Supreme Court hears oral arguments in New York City Gun Case...

I didn't think it was going to go well for the anti gunners.

 

He said oral

 

Bet that thing called The Bill of Rights may get in the way?

 

let's hope so!

 

Wait... Is this the one where NYC changed the laws, basically reverse them allowing folks to carry their guns to the ranges and etc. and by doing so they nullified the case? They did this because they feared the court would not only rule in favor of the Plaintiff but would basically force them to stop a lot of other nonsense NYC is doing. The Liberal judges jump on this, Ginsberg stating there was no longer a case because plaintiffs were given everything they asked for...vote was 5-4 and case was dropped.

 

I may be missing some details here, but I believe Bandit99 is correct, the lower courts "advised" NYC that it was going to likely get run up the flag pole to SCOTUS and to reverse its stance before that happend!

 

The real trick here is to get SCOTUS to expand its view on the 2nd amd AFFIRM it in its totality so that it can be applied agaimst any/all other State Infringements!
I dont see it going that way, given SCOTUS past rulings only apply in a very narrow views but then, were talking the 2nd, amd not a couple of cake bakers!

Looks like the biggy is to have the court decide the city law still causes harm or potentially can still be used against lawful citizens! The mootness of the law is the question, amd it sounds like the city screwed up and the pro 2nd still has standing, getting the justices to agree there is still a risk of harm and still a standing is going to be big!

 

Strangely enough...I cannot find anything definitive about this case. I don't think there has been a ruling yet and what I thought to be a 5-4 was nothing more than what they 'THINK' will be the how the judges vote. I cannot find the article that I read...

Furthermore, all the anti-gun media (liberal media) are slanting it towards "There is no case or controversy because New York City has repealed the ordinance and the New York State Legislature has acted to make sure it remains repealed," (CNBC, NYTimes, LATimes, etc.) "But those moves failed to get the Supreme Court to dismiss the case."

"The Petitioners have gotten the relief that they sought," Ginsburg noted during Monday's arguments. Sotomayor told plaintiff's attorney Paul Clement that this was "a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and completely [given] you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for relief..."

Nevertheless, my guess is it will be dropped because the court can ONLY rule on existing laws and this is no longer a law. I think they dodge the bullet and they know it. I did find it interesting that some Democrats are so afraid of what will happen concerning this case that they have threaten to expand the Supreme Court!!! Can you imagine?!?!? Talk about a Julius Caesar move!

"It was to the backdrop of this case that Democratic senators issued their warning earlier this year.
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," said the brief, filed in August by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"

This kind of talk is scary....

Here's a few links which seemed to be better than most...

Supreme Court to take up first gun rights case in nearly a decade
Supreme Court hears gun control case that inspired court-packing threat from Dems
Roberts seems to hold key to case over New York City gun law

 

I guess where im putting my "Faith" is that SCOTUS is actually looking at this, instead of shipping it back to the Appellate court for a final ruling, which tells me there is more meat on the bone for this case, and still open for a decision!

 

Any more, that's a roll of the dice.

 

It will definitely be interesting to see what happens. A few judges did ask particulars concerning the case even though NYC repealed the law so it's not dead but as noted, Ginsberg and a couple of others are pushing the 'no law = no ruling' which I do not believe the conservative judges can get around... Hmm "get around"...now I am talking like a Democrat(s) trying to circumvent the law for their own use. LOL! Oh well, how many years have we had to put up with it when the court was stacked in their favor?

 

It all comes down to the facts that have been left out, those little details that we don't hear about!

1) If this law is MOOT, why is there still the risk of harm? Is the entire law moot or only parts of it?
2) how does this law continue to harm? what sort of unreasonable burden does it assume?
3) If it were moot, but still considered "Live" after repealed, why?
Me thinks the City/State snuck some stuff in that is now in question, after all, why take it to the SCOTUS unless there IS something worth taking up the courts time?

 

Well, it was on track to SCOTUS before it was repealed or nullified or whatever. Once in the pipeline, it has to be dealt with in some fashion. So it's dealt with, no longer in the pipe.

Regardless of party affiliation, "no ruling" is correct for the situation; the "law" doesn't exist. Unless another law or whatever is presented to the court ladder, the issue is dead. Just holding my breath to see what the next round of foolishness fighting the law of the land (2A) is going to look like, and whether it comes from NY or Calinorphia, or some other communistic enclave.

That's my take. Don't run with it, it'll trip someone.

 

I think the conservative SCOTUS judges don't want to go at the 2A issue piecemeal - they want an alllll ending court decision that specifically details the amendment for the last time ...
but they want to be sure of the vote - with Roberts it's a ????? - bring on a Ginsberg replacement and you have another vote and a great 2A Rights judge toooo boot ....

 

That old cow will hang on inspite of all those wanting to see her leave the bench.