Gov is not longer relavent. Prepare for more of what happened last week.
Today is the day.. SCOTUS hearing the NY 2A case
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
RDN
.357 mag
New York polls receded the law to try and make the case moot before SCOTUS could hear the matter. Didn't work.
It just goes to show how these NY corrupted, under-handed hypocrite polls can arbitrarily, whimsically changes gun laws.
With no regards for the constitutional rights of gun owners and their right of self defense.
The one of the many reason I voted for Trump was the need to appoint pro 2nd Amend Justices like Gorsuch and Kavanauh
I hope my vote wasn't wasted.
It just goes to show how these NY corrupted, under-handed hypocrite polls can arbitrarily, whimsically changes gun laws.
With no regards for the constitutional rights of gun owners and their right of self defense.
The one of the many reason I voted for Trump was the need to appoint pro 2nd Amend Justices like Gorsuch and Kavanauh
I hope my vote wasn't wasted.
I always enjoy reading your comments for your insight, and I hope you are correct on the case not getting mooted.
But I am confused,- is there a transcript already available to read of this morning’s verbal arguments, or are you referring to having read Amy Howe’s blog, or other news articles?
If there is an actual transcript out there, can you provide a link?
RBean
.40 S&W
There is an entire transcript.
RBean
.40 S&W
Most of it is over mootness. You can tell the liberal judges want the case dismissed. But Alito asked the most pertinent questions re the new law requirement for "direct and uninterrupted" transport. Nobody discussed the most bizarre fact. How does the city of New York control what you do outside its' jurisdiction? If you don't do as they say, even if you are visiting your relatives in Arkansas, they can revoke your permit. It is the very discretion that makes all of Art 400 unconstitutional. The plaintiff's made an error in their pleadings when they failed to allege that Art. 400 itself is unconstitutional. I alway put this in all my complaints on gun cases involving pistols just in case it goes up on appeal.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?
JUSTICE ALITO: So you are conceding — I take it “doubtful” means that it would be unconstitutional. You can tell me if you — you — you don’t know the answer to that question. But, if it — if that’s what it means, you’re conceding that the Second Amendment protects the possession of a firearm outside the home under at least some circumstances?
MR. DEARING: I think what I’m conceding is that, in the case of a premises license, the Second Amendment has something to say about what effective possession in the home means. And sometimes that may mean that you need to be able to — that a license holder needs to be able to undertake certain activities outside the home.
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if the person is taking the firearm, the handgun, from the home to a firing range, the person is out on the streets of New York, and if — unless a total ban on taking it to a firing range would be consistent with the Second Amendment, it follows that the Second Amendment, under at least some circumstances, protects the possession of a handgun outside the home. Isn’t that correct?
MR. DEARING: I think — I think that’s a fair way to look at it, that — that — that — but — but, from our perspective, the right question regarding a premises license is, did the — did the rule impermissibly burden effective use of the handgun in the premises? In the same way that to get a gun to a premises, you have to get it somewhere outside — you know, purchase it somewhere outside your premises and bring it there, that certain things that happen outside the home may — may be integrally related to effective use of a handgun inside the home. But, when you look at a premises license, and not speaking about the Second Amendment at large or writ large, but the premises license specifically, the only proper lens to look at the question through is whether the restriction impinges on effective use of the handgun in the home.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
The Key Takeaways From The Transcripts Of SCOTUS Gun Case
bearingarms.com
The Key Takeaways From The Transcripts Of SCOTUS Gun Case
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule - SCOTUSblog
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a challenge to the constitutionality of a New York City rule that barred gun owners from taking their licensed guns outside the city. The gun owners argued that the rule violated their right to “keep and bear arms” under the Constitution’s Second
www.scotusblog.com
Posted Mon, December 2nd, 2019 1:53 pm by Amy Howe
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a challenge to the constitutionality of a New York City rule that barred gun owners from taking their licensed guns outside the city. The gun owners argued that the rule violated their right to “keep and bear arms” under the Constitution’s Second Amendment. But it’s not clear that the justices will reach the merits of the gun owners’ complaint. Instead, it seemed possible (although far from certain) that they could throw out the case because the dispute is now moot – that is, no longer a live controversy – after the city repealed the rule last summer.
Clement spent much of his time at the lectern fielding questions about whether the court should decide the Second Amendment question at all.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led the way, asking Clement what was left of his case, if his clients had already received everything they wanted. Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed Ginsburg’s concern. She told Clement that he was asking the justices to take a case “in which the other side has thrown in the towel” and “opine on a law that’s not on the books anymore.”
Clement maintained that there is still a live controversy for the justices to tackle because, if his clients had prevailed in the district court, they would have asked for a declaration that the transport ban was unconstitutional and an order that would not only bar the city from enforcing the ban in the future, but also would prohibit it from considering past violations of the ban in future licensing decision
maverick52
.223 Rem
I have little confidence in Roberts to do the right thing. His track record has proven as much.
