Supreme court punts New york case

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Punts on Gun Rights, Declares New York State Rifle & Pistol Case Moot - The Truth About Guns

In an effort to avoid an almost sure adverse ruling by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the city changed the underlying law. It was an obvious and nakedly cynical attempt to have the case declared moot and dodge a likely expansion of gun rights...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

In an effort to avoid an almost sure adverse ruling by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the city changed the underlying law. It was an obvious and nakedly cynical attempt to have the case declared moot and dodge a likely expansion of gun rights in the United States.

That gambit worked. In a ruling announced this morning, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has declared the case moot.



You can read the Court’s decision here.

 

[Doug_Nightmare]

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from today’s decision, in a 31-page opinion that was joined in full by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in large part by Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito was sharply critical of the decision to dismiss the case as moot, arguing that his colleagues were allowing “our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.”

First of all, Alito argued, the case is not moot: The gun owners had alleged that the Second Amendment gives them “unrestricted access” to gun ranges and vacation homes outside the city, “and the new laws do not give them that.” As a result, Alito reasoned, although the gun owners “got most” of what they wanted, they did not get all of it, “and that means that the case is not dead.” Moreover, Alito added, if the court were to conclude, as the gun owners “request and as I believe we should,” that the city’s transport ban violated the Second Amendment, the district court “on remand could (and probably should) award damages,” which would also be enough to stave off mootness.
[ ... ]
... Kavanaugh also indicated that he agreed with Alito’s “general analysis of Heller and” McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies fully to the states, and that he shares Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.” Kavanaugh posited that the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

Opinion analysis: Court sends New York Second Amendment case back to lower courts without ruling on the merits - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court sent a major Second Amendment case back to the lower courts today, ruling that the challenge to a New York City restriction on the transport of guns is “moot” – that is, no longer a live controversy – because the city changed the rule last year. But some of the court’s more conserv

www.scotusblog.com

 

[color of law]

You guys need to read the opinion. Yes, it was dismissed as moot to the old law being repealed, but there are other issues still alive on remand.

You need to read Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.

The fat lady is on stage, but she hasn't started to sing.

 

[OC for ME]

...Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.”

Well la-de-da..."some federal courts"?..."some state courts"? Another data point that SCOTUS and their rulings are worthless and weak...

The Sullivan act and its progeny remain in effect...in more places than NYC...

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

The fat lady is on stage, but she hasn't started to sing

And how many more years is it going to take to work it way through the courts again.

Denial of rights by process happens way to often in 2nd amendment cases.

 

[color of law]

...Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.”

Well la-de-da..."some federal courts"?..."some state courts"? Another data point that SCOTUS and their rulings are worthless and weak...

The Sullivan act and its progeny remain in effect...in more places than NYC...

Alito is talking about Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2012, basically upholding the Sullivan Act.

Until the SCOTUS starts upholding the peoples' rights, we ain't got a Chinaman's chance.

 

[solus]

and this comes as a surprise some based on the history of the USSC

 

[OC for ME]

Alito is talking about Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2012, basically upholding the Sullivan Act.

Until the SCOTUS starts upholding the peoples' rights, we ain't got a Chinaman's chance.

SCOTUS remains unconvinced that the 2A is not being respected...Heller was their chance to, once and for all time, to simply state the citizenry's RTKBA "shall not be infringed."

 

[color of law]

SCOTUS remains unconvinced that the 2A is not being respected...Heller was their chance to, once and for all time, to simply state the citizenry's RTKBA "shall not be infringed."

As long as the USSC keeps hanging their hat on "it's not absolute" we will be at the government's mercy. As long as there is a hair to split they will be splitting that hair. The idea that the test, "is the statute written narrowly enough to satisfy a compelling government interest without violating a right" to determine the government's authority to violate the citizen's rights, then it will be used to do just that, violate citizens' rights.

We (the government) can deny you the right to conceal carry because we (the government) allow you to open carry.

 

[JTHunter2]

Did anybody really expect the SC to hang NY out to dry?

 

[color of law]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

[JTHunter2]

"Shoot 'em all. Let God sort it out."

 

[color of law]

"Shoot 'em all. Let God sort it out."

That is against the rules, But here is a suggestion:

Or the long version: