NYT Begs SCOTUS: Throw out Case Instead of Ruling Against Gun Control
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Rugerguy

Thread: NYT Begs SCOTUS: Throw out Case Instead of Ruling Against Gun Control

  1. #1
    Grand Imperial Poobah NGF Addict! Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    18,748

    Default NYT Begs SCOTUS: Throw out Case Instead of Ruling Against Gun Control

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    The New York Times editorial board is asking the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to toss out a challenge against New York City gun control rather than rule against the controls at the center of the challenge.

    Breitbart News [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that SCOTUS was hearing a challenge to the NYC gun control on Monday, December 1, 2019. The gun control prohibited licensed firearm owners from transporting their firearms to all but seven city-approved gun ranges.

    On December 2, 2019, the NYT editorial board [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] SCOTUS to discard the case, pointing to the fact that NYC repealed their gun control when it became evident that SCOTUS would take the case. The editorial board contends “sanity and common sense” now compel the dismissal of the case altogether.

    At the same time, they argue that the DC. v. Heller (2008) decision allowed room for municipal gun controls. They say, “Lower courts have read the Heller opinion as permitting all manner of gun-control measures, including bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.”

    The editorial board’s argument ignores the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decision, which struck down a city-wide gun ban on the basis that Second Amendment rights are incorporated. Such incorporation prohibits city and state governments from infringing on gun rights just as it prohibits the federal government from infringing as well.
    Hidden Content



    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, the first President of the United States (1789-1797)

  2. #2
    Senior Member NGF Addict! Stamps6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northern NJ.
    Posts
    4,046

    Default

    The editorial board’s argument ignores the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decision, which struck down a city-wide gun ban on the basis that Second Amendment rights are incorporated. Such incorporation prohibits city and state governments from infringing on gun rights just as it prohibits the federal government from infringing as well.


    Why haven’t they heard about this in Bloomberg bought Virginia?

  3. #3
    Senior Member NGF Addict! friendof2nd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    4,028

    Default

    "Why haven’t they heard about this in Bloomberg bought Virginia? "

    They have heard it, they know that the new laws are unconstitutional, but, they also know that fighting these illegal laws in the courts cost a lot of $$$$ and a lot of time. Meanwhile they are able to continue to screw the rights of law abiding citizens. At the end, they get what they want: power over their citizens.
    Progressive = The new Political Correct name for a Communist

    A gun on your hip is like the insurance you pay every month that you hope never have to use.

    You can vote yourself into Socialism, but you will have to fight your way out of it! - Bearing Arms. com

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    NYT all the news that's fit to print.
    Hopefully the gun grabbers have opened up a Pandora's box, but I doubt it will come to anything.
    Hope springs eternal

  6. #5
    AZHerper NGF Addict! gvaldeg1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,266

    Default

    Unfortunately most of the court seem to be fixated on whether or not the primary claim is "moot". I'd hate to see this dismissed on the "mootness" argument. Hmm...is "mootness" even a word? Maybe it should be.
    NRA MEMBER

  7. #6
    Senior Member NGF Addict! Fitasc Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    7,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by friendof2nd View Post
    "Why haven’t they heard about this in Bloomberg bought Virginia? "

    They have heard it, they know that the new laws are unconstitutional, but, they also know that fighting these illegal laws in the courts cost a lot of $$$$ and a lot of time. Meanwhile they are able to continue to screw the rights of law abiding citizens. At the end, they get what they want: power over their citizens.


    Or run out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered.........................

    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience", George Carlin

    FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    362

    Default

    The fact that NY is now trying to get the SCOTUS to throw it out as moot is exactly why the SCOTUS should decide on it.
    friendof2nd likes this.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Search tags for this page

    scotus gun case

    Click on a term to search for related topics.