a loss that could sweep away other gun-control regulations, too. For good measure, New York State enacted a law allowing people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not.
Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the challengers in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, said the restrictions imposed by the ordinance were at odds with the Second Amendment.
Richard P. Dearing, a lawyer for the city, responded that the ordinance was no longer on the books, meaning that there was nothing left for the court to decide.

 

[rightwinger]

New York has repealed the law

What exactly is the court going to rule on?

 

[bendog]

Conservatives don't look for cases and controversies.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

 

[Flash]

You stupid hateful anti Liberty Moon Bats are going to get screwed big time over this case.

The Court is going to rule on strict scrutiny (the real issue), which has always been lacking with the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That will mean that a lot of the filthy ass gun laws that the commie states have adopted will be thrown out.

This case will be bigger than Heller. With Kennedy gone there won't have to be a watering down compromise on the RKABA like we had with the Heller case. The Conservatives on the Court wouldn't have taken the case if they were not ready to rule on strict scrutiny.


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


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

The court on Monday will hear a challenge to an obscure New York City rule that set such rigid restrictions on transporting legally owned guns that it was repealed in July.

But it turns out that wasn't what they really wanted. Backed by the National Rifle Association and the Trump administration, the challengers to New York's abandoned restrictions are hoping the high court refuses to declare the case moot. That would give them a chance to win the biggest Second Amendment victory since landmark rulings a decade ago affirmed the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Faced with a defunct ban on transporting guns outside city limits, the increasingly conservative court majority could render a decision making clear what some justices believe: that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, and that lower courts should view state and local limits on carrying guns in public with skepticism.

You're a bit premature--The court has NOT yet agreed to hear the case..and it might not:

Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court


The Supreme Court’s first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade may not end up changing anything, judging from questioning at arguments on Monday that focused largely on whether the repeal of a New York City law made the case challenging it moot.
“What’s left of this case?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “The petitioners have gotten all of the relief they sought.”

The other three members of the court’s liberal wing made similar points. “The other side has thrown in the towel,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told a lawyer for the challengers.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a member of the court’s conservative majority, asked questions that seemed aimed at making sure that the case was truly moot. But two other conservatives, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, seemed ready to decide the case, saying that the repeal of the law did not settle every question before the court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh asked no questions.
The law had limited city residents who had “premises licenses” from transporting their guns outside their homes. It allowed them to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits, but it barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from any ammunition.
Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster.
After the Supreme Court granted review, the city repealed its law, apparently fearful of a loss that could sweep away other gun-control regulations, too. For good measure, New York State enacted a law allowing people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not.
Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the challengers in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, said the restrictions imposed by the ordinance were at odds with the Second Amendment.
Richard P. Dearing, a lawyer for the city, responded that the ordinance was no longer on the books, meaning that there was nothing left for the court to decide.

We knew the Liberal assholes we going to argue that the case was moot. That is why NY dropped the law, so they could argue that point instead of the merits of strict scrutiny. They are sacred shitless of a ruling on strict scrutiny. Of course the Liberal assholes on the court like Sotomoyor would agree with them

The Supremes were not going to take the case if then they were going to agree with the moot argument. They would just be wasting their time and they are not known for doing that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're a bit premature--The court has NOT yet agreed to hear the case..and it might not:

The questions and comments you cited were asked -during- the hearing of the case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We knew the Liberal assholes we going to argue that the case was moot. That is why NY dropped the law, so they could argue that point instead of the merits of strict scrutiny. They are sacred shitless of a ruling on strict scrutiny. Of course the Liberal assholes on the court like Sotomoyor would agree with them

The Supremes were not going to take the case if then they were going to agree with the moot argument. They would just be wasting their time and they are not known for doing that.

Liberals assume conservatives will use the court to advance their agenda, because that's what THEY do.

 

[Flash]

We knew the Liberal assholes we going to argue that the case was moot. That is why NY dropped the law, so they could argue that point instead of the merits of strict scrutiny. They are sacred shitless of a ruling on strict scrutiny. Of course the Liberal assholes on the court like Sotomoyor would agree with them

The Supremes were not going to take the case if then they were going to agree with the moot argument. They would just be wasting their time and they are not known for doing that.

