Supreme Court agrees to hear gun rights case

[DaveTN]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-gun-rights-challenge-to-nyc-transport-law

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a case that will have implications for the rights of the nation’s gun owners, examining the scope of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 10 years.

The case, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, involves restrictions on gun owners’ ability to transport their licensed firearms. Three gun owners and the firearms group are challenging a New York City law that prohibits individuals from transporting an unloaded firearm that is locked in a container to a shooting range or a second home beyond city limits.

For law-abiding Second Amendment supporters who live in high-crime areas, Tuesday’s announcement is likely to be “welcome news,” Ilya Shapiro, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, told FOX Business.

“With this cert grant, the court can start checking the massive resistance of many states and cities to this important constitutional right. And it can start instructing the lower courts, many of which have treated the right as second-class, how the law works in this area,” Shapiro said.

Shapiro also noted that in the decade since it ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court has not taken on any cases regarding the scope of that right.

In New York City, it is generally illegal to possess a firearm without a license – and the only license available to most residents, according to the plaintiffs, is one that allows people to possess the handgun in the home or within city limits.

A federal appeals court rejected a constitutional challenge from the plaintiffs in February, ruling the law did not infringe upon gun owners’ Second Amendment rights, their ability to travel freely or the promotion of economic activity beyond city limits (i.e. interstate commerce).

The city argued that its rules promote public safety by limiting the number of firearms on the streets. Plaintiffs say it actually increases the number of firearms on the streets since gun owners are not able to transport those firearms to locations outside of the city.

[Omega]

Lets see if my vote for Trump and his SC picks bear fruit.

[Whisper]

22 minutes ago, Omega said:

Lets see if my vote for Trump and his SC picks bear fruit.

Agreed.  Trump works hard to think of stupid and pointless things he can do to alienate voters, but if his Supreme Court picks can demonstrate some respect for the Constitution, it will make up for a lot.

[DaveTN]

This has nothing to with Trump, the Justices don’t answer to him; as it should be.

I am curious to see if the Justices keep to the narrow scope of the question before them, or if hopefully they broaden the response to address “reasonable restrictions” by the states. Heller ripped the baby in half by ruling we have the right to keep arms, but states can impose reasonable restrictions on where, when, and what we carry.

Will cases continually have to go to SCOTUS (Who doesn’t have to hear them and can stand silent) to determine if restrictions are “reasonable”?

We need a ruling that restricting carry off a person’s property is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

[jpx2rk]

While I'm no legal beagle, seems like if you have a permit from the City of NY, you could transport the firearm to a gun range w/o issue.  JMO.

[Chucktshoes]

25 minutes ago, jpx2rk said:

While I'm no legal beagle, seems like if you have a permit from the City of NY, you could transport the firearm to a gun range w/o issue.  JMO.

You would be wrong. That’s the main premise of the lawsuit. 

[Garufa]

Kind of ironic NYC will not let you take a firearm out of the city when that is exaclty what they want.

[Omega]

I don't know where my last post went, seems to be happening quite a bit.

3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

This has nothing to with Trump, the Justices don’t answer to him; as it should be.

I am curious to see if the Justices keep to the narrow scope of the question before them, or if hopefully they broaden the response to address “reasonable restrictions” by the states. Heller ripped the baby in half by ruling we have the right to keep arms, but states can impose reasonable restrictions on where, when, and what we carry.

Will cases continually have to go to SCOTUS (Who doesn’t have to hear them and can stand silent) to determine if restrictions are “reasonable”?

We need a ruling that restricting carry off a person’s property is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

I disagree,  it has everything to do with Trump.  Not in the decisions themselves, but in the SC judges he seated.  Can you imagine how these would have went with Clinton picks?  She would have undoubtedly picked more like Stevens who voted against most 2A cases if not all of them, and would have  repealed the 2A if it were up to him.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

[Whisper]

I agree the justices don't (and certainly shouldn't) answer to Trump, but the case does have a lot to do with Trump, since the two justices he has appointed to the court may determine the final ruling.  And it's entirely possible Trump will get to choose a third justice.

[Raoul]

Here's something to follow..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-agrees-to-examine-new-york-city-gun-rules-11548170410?mod=hp_lead_pos5

[Omega]

Already are 

 

[owejia]

This has to do with the "right to bear" part of the 2nd, Heller addressed the right to own. As has been said before one of the most important things a President does is the nomination and appointment of Federal judges. The SCOUS should be answerable only to the Constitution not to the President or to their political party, but we all know that is not the case. If this was the first amendment about speech would be like saying you can talk  but not outside of the city.

[jpx2rk]

23 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

You would be wrong. That’s the main premise of the lawsuit. 

Missed the sarcasm I do believe

[Chucktshoes]

21 minutes ago, jpx2rk said:

Missed the sarcasm I do believe

Apparently. I congratulate you on your ability to hide it. I went back to reread it and still can’t find it.

[Omega]

3 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Apparently. I congratulate you on your ability to hide it. I went back to reread it and still can’t find it.

Apparently we need easier access to the purple font, some sites use that to indicate sarcasm.

[Chucktshoes]

Here’s the write up on it from TTAG. It goes a bit more in depth as to how even a narrow ruling can be a big win for us. 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/01/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-to-ny-state-rifle-pistol-assn-v-city-of-ny/

 

Oh, and here’s an article from the folks over at Slate freaking the eff out over this case. It’s good for a laugh. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

This is a case to watch closely because I believe it will make a seemingly small, but ultimately very significant, step towards that ultimate goal of officially recognizing that the 2A covers the bearing of arms outside the home. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Chucktshoes

[Moped]

8 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Oh, and here’s an article from the folks over at Slate freaking the eff out over this case. It’s good for a laugh. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

This is a case to watch closely because I believe it will make a seemingly small, but ultimately very significant, step towards that ultimate goal of officially recognizing that the 2A covers the bearing of arms outside the home. 

Oh, I hate for them!!! <we need a sarcasm color!> And I agree that this could bring some very swift changes to our cause!