‘Cautious Optimism’ After SCOTUS Hears Arguments In NY Gun Control Case

No Pardon for Partisan Hypocrisy
‘Cautious Optimism’ After SCOTUS Hears Arguments In NY Gun Control Case

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today expressed high hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will “step up to the plate” and expand further on the right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment in the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.

SAF Board member and syndicated broadcaster Tom Gresham was in the audience and he noted afterwards, “This may be the case that indicates whether the court considers the Second Amendment to be a legitimate right on the same level as the First Amendment.”

Gresham suggested that if the high court decides to reject the case, it will do so shortly. However, if the Court decides to rule in the case, that decision could be as far away as June, on the final day of the current session. The case is a challenge of a now-changed city regulation that forbade handgun owners from taking their guns outside the city limits.

“It has been ten years since the Supreme Court took a Second Amendment case, and this one could have far-reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The last time the court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, our landmark victory that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

“We’re hopeful the High Court sees through New York’s attempt to moot this case by changing the law,” he continued. “The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it. That maneuver suggests the city knew all along its restriction would not pass constitutional muster, but only changed the law in an effort to prevent a court ruling that smacked it down.

“We will be watching this case closely,” Gottlieb said. “The City of New York, and any other government body for that matter, should not be allowed to trample on a constitutional right and then change a law at the last minute to avoid being penalized for their demagoguery.”

The case is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280.


Second Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

43
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
12 Comment threads
31 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
Will FlattUSAWilljamesDoszap Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
james
Member
james

Ruling necessary, otherwise the Court is taking the word of some guy smiling at them, saying what they want to hear. W/O case precedent the law can be passed again and again.
You can’t take their word for it.

Doszap
Member
Doszap

BELIEVE it. C J Roberts will screw this up!, when the SCOTUS doesn’t even adhere to the Amendments and the Constitution, you know the nation will fold and we are looking at a huge war,even if they do rule 2A way, the states are taking the Const and SHREDDING it.(This is why the deep state had Scalia offed) his cremation was so fast it was UNREAL and no REAL M E ever got a chance to rule on the true cause of death),and the Family would not even discuss it. SWEPT ALL OF IT UNDER A RUG. Somethings GOTTA give,… Read more »

Will
Member
Will

@Doszap,because of Roberts we are still in the minority on the SCt. He’s a useless SOB and traitor.

StWayne
Member
StWayne

Everyone, including the left, knows that trying to dismiss and or subvert the 2A is unconstitutional. And yet, they do it because it has for them become a religion. How does one ban, what they worship? Everyone, including you, or anyone who has ever faced an evil of this magnitude, knows the answer, and it’s: there must first come a time when a tipping is reached, before the majority react to it. It was this way during The Revolution (1175 -1783.) The War of 1812 (1812 – 1815.) The Mexican-American War (1864 – 1848.) The Civil War (1861 – 1865.)… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

Another good analysis at TTAG | Detailed Analysis of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Supreme Court Arguments: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/detailed-analysis-of-new-york-state-rifle-pistol-assn-supreme-court-arguments/

USA
Member
USA

When do we stop fighting each rule individually thus keeping the tyranny alive by failure to address the issue as a whole? Akin to going to the barber every day to get a single hair cut one at a time. The globalist courts are doing a fine job keeping Americans under the thumb one case at a time while padding their pocket books. Americans will never win playing whack a mole. They create these rules every day to fleece your country and your pocket book. America wins a case and the next day gets 20 more rules. It aint rocket… Read more »

Bubba
Member
Bubba

Very well put.
AAR should do a show on this exact content.
Long live our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

USA
Member
USA

Bubba, Dreams are nice. Thanks for such a nice comment recognizing the truth for what it is.

Americans should take a lesson from Einstein.

“Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.”
http://www.news.hypercrit.net/2012/11/13/einstein-on-misattribution-i-probably-didnt-say-that/

Ammoland
Admin

For any readers who are interesed : SCOTUS Blog Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

If the S.Ct lets NYC oppress people with an unconstitutional ordinance, and then skate out of the consequences by repealing the ordinance, when the S. Ct. takes the case, then the S. Ct. will have put their stamp of approval on that technique.
Cities, counties, states, and even the fed. gov’t can have their way for years; do a quick repeal; and later, when the S. Ct. dumps the case for mootness, re-pass the ordinance or statute.
The S. Ct just can not let legislatures out maneuver them.

USA
Member
USA

WB, And, the USSC can not allow every jurisdiction in America to interpret the Bill of Rights differently because this jurisdiction to jurisdiction “interpretation” has and will always undermine the intent of the law known as 2A. This is why enforcement of Marbury v Madison is imperative otherwise Americans will remain in the position of being fleeced by the courts and Attorneys forever. We call this tyranny and it is un-constitutional.
Restore the Republic with Marbury v Madison or have a civil war which one is the smarter remedy.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@USA, Also true.

Jim
Member
Jim

WHAT IS REALLY SAD is this will be split on political 5-4 political dogma rather than the liberal justices seeing and supporting the obvious Constitutional rights involved. I wish Ginsberg would just go and die–the only reason she struggles to stay in is her demented hope a Democrat wins the next Presidential election. Even at this elevated level liberals are evil and dangerous to our freedoms.

