BREAKING: Supreme Court Punts on Gun Rights, Declares New York State Rifle & Pistol Case Moot

Supreme Court Gadsden flag scotus

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

In an effort to avoid an almost sure adverse ruling by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the city changed the underlying law. It was an obvious and nakedly cynical attempt to have the case declared moot and dodge a likely expansion of gun rights in the United States.

That gambit worked. In a ruling announced this morning, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has declared the case moot.

You can read the Court’s decision here.

Here’s the Associated Press’s Mark Sherman’s report:

The Supreme Court sidestepped a major decision on gun rights Monday in a dispute over New York City’s former ban on transporting guns.

The justices threw out a challenge from gun rights groups. It ruled that the city’s move to ease restrictions on taking licensed, locked and unloaded guns outside the city limits, coupled with a change in state law to prevent New York from reviving the ban, left the court with nothing to decide. The court asked a lower court to consider whether the city’s new rules still pose problems for gun owners.

The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

But other guns cases remain in the high court’s pipeline and the justices could decide to hear one or more of those next term.

Although the opinion was unsigned, the court was split, 6-3, over the outcome.

Gorsuch joined Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissenting from the dismissal. Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he agreed with the result, but also said the court should take up another guns case soon.

Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision early in 2019 to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices.

Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.

Those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case before arguments in December.

comments

  1. avatar Roger J says:

    Cowards

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Wait…I just re-read the article and realized that we’re still apparently working with a full panel of all nine Justices. This must mean that RBG is still breathing oxygen somewhere behind a curtain and responding to stimuli.

      1. avatar BCB says:

        I don’t agree with a thing RBG thinks but you have to admit she’s a stubborn, resilient old buzzard.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          She is hoping and praying (as much as Marxists pray, since they profess no belief in God) that a Dem, even the mentally challenged Biden, wins in Nov so she can retire and not be replaced by another conservative justice.

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          And there is a very solid chance we will lose in November.

          This virus has changed *everything* concerning the upcoming national race. At this point, I’d say the Leftists have the advantage now. The economy has been *gutted*, and we just don’t know how how badly yet. A lot of people have been (and will be) hurt by the upcoming tsunami of bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures.

          And Leftist scum are experts at leveraging tragedy…

    2. avatar Lance Manion says:

      What I take away from this: They couldn’t get it past Roberts on the merits so they punted on mootness.

      The only way we are going to get an favorable opinion in any of the pending cases is if RBG is replaced by Trump. Roberts won’t do it.

    3. avatar AC says:

      This is just another example of what happens when you fight the wrong fight… as in make the wrong argument. Why haven’t we collectively made the argument that all anti-gun legislation is null and void because the government totally and completely lacks the authority to regulate the firearms industry?

      The case and argument that needs to be brought before SCOTUS is the argument that government totally and completely lacks the authority to regulate the firearms industry.

      Please follow me here on this line of thought.

      The version of the Constitution that is in force today is the Constitution “as amended by the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments”. Understand that an amendment permanently alters and changes the original document as the amendment over rides and “supersedes” everything that came before the amendment. One can NOT therefore look to the provisions in the original document for authority if those original provisions are now in conflict with new provisions in an amendment. Government has relied on the so called Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause in claiming its authority to regulate firearms. However, this conflicts with the very explicit “command directive” of the Second Amendment that states that “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed”… and which is the constitutional provision that must prevail under our recognized system and the rules of contract law.

      There is in fact only one lawful way to make these kinds of changes that would allow for government to have the authority to regulate firearms and that is, as per our Constitution, via the amendment process. Only via another constitutional amendment that specifically addresses this issue of the Right to bear arms could government be granted the authority to regulate this industry… and this has so far NEVER been done!!!

      As a case in point; consider that the 18th Amendment banned alcohol consumption and made Prohibition the law of the land. And that afterwards when it was soon realized that this had been a horrible mistake, it could not easily be reversed. Prohibition could not be undone via any act of the Congress nor by presidential executive order because the 18th Amendment had made Prohibition “the law of the land”. And so it was not until with the passage of the 21st Amendment that the era of Prohibition finally came to an end.

      To this day, the Second Amendment has never been changed or altered in any way and so it stands as originally written and is the law of the land. And it is therefore not subject to change, modification, alteration or re-interpretation via any act of the Congress or by presidential executive order because if the Constitution is to be respected and continued to be held up as the Supreme Law of the Land, then its provisions can only be changed via the constitutional amendment process.

      Let us not also forget that;

      “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is
      repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

      Additionally, “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

      “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
      legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

      Constitutional Right – “A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so
      guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith”. – Delaney v. Plunkett, 146
      Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, 567, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685. – Black’s Law
      Dictionary, 3rd Edition

      ”The Constitution is a legal binding contract between the government and its employer
      (the American people). The U.S. Supreme Court was right when it said, “The
      Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it
      meant when it was adopted, it means now.” U.S. v. South Carolina (1905)

      1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

        I like the way you think

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The case and argument that needs to be brought before SCOTUS is the argument that government totally and completely lacks the authority to regulate the firearms industry.”

        Agree, but the proposition is irrelevant. The SC (and likely all the courts) look to process over principal. The prejudice is to find any available off ramp on the road to a blanket rule based on constitutional principle.

        In the instant case, if NY had a state constitution that prohibited any infringements on the RTKBA, the SC could have simply declared that the NYC law/procedure violated the NY state constitution, without ever looking at the US constitution. Or maybe the SC could have found some other procedural error on which to base a decision. The fear of looking first to the US constitution is enormous.

      3. avatar E. Sfetku says:

        Can you be my attorney in Comiefornia? I’m desperate. I’m on permanent disability & can’t afford to fight the corrupt Mayor, Sheriff and of course Newscum.

        BTW, can I please copy and paste you’r response when I have to answer stupid anti gun questions?

        Great answer! I’ve written letter after letter to my representatives both local and up to the Federal with no responses for years.

        Why can’t there be a LAW that says simply, if you propose a new bill or law you must prove at your cost that it’s Constitutional BEFORE it ever gets to any house, Senate or President’s desk? I guarantee there wouldn’t be many laws trying to be pushed through against guns. Oh, and all anti gun laws currently would become unenforceable until proven Constitutional.

      4. avatar Felix says:

        Because as soon as you admit that there is even a single valid reason for denying gun rights, you have got the camel’s nose under the tent.

        Ban prisoners from having guns in prison? Ban infants from having guns? Ban the senile and mental defectives from having guns?

        Just as freedom of speech has exceptions for libel, slander, national security, and a host of other carve-outs for “shall pass no law”, so too can people find legitimate exceptions for “shall not be infringed”.

  2. avatar A says:

    Is that the Rocky theme i hear in the back ground? This is sure to fire everyone. Thank god Kavanaugh acknowledges the need to take up other cases

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Yeah, a case where he can limit your rights without you knowing he did.

    2. avatar D.T.O.M. says:

      Rocky? Hahaha! No it’s the Orphan Annie theme you hear SCOTUS singing to freedom supporters; (As they piss-away their 5-4 majority);

      “I’ll love you…tomorrow…you’re ALWAYS a day away.”

  3. avatar DesertDude says:

    A lost opportunity, and a shame.

    1. avatar Rand says:

      I have faith that the justices are wanting a more comprehensive case that will rule on a much more broad interpretation of 2A so they won’t have to revisit anytime soon.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Yes, it was a very expensive exercise in wasting an opportunity. I attribute this to the “bridge-too-far” ambition.

      The roadway to a successful SCOTUS challenge is now a bit clearer. We ought to learn from: Heller; McDonald; Caetano; and now NYR&PA.

      Messrs. Heller and McDonald sought very narrow relief: a handgun in the home. Ms Caetano also, a stun-gun somewhere. The 2A-rights community (if not the plaintiffs themselves) sought “strict scrutiny”; something I have long thought SCOTUS was NOT ready to deliver.

      We laymen do not understand that a SCOTUS decision turns not so much on what 5+ justices are willing to sign-off on in the “holding”; but, rather, on what 5+ justices are willing to agree about as the text of the entire opinion, including a lot of “dicta”.

