Supreme Court To Hear 2nd Amendment Case Monday

This case is giving the gun grabbers a serious case of heartburn, as we can see from this very long activist article from USA Today

Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions

The Supreme Court may be on the verge of expanding gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade. What’s surprising is how it got there.

The court on Monday will hear a challenge to an obscure New York City rule that set such rigid restrictions on transporting legally owned guns that it was repealed in July.

But it turns out that wasn’t what they really wanted. Backed by the National Rifle Association and the Trump administration, the challengers to New York’s abandoned restrictions are hoping the high court refuses to declare the case moot. That would give them a chance to win the biggest Second Amendment victory since landmark rulings a decade ago affirmed the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Faced with a defunct ban on transporting guns outside city limits, the increasingly conservative court majority could render a decision making clear what some justices believe: that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, and that lower courts should view state and local limits on carrying guns in public with skepticism.

I’ve mentioned this case a few times. The City Of New York restricted heavily where law abiding citizens could take their firearms, and, faced with a lawsuit, they did away with the law in an attempt to avoid the Supreme Court making a ruling, as backed by all the gun grabber groups. The Court said they would still hear it.

Enter an extreme rule such as New York City’s, which barred licensed handgun owners from taking their guns beyond its five boroughs, even to second homes or shooting ranges. Federal district and appeals courts upheld the 18-year-old rule, but it looked like a goner at the Supreme Court.

Gun control groups such as Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence feared something else: a decision that would expand public carry rights elsewhere, including in nine states that give law enforcement officials discretion to deny licenses. Those are California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Hawaii.

This could very much empower the law abiding citizens who want to utilize their 2nd Amendment Right. The article is very much about “oh, those darned Conservatives on the court” and such, but, interestingly, none of these gun grabber groups or states are going after the criminals who use firearms, just the law abiding.

Buoyed by recent victories, gun control groups and their allies worry that what the justices write when deciding the New York case could influence lower courts to strike down other restrictions.

“The court doesn’t have to look like it’s making a big change,” says Adam Winkler, a UCLA School of Law professor and Second Amendment expert. “It can make a big change by setting the foundations for future cases.”

See? It’s all about harming the law abiding.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Supreme Court To Hear 2nd Amendment Case Monday”

  1. Doom and Gloom says:

    I know how horrible it must be for all those criminals to wonder if that old man is toting a gun in his car as they try to mug him.

    And it’s a horrendous Idea that a mass murderer might be dissuaded because he would break the law by toting his gun to the scene of the crime.

    I laugh at the cowards who are so terrified of guns that they think the government can protect them from armed robbers, murderers and thugs. Where I live its not uncommon to walk the aisle of a store spotting a dozen people wearing holsters with semi auto handguns. Trust me I have yet to see a running gun battle in the aisles of the stores and those stores have not been robbed in decades.

    • Kye says:

      D&G I have a carry permit and I’m always armed. So far, other then hapless commies in Vietnam I have yet to shoot let alone kill anyone. I would hate for the first noncombatant I shoot to be an American trying to confiscate my arms.

      • Dana says:

        In the Bluegrass State, we now have ‘constitutional carry’: you do not need a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    When the gay marriage issue was being bantered about, one of the things that was said was that if one state allowed gay marriages, all states would have to honor that marriage. (This was prior to the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage which, IMHO, was correctly decided.)

    Marriage is not mentioned nor codified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not a right.

    Gun ownership is.

    So why is it that gun possession laws and CCW permits are not honored between the states? Some may remember the woma in Philadelphia who had a permit because she was working at night. She worked in Delaware which did not allow or recognize the permit and when she was stopped for a traffic violation, she was arrested and incarcerated for having a weapon in the car – a weapon she was legally allowed to have in Pennsylvania.

    Why don’t 2nd Amendment rights “travel” across state lines?

    What’s the difference between a stated right being granted in one state but denied in another, but a “privilege” crosses state lines no matter what?

    We’ve asked lawyers and they don’t know.

    That doesn’t mean that there isn’t an answer, but we can’t find one. (They suspect there is a compact between the states much like driver’s licenses, but aren’t sure.)

    Still, the New York case is another example of the left hating and trying to grab all weapons as our resident leftists here on the blog want. The left hates freedom and the right to protect that freedom.

    After all, all the left has is hate.

    • Kye says:

      “Marriage is not mentioned nor codified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not a right.”

      First of all thousands of things aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn’t mean they aren’t rights. In fact, that’s what the 10th amendment is all about, un-enumerated rights. God given rights.

      Secondly, marriage is for almost all history been a religious institution not a governmental one. That being, our government has no business telling religions who, what or when they MUST marry people.

      If the feds were going to do anything it should have been to disentangle marriage from the state and make it completely a religious action.

      BTW, gays and lesbos were always free to marry. I’ve known a few married ones in my life starting when I was a kid in Philly. The doctor down my street was married and had two little girls and yet was queer as a three dollar bill. What the government did was overturn ten thousand years of human experience, common sense and moral standards because bitches gotta bitch. The object was never queers getting married, it was breaking the morality of America just like no prayer in school or most anything else the left screams about. Bottom line it was about killing the Christian ethic, cause man do these leftists hate Christians. Almost as much a white people.

      But being non-leftists we can disagree without a diatribe. If we were “progressives” there would be hell to pay for wandering off the plantation.

  3. Dana says:

    Our host failed to quote the best line from that article, which was mufurther down:

    “The NRA has been looking for a way to get the Supreme Court to endorse its dangerously extreme view of the Second Amendment,” says Eric Tirschwell, managing director of litigation at Everytown for Gun Safety.

    So, according to Mr Swalwell Tirschwell, the concept that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is “dangerously extreme.”

    Well, I suppose the Framers were kind of extreme, weren’t they? After all, they fomented a revolution against His Majesty the King.

    • Kye says:

      According to the definition by today’s radical left the Founding Fathers were “White Nationalists” therefore they were quite obviously extreme. Hell, they liked guns, God and knew this country was theirs. They were racists, xenophobes, misogynists and homophobes too! They were just pure evil and so was the fukin’ racist country they founded. Just ask Jonh or Fredo or any DemCom running for Pres.

Pirate's Cove