Liberals assume conservatives will use the court to advance their agenda, because that's what THEY do.

Roberts asked Dearing "whether gun owners would face any consequences, such as the ability to qualify for a license to keep a gun in their homes under the new law, for past violations of the transport ban".

The Libtards are jumping on that as an indication that Roberts will side with the filthy Liberals and judge the case to be moot.

Roberts is a Bush appointee and has disappointed the American people several times by siding with the Liberal filth.

However, as the Chief Justice why would he agree to hear the case if he was going to turn around and just decide that the case was moot? It doesn't make sense.

The Court doesn't have to have a ruling on the concept of being moot or not. That is not what they should be wasting their time on. If so the Court is really fucked up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We knew the Liberal assholes we going to argue that the case was moot. That is why NY dropped the law, so they could argue that point instead of the merits of strict scrutiny. They are sacred shitless of a ruling on strict scrutiny. Of course the Liberal assholes on the court like Sotomoyor would agree with them

The Supremes were not going to take the case if then they were going to agree with the moot argument. They would just be wasting their time and they are not known for doing that.

Liberals assume conservatives will use the court to advance their agenda, because that's what THEY do.

Roberts asked Dearing "whether gun owners would face any consequences, such as the ability to qualify for a license to keep a gun in their homes under the new law, for past violations of the transport ban".

The Libtards are jumping on that as an indication that Roberts will side with the filthy Liberals and judge the case to be moot.

Liberals are know for grasping at straws, and fail to realize that their prognostications mean nothing.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You're a bit premature--The court has NOT yet agreed to hear the case..and it might not:

The questions and comments you cited were asked -during- the hearing of the case.

Yup..my bad...they've not yet decided if the case is moot...which would, indeed, be a ruling. Albeit not a definitive one.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

We knew the Liberal assholes we going to argue that the case was moot. That is why NY dropped the law, so they could argue that point instead of the merits of strict scrutiny. They are sacred shitless of a ruling on strict scrutiny. Of course the Liberal assholes on the court like Sotomoyor would agree with them

The Supremes were not going to take the case if then they were going to agree with the moot argument. They would just be wasting their time and they are not known for doing that.

Liberals assume conservatives will use the court to advance their agenda, because that's what THEY do.

ROTFLMAO!
Indeed..that's what both sides do..constantly. The OP here is a case in point.

The SCOTUS will do..what they do..trying to predict the Justices is a true crap-shoot.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

We knew the Liberal assholes we going to argue that the case was moot. That is why NY dropped the law, so they could argue that point instead of the merits of strict scrutiny. They are sacred shitless of a ruling on strict scrutiny. Of course the Liberal assholes on the court like Sotomoyor would agree with them

The Supremes were not going to take the case if then they were going to agree with the moot argument. They would just be wasting their time and they are not known for doing that.

Liberals assume conservatives will use the court to advance their agenda, because that's what THEY do.

Roberts asked Dearing "whether gun owners would face any consequences, such as the ability to qualify for a license to keep a gun in their homes under the new law, for past violations of the transport ban".

The Libtards are jumping on that as an indication that Roberts will side with the filthy Liberals and judge the case to be moot.

Liberals are know for grasping at straws, and fail to realize that their prognostications mean nothing.

Again..ditto the Conservatives--they also grasp at straws..and fail to realize their prognostications also mean nothing!

 

[Flash]

You're a bit premature--The court has NOT yet agreed to hear the case..and it might not:

The questions and comments you cited were asked -during- the hearing of the case.

Yup..my bad...they've not yet decided if the case is moot...which would, indeed, be a ruling. Albeit not a definitive one.

I remember a legal expert once saying that you can never really tell how a case is going by the questions asked in the oral arguments. If you try to do it half the time you will be right and half the time you will be wrong.

I can't believe that Roberts would be willing to hear the case but then turn around and rule that it was moot. That doesn't make sense. The question of moot or not is not a compelling legal precedent issue to be resolved by the Court.