      The Heller decision turned, I believe, on concessions Scalia was willing to make to Kennedy concerning dicta (about machine guns and felons) having NOTHING whatsoever to do with Dick Heller’s case. Scalia “bought” the critical 5th vote for the holding with cheap “paper money”, dicta. Throw-away language that said nothing more than what goes without saying.

      In the present NYR&PA case, it appears that a coalition of 5 justices couldn’t get together to agree on an opinion they were willing to sign-onto. I’m convinced they were not YET willing to say anything more specific about level of scrutiny. It’s clear from Heller that “rational basis test” is off-the-table. Some form of heightened scrutiny is required; but which? Intermediate? Or, Strict? They weren’t ready to declare Strict scrutiny; could they agree on language to beef-up “Intermediate” scrutiny on 2A cases above “watered-down” “Intermediate” scrutiny? Apparently not.

      Were they willing to say that the right to bear arms includes the right to transport arms (in a locked box in the trunk) outside a city? Apparently not.

      Perhaps 5 justices might have gotten together to say something about NYC’s old law; but, would that “something” have done much to advance jurisprudence about the 2A? Maybe not enough to make the opinion worth the writing.

      Clearly we have learned from this case that the gun-control authorities WILL use the “change-the-law/argue-mootness” technique to pull-the-run out from under all our future litigation. The rights bar needs to counter this tactic by, e.g., seeking damages for past violations.

      Most importantly, I think we need to learn the bridge-too-far lesson. We have to get 5 justices to agree on something; and, something important. E.g., that they can find the word “bear” in the text of the 2A; and, that the word “bear” is a verb pertaining to “arms”, not not sleeveless blouses.

      Once there is a right to “bear arms”, then it follows that there is a right to do so somewhere, somehow.

      It seems incongruous that there is a right to bear arms concealed in Florida, but not openly; unless, of course, you are fishing. To bear arms openly in PA; but not in a car without license. To bear arms concealed in IL with a license; but in a car, no license required. Somewhere, in this mess, there ought to be a case so absurd (as was the NYC ordinance) that SCOTUS will strike-it-down, declaring some right to BEAR arms that “shall not be infringed”.

      CAN we get a ruling that Floridians have a right to bear-arms openly on a municipal pier – WITHOUT having to also bear a fishing pole? If NOT, how do we suppose we will get SCOTUS to mandate Strict scrutiny?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Messrs. Heller and McDonald sought very narrow relief:…”

        Permission to transport personal property in and through NYC seemed pretty narrow. How would the appeal have been better stated?, so as to be “narrow”?

      2. avatar Bruce says:

        In Florida, ALWAYS carry a pocket fishing pole and beat those tyrants at their own game.

      3. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        I don’t think that scotus will allow a mootness argument again. I think Is a state say California where to take a case up to the appellate level , win and change the law the way NYC did it wouldn’t work. The judges probably only allowed it because the state changed the law forbidding cities to pass a new law. A state changing
        It’s own mind , might be seen differently.

        There are a few cases likely to come
        Up before scotus. Hopefully we get a 6th justice soon and then we will really
        Have them by the balls. Or if trump replaces Thomas with somebody young , so at least we don’t have to worry for 10 years or so.

      4. avatar Cargosquid says:

        Heller did not set a level of appropriate scrutiny. When the dissent argued for one, or rather an interest bearing approach, which is what a search for an appropriate level of scrutiny is…..Scalia stated that no such interest bearing argument was valid.

        The lower courts using such arguments go against Heller.

        1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Heller only applied to the federal enclave – Washington, D.C. Tired of hearing everyone claim it was ground breaking. It was McDonald v. Chicago that decided Heller applied to the states. Now that was ground breaking but it too only applied to a gun in the home and did not specify there was a right to choose what kind of gun or how many. The only broad decisions have been in favor of the government – NFA and other “Public Safety” acts. I expect that trend to continue.

  4. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    I don’t know how much longer we can call ourselves FREE Americans if the courts don’t enforce our contract with the government that limits the government’s power. What I’m seeing lately is checks but no balances. I was hopeful for the current SCOTUS, but that hope has almost vanished.