Jaywmustang
.308 Win
A pillow
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
why were the mom bitches chanting NRA .. when this was NYSRPA case LMAO .,..
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
You guys didn't read the 2A or what? .....the right to bear arms "ONLY AT HOME"... yada yada yada!
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
They said Ruth was jumping on a trampolin while hearing the case. lol
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Now you guys see why I say what I say about SCOTUS? They are corrupt. It doesn’t matter who gets in there. The so-called Constitutional conservatives that are in there are worse than the traitor liberals. They are Quislings conspiring with those who wish to gut the 2A.
It doesn’t take a lawyer or a judge to see that the Sullivan law and Penal Law 400 is unconstitutional. We’ve all been saying that. They know it is as well. Only a fool would think that it is what the Founders intended.
It doesn’t take a lawyer or a judge to see that the Sullivan law and Penal Law 400 is unconstitutional. We’ve all been saying that. They know it is as well. Only a fool would think that it is what the Founders intended.
Last edited:
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Because Roberts is suspect on 2A My thinking is instead of giving us what we desire and should have ,,,, We will get just a taste of the bone instead of the whole bone .... Just to have him side with us a little .. A few years ago I read that the deep state had information on Roberts that could destroy his life . ... and career .... Who knows ... but what power that could be ... if true. To be able to jerk his chain on important cases ....
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
5 Senators Threaten the Supreme Court - The DENISE SIMON EXPERIENCE
In a case where the National Rifle Association is suing the City of New York, 5 U.S. Senators decide to put their signatures to a letter to the Supreme Court telling the entire panel of judges they are not well and have become too political. In what is know in legal terms as an Amicus […]
founderscode.com
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
One of the best questions in our favor ..
| JUSTICE GORSUCH: So we have no representations to us as to what is -- is ‘direct and continuous,’ other than coffee is okay. |
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Think this is always in the back of their mind ...The threats the Court received from Senate Democrats to rule in a politically acceptable manner else they will pack the court..?5 Senators Threaten the Supreme Court - The DENISE SIMON EXPERIENCE
In a case where the National Rifle Association is suing the City of New York, 5 U.S. Senators decide to put their signatures to a letter to the Supreme Court telling the entire panel of judges they are not well and have become too political. In what is know in legal terms as an Amicus […]founderscode.com
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I think that works in our favor. The Supremes tend not to react well to threats.
I don't think we need to get too wrapped up in how the oral arguments were conducted. 2 of the justices on our side - Kavanaugh and Thomas - didn't feel the need to ask any questions. A lot of what they consider in their decision is the written briefs.
I fail to understand how "premise permits" is anything other than in infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
There is nothing in 2A to indicate that possession of a firearm is restricted to one's home. In fact, "keep and bear" would imply that possession should be on the individual, rather than in a structure. "Bear" being defined as "carrying".
Mr. Dearing's argument is like focusing on a leaf while the entire tree is dying of drought.
One should never have to ask the very same Government, that is prevented from imposing restrictions to a Right, for permission to exercise that Right. The entire concept is ludicrous.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
CNBC
Supreme Court shows little appetite for expanding gun rights in arguments over repealed New York regulation
Key Points
Supreme Court shows little appetite for expanding gun rights in arguments over repealed New York regulation
Key Points
- The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to deliver a major win for gun-rights activists during arguments in the first significant Second Amendment case the justices had heard in nearly a decade.
- Some of the court's conservatives, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, seemed eager to use the case to address the reach of the Second Amendment.
- But it appeared likely that Chief Justice John Roberts would side with the court's liberals to dismiss the matter altogether as moot.
Supreme Court shows little appetite for expanding gun rights in arguments over repealed New York regulation
It was the first significant gun-rights case the Supreme Court had heard in nearly a decade.
www.cnbc.com
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
They are driving home the point that Trump needs to go before RBG dies
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
But RBG doesn't care about the intention. To her it's a living document and must be recognized in light of current times.
It's much quicker and easier for them to legislate from the bench instead of congress going for constitutional amendments, as it should.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
If you make a case to broad the Supreme Court ignores it. When you ask for a specific request and the state fucks with you for 5-8 years its ok for them to change the law when they loose and walk away. Dodging decisions have been addressed before and was not allowed in other cases so why now? What idiot doesn't add damages like legal fees to their complaint?
Last edited:
RBean
.40 S&W
Like I said, in a gun case in NY involving pistols, you should alway put in a count claiming Art. 400 is unconstitutional. You never know when you might have an opportunity to make that argument to a court that might actually listen and follow the constitution.
Tom's absolutely right. There were pathetically few 2nd Amendment supporters out there showing support.
...and we wonder why we no longer wield the political power we as a group once did.
Those who expect a home run better reserve themselves to a ground rule double , if that.
...and we wonder why we no longer wield the political power we as a group once did.
Those who expect a home run better reserve themselves to a ground rule double , if that.
Probably because they are all at work?