I think they took the case to determine the issue of strict scrutiny for gun rights. Unless Roberts got cold feet and is planning on screwing us again by siding with the Liberal filth.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You're a bit premature--The court has NOT yet agreed to hear the case..and it might not:

The questions and comments you cited were asked -during- the hearing of the case.

Yup..my bad...they've not yet decided if the case is moot...which would, indeed, be a ruling. Albeit not a definitive one.

I remember a legal expert once saying that you can never really tell how a case is going by the questions asked in the oral arguments. If you try to do it half the time you will be right and half the time you will be wrong.

I can't believe that Roberts would be willing to hear the case but then turn around and rule that it was moot. That doesn't make sense. The question of moot or not is not a compelling legal precedent issue to be resolved by the Court.

I think they took the case to determine the issue of strict scrutiny for gun rights. Unless Roberts got cold feet and is planning on screwing us again by siding with the Liberal filth.

The court has a historical antipathy towards making sweeping changes in law and precedent. I expect them to kick the can down the road with a 'Moot' ruling...just because it is the easiest. Honestly, I live in Idaho..and my right to bear arms..is not infringed upon...here---other places don't really concern me..except intellectually.

 

[Flash]

New York has repealed the law

What exactly is the court going to rule on?

You dumb fuck. You have a degree from "Google University" so go look up Voluntary Cessation.

Voluntary cessation doctrine requires you admit what you did was wrong, the city has never done so, so they've never qualified for that relief.

 

[Flash]

You're a bit premature--The court has NOT yet agreed to hear the case..and it might not:

The questions and comments you cited were asked -during- the hearing of the case.

Yup..my bad...they've not yet decided if the case is moot...which would, indeed, be a ruling. Albeit not a definitive one.

I remember a legal expert once saying that you can never really tell how a case is going by the questions asked in the oral arguments. If you try to do it half the time you will be right and half the time you will be wrong.

I can't believe that Roberts would be willing to hear the case but then turn around and rule that it was moot. That doesn't make sense. The question of moot or not is not a compelling legal precedent issue to be resolved by the Court.

I think they took the case to determine the issue of strict scrutiny for gun rights. Unless Roberts got cold feet and is planning on screwing us again by siding with the Liberal filth.

The court has a historical antipathy towards making sweeping changes in law and precedent. I expect them to kick the can down the road with a 'Moot' ruling...just because it is the easiest. Honestly, I live in Idaho..and my right to bear arms..is not infringed upon...here---other places don't really concern me..except intellectually.

The Court agreed to review this case for one of two reasons.

1. To determine if strict scrutiny applies to the right to keep and bear arms.

2. To decide if the State (NY) can held to the same standard as Local government when it comes to Voluntary Cessation. In the past VC has only been ruled on the Local level.

We will see.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Supreme Court’s first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade may not end up changing anything, judging from questioning at arguments on Monday that focused largely on whether the repeal of a New York City law made the case challenging it moot.
“What’s left of this case?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “The petitioners have gotten all of the relief they sought.”

New York has repealed the law
What exactly is the court going to rule on?

I think the answer is found later in this very article…

After the Supreme Court granted review, the city repealed its law, apparently fearful of a loss that could sweep away other gun-control regulations, too. For good measure, New York State enacted a law allowing people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not.​

They only repealed the law in question, because they knew damn well that it was blatantly illegal and unconstitutional in the first place, and they wanted to avoid giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule on the important issues that it raised. That, clearly, is cheating.

The law had limited city residents who had “premises licenses” from transporting their guns outside their homes. It allowed them to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits, but it barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from any ammunition.

Even without the Constitutional issue, that would have had to be thrown out. The "Safe passage" provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 explicitly allows the transport of firearms in that manner, anywhere in the country, even through places that have laws against possession of those firearms. It is flatly illegal, under this law, for any jurisdiction to prohibit transport of firearms into, out of, or through their jurisdiction under those condition. The responsible parties in New York City's government have to have known that they were acting illegally, when they enacted that law.

 

[rightwinger]

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

If it happens again.......then you file a suit

 

[Auld Phart]

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

If it happens again.......then you file a suit

if it happens again, no need for a suit.

Legal ruling already in place.