National Gun Forum banner

Supreme Court refuses to dismiss New York gun rights case

963 Views 6 Replies 6 Participants Last post by  PrairieHunt
Melissa Quinn
October 07, 2019


The Supreme Court will hear a Second Amendment case involving handgun regulations in New York City, rejecting a request from city officials to dismiss the case because the rules under dispute changed.

Instead, the court said Monday the question of whether the case is moot will be "subject to further consideration at oral argument," and attorneys representing three New York City gun owners and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, as well as city officials, should be prepared to discuss the issue then.

The justices are scheduled to hear arguments in the case Dec. 2, and the challenge to the New York City regulations marks the first Second Amendment case the Supreme Court will hear in nearly a decade.

Three New York City handgun owners and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenged the city rules, which placed restrictions on where licensed firearms owners could transport their unloaded and locked handguns. Under the regulations, gun owners could keep their handguns in their homes or take them to one of seven shooting ranges located in the city but were barred from transporting the firearms outside of city limits. The gun owners said the regulations violated their Second Amendment right.

But after the Supreme Court agreed in January to take up the case, New York City changed the rules to allow firearms owners to transport their handguns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, which were previously prohibited under the initial regulations.

City officials then asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, arguing the change in rules gave gun owners and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association "everything they have sought in this lawsuit." But the challengers accused the city of attempting to head off a ruling that could’ve expanded the rights of gun owners.

The case also put the Supreme Court at the center of partisan bickering after four Democratic senators filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the court calling it “not well.” The brief, spearheaded by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, warned the justices that they could face public backlash if they didn't dismiss the gun rights case. In response to the filing, all 53 Republican senators sent a letter to the clerk of the Supreme Court encouraging the justices not to cower to what they said was an attempt to intimidate them.

The Supreme Court kicked off its newest term Monday and will hear a number of blockbuster cases involving gun rights, abortion, and immigration. Rulings are expected by the end of June, in the heart of the 2020 presidential campaign.




https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...hts-case-on-docket-despite-citys-rules-change
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
I think, and I hope I'm wrong, that we need one more liberal justice to retire or die, and we're going to need Trump to appoint yet one more Constitutionalist justice to insure a consistent ideological trend. Actually, Trump may need to appoint 3 more Constitutionalist justices since a couple of the good ones are getting long in the tooth as well.

The Donald MUST be reelected.
  • Like
Reactions: 4
City officials then asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, arguing thechange in rules gave gun owners and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association "everything they have sought in this lawsuit." But the challengers accused the city of attempting to head off a ruling that could’ve expanded the rights of gun owners.

Talking out their rear ends again. Easily taken for granted. Everything they sought in the lawsuit was not for NYC to tell them where they can transport their guns. Period!
I think, and I hope I'm wrong, that we need one more liberal justice to retire or die, and we're going to need Trump to appoint yet one more Constitutionalist justice to insure a consistent ideological trend. Actually, Trump may need to appoint 3 more Constitutionalist justices since a couple of the good ones are getting long in the tooth as well.

The Donald MUST be reelected.

Trump "could" nominate three more justices in the next five years. This is the biggest reason to re-elect Trump and keep the Senate under Republican control.

Clarence Thomas is 71 years old.
Ruth Vader Ginsberg is 86 years old.
Stephen Breyer is 81 years old.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Trump "could" nominate three more justices in the next five years. This is the biggest reason to re-elect Trump and keep the Senate under Republican control.

Clarence Thomas is 71 years old.
Ruth Vader Ginsberg is 86 years old.
Stephen Breyer is 81 years old.
Agreed! Let us hope that Trump is able to do just that! But, I will feel sorry for whoever Trump nominates for Supreme Court Judge, even if the chosen individual is a saint, the DemocRATs will find something to accuse the individual with, and, if they do not find a thing then they will say he/she is not qualified due to been a saint!
I think, and I hope I'm wrong, that we need one more liberal justice to retire or die, and we're going to need Trump to appoint yet one more Constitutionalist justice to insure a consistent ideological trend. Actually, Trump may need to appoint 3 more Constitutionalist justices since a couple of the good ones are getting long in the tooth as well.

The Donald MUST be reelected.
We're a long, long, way from getting a conservative court.

Conservatives:
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito
Neil Gorsuch

Luke Warm, blown by the wind, Justices:
Kavanaugh
Roberts

Liberal Justices:
Breyer
Kagan
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
See less See more
... This is the biggest reason to re-elect Trump ....
I beg to differ. Biggest reason is to make the satement: "The Democrats are completely whacko!" Flush them all down the political toilet.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top