The United States Supreme Court disappointed gun rights advocates across the nation when it failed to take up and rule on the New York City transportation case and instead said the point was moot. In legal terms that was technically correct, and it was what New York was hoping for by changing the rule themselves.
By getting the case declared moot with their rule amendment they avoided jeopardizing a whole swath of gun control laws on the books nationwide. Places like California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, and more all had various laws at risk depending on how hard SCOTUS banged the gavel down. New York was always going to lose that case, they knew it, that’s why they took such pains in changing the law and pushing for SCOTUS to dismiss the challenge and not rule on it. The egregious nature of New York City’s rule would have given SCOTUS a huge lever into gutting gun control in a way we hadn’t seen since Heller.
But New York got their wish and the case was dismissed as moot on the basis of NYC changing the offending rule already in a 6:3 vote. 4 Justices (IIRC) including one who did vote to dismiss went on record as having expressed a desire to have ruled on the case anyway despite the moot nature in New York’s case to set a national precedent and curb the encroachments that shifty legislatures using scare tactics, bought seats (*cough* Virginia *cough cough*), and under informed voters have managed to get through and place another firm line in the sand for what prudent and reasonable measures states and municipalities can and, more importantly, cannot enact.
Now, 10 different firearms related cases are on the current SCOTUS agenda. We could hear as soon as today that one will be taken up. With the comments that came out of the dismissal of the New York case it seems the court is eager, in part at least, to take some on that are against active laws.
I concur with the dissenting Justices that a ruling should still have been made and the gavel brought down hard on gun control, using New York as the vessel. But I can also appreciate the dual facts that we are in the middle of a lot of other things right now with a global viral fight going on and that it could appear to be legislating from the bench.
The Friday conference came just a few weeks after the Supreme Court broke its 10-year silence on guns in a case over a since-repealed New York City handgun regulation. The court avoided a substantial ruling in the case for technical reasons. Yet three of the court’s conservatives — Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — wrote they would have sided with the gun owners who were challenging the law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the court’s majority, but urged his colleagues to take up the issue again “soon,” noting that there were “several Second Amendment cases” in the pipeline. – CNBC
Not everyone is happy that the high court has four eager Justices that are too likely (in their minds) to land on the pro-gun side of the argument. And it only takes four to take the case on.
“There’s no question that there are a number of justices who are itching to take another gun case soon, and to almost certainly push for a vast expansion of the Second Amendment in a way that has never been countenanced in American history or law before,” said Jonathan Lowy, the chief counsel at the anti-gun violence group Brady.
We could just say anti-gun group Brady, violence has nothing to do with it.. And a ‘vast expansion’ is utter bullshit. Does Lowly not believe history existed prior to the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, or any other 20th century gun control measure? This isn’t an expansion, its a return of stolen ground that was lied for, cheated for, bought and paid and traded for in political poker. It was countenanced in 1791 there, Jonathan. Nobody tell this guy we’ve had privately owned warships before too, complete with equally privately owned cannon, I don’t think he can handle the strain.
The gun cases the court could take up involve a smattering of issues including whether individuals have a right to carry handguns outside the home for self defense and if states can ban assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.
Those two a crucial items we will hopefully see make the case cut. Whether arbitrary bans based on features, largely cosmetic, and capacity will fall and whether or not the bear part of ‘Keep and Bear Arms’ will receive further protections from SCOTUS.
Federal appeals courts have consistently upheld bans on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, according to the Duke Center for Firearms Law, though they have split on whether states can require individuals to show “good cause” to obtain a public carry permit. Most have said such regulations are permissible.
And many of those are stacked with anti-gun judges or others who are simply making their lives easier so that it gets kicked ‘above their pay-grade’ so to speak. The California demise of their magazine ban (temporarily and in flux) and their prohibitions against ammo purchases online and requiring an additional background check through a broken system are conveniently not mentioned by CNBC. California, everyone’s favorite gun control state where nothing bad ever happens and there are no murders or mass shootings ever, and if there are its the fault of Nevada and Arizona, got hit hard in the legislative teeth by Judge Roger Benitez.
We should know and see soon what SCOTUS picks up.