Will Flatt
Member

Professor and author Hans-Hermann Hoppe says it best; “There can be no tolerance toward Democrats and communists in a libertarian social order”!!

Leftists are EVIL AS F#*K and they ALL must be PHYSICALLY REMOVED!! “Men will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last communist”.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@WF, Sounds like a lot of work. Can’t we just shoot em.

USA
Member
USA

WB, Like Rats.

Will Flatt
Member

@WB, Shoot’em, shove them outta flying helos, toss ’em feet first into the wood chipper (for all the pedocrats), whatever gives you joy!

Bowserb46
Member
Bowserb46

I’m a member of SAF. We all should be. While NRA has been a loudmouth bragging about their “accomplishments” (often stepping in after someone else has done all the work), SAF quietly uses the court system to get laws changed. That costs money. SAF money works for us. It doesn’t buy lake houses, expensive suits, and private jet flights for its CEO. I’ve moved all my former NRA donations to SAF, GOA, and TSRA.

Vince
Member
Vince

I might be wrong but I believe the Ninth Amendment is also in play here since they tried to circumvent the 2A.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Vince, how do you figure?

Will
Member
Will

The country needs Justice John Roberts off the SC just as much as Ginsburg.

Ej harbet
Member
Ej harbet

One more thing we can thank shrub for. I voted for the puke because puke beats turds gore and kerry. But id been happier with a constitutional libertarian

Terry
Member
Terry

Yeah – what an FN disappointment he turned out to be.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Gentlemen, I think Byer, Kagen, and Sotomayor, in age order, and … desirability of disappearance, just after Ruth Battered Geriatric.

Will
Member
Will

It would be so easy for Ginsburg. Just look down and follow the fire,follow the fire !

USA
Member
USA

Will, She could follow her nose to the smell of sulfur.

Will
Member
Will

LMFAO !!!

USA
Member
USA

WB, Were betting in the alley who goes first Ruth or Roberts. Roberts could beat her because he illegally signed my Fisa warrants against Trump which is treason. Either way it’s bound to be a double whammy and with luck a boomerang trifecta.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

A good summary of what was argued today: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/argument-analysis-justices-focus-on-mootness-in-challenge-to-now-repealed-new-york-city-gun-rule/ It was quite obvious that this case is in a rather odd situation. While the originally challenged law was changed somewhat solely for the purpose of making this case moot, the answers of the NYC representation were rather unconvincing and actually contradicted earlier statements made in the District Court. It would be unprecedented for SCOTUS to declare this case moot, just because the challenged law was changed somewhat after SCOTUS had decided to take the case. Now, what should SCOTUS actually rule on? The original law that was changed? The new… Read more »

Autsin Miller III
Member
Autsin Miller III

I hope you are right and it isn’t declared moot but what I heard on NPR (Consider the source) from Ginsburg and Sotomayor sounded like they felt it was.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

Never take the questions by the justices as an indication on how they end up ruling as a group. Both sides of the argument had to be evaluated by the justices. Both sides needed to be asked hard questions. Read the article on SCOTUSblog, I posted, which provides and overview of all the arguments, including the questions by Ginsburg and Sotomayor. In fact, the questions by both showed that even the changed law is challengeable, as “the new scheme only allows continuous and uninterrupted travel outside the city, which means that gun owners can’t make stops for coffee or to… Read more »

Autsin Miller III
Member
Autsin Miller III

Thanks, I will read the info you provided and I agree regarding the left leaning media.

USA
Member
USA

Autsin, (Zionist Media)

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

“They felt it was”, yes, that is exactly what we need in justices, their ability to decide cases based on feelings (sarcasm).

Finnky
Member
Finnky

No expectations, but I would think that NYC’s gameplaying could lead to a broader ruling by SCOTUS. They will have to write a ruling covering both iterations of the NYC law, as well as anticipating further NYC system-gaming.

hippybiker
Member
hippybiker

Those rulers in New York are devious bastards. If SCOTUS rules the case a moot point,I wouldn’t put it past those creeps to reinstate the onerous law! Just Saying!

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Finnky, Yeah, the S. Ct can not allow a City to out maneuver them. The Constitution and S. Ct will have no meaning.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

A court, especially SCOTUS, does not rule anticipatory, ever! It can’t, as it is nonsensical to rule on something that hasn’t happened yet and were no arguments were presented in favor or against it. They could issue a more broad rule based on the original law AND based on the changed law and the wishy-washy explanation by NYC about that change. One could see this case as a challenge of two laws now, trying to restrict the same right differently. The problem is that SCOTUS tends to be a bunch of cowards that try to hide between narrow rulings with… Read more »

USA
Member
USA

Charlie, In saying,

“It was quite obvious that this case is in a rather odd situation.”

I would add that this is what happens when the US Constitution is intentionally disobeyed because if we were going by the Constitution this case would have never been brought.

RoyD
Member
RoyD

NYC. Wall it off and make it a penal colony. Wait a minute…….

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Roy, Why let them live?

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@WB – Because we are peaceful, liberty loving gun owners. Do no harm, however allow those intent on doing harm to harm each other rather than harming all the innocents residing in the rest of the country. I’d suggest even providing a path for immigration to the free US – for those (even in NYC) who love liberty and are simply constrained by nature of their neighbors and rulers.

Will
Member
Will

@Finnky,No More Mr.Nice Guy !!!