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      You are free to bake a cake when ordered. You are free to kill your unwanted child. How many freedoms do you really need, peasant – I mean “citizen?”

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Precisely Napresto, we’re free to do whatever the government(s) give(s) us permission to do and nothing more.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        — But, your honor, I am a human.
        — Shut your damn mouth, citizen.

  5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    Peruta? (shall issue CCW)
    Young? (open carry)
    Rhode? (ammo BGC)

    So now what happens with these cases that have been in “appeals limbo” pending the outcome of SCOTUS’ decision NYRPA v. NYC?

    1. avatar Templar says:

      Great question. I assume they’ll go forward. NYC folded because they knew they were going to lose.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I should clarify that these three cases are within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, but could have widespread effect across the nation.

    3. avatar Jim Warren says:

      They don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        We hope. Can’t say I have anything one could reasonably say is trust in the matter. Some of us have been waiting an entire lifetime for the courts to do something about these issues, all to no avail. It’s unassailable fact that the premise of the case was averted, and thus nothing was there for the court to rule upon. They have however, been ducking & dodging for an age cases that were upon much more solid grounded than this one.

        I mean, NFA 1934 has stood since… wait for it, 1934. And you know Kavanaugh’s position on it, uttered from his own mouth under oath before Congress. As I see it, there isn’t but few, if only one, recourse if the highest court in the land refuses to take up the mantle against these abrogations. Which they have “traditionally” avoided, & I believe 86 years is plenty of leeway time-wise for something to have been done, especially in light of the Miller ruling.

        US vs. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Which, for those that don’t know determined, and I quote:

        “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense”

        Funny thing about that, military doctrine in subsequent decades has included short barrelled shotguns. Which decidedly overrides that part of the ruling concerning Miller’s defense. Taken a step further down that rabbit hole, rifles with < 16" barrels are also common use military weapons. As is full auto, pistols, most AOW's, etc, etc, et alia

        Which effectively, though never applied this way, entirely guts NFA 1934. Additionally it should vacate nearly, if not all subsequent infringements prima facie. A further subject SCOTUS has abjectly ignored. Since 1939, mind you.

        1. avatar PMinFl says:

          Good arguments all but do you really think any of your points would be sustained by SCOTUS? I can only
          (with you) HOPE.

        2. avatar 9x39 says:

          @PMinFL

          “but do you really think any of your points would be sustained by SCOTUS?”

          Certainly not. As I said above, there’s been 86, to a bare minimum of 81 years of interim purposeful & powerful cognitive dissonance in the courts, & the USSC as well concerning the Miller case. Their blanket refusal to even acknowledge it’s existence, despite having been pointed out repeatedly, says everything you need to know. And it always has.

          This is why those who know, throw shade on the Heller ruling. Not because of Dick himself, but the betrayal perpetrated by the USSC in setting aside the precedent set within US v. Miller. As stated later by another before Congress in his confirmation hearings:

          “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition will often give governments “more flexibility and power” than a balancing test, because “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right.”

          https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/

          Indicates to this one, precisely no path for the rectification of this egregious situation. Frankly summed, there isn’t any hope.

  6. avatar warfab says:

    Anyone know if Buzzy is still above soil?

    1. avatar Defens says:

      She’s partying with Kim Jong-Un

  7. avatar Darkman says:

    As predicted. Relying on the Courts to protect and preserve Our Rights is a Fool’s Gambit.

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      Amen!!!

    2. avatar 9x39 says:

      As I replied earlier to you where you posted it first:

      I had no faith from the onset, so I cannot be disappointed. Though I cannot lightly cast aside the betrayal.

    3. avatar Joseph L. Sexton says:

      EVERY Politician swears an oath to uphold & follow OUR Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was originally number 22 but the Founding Fathers realized Citizens need to protect themselves from a Tyrannical Government & moved it to no.2. We the citizens are at fault, as Thomas Jefferson said, the 2 ENEMIES of The People are Criminals & Government. We need to DUMP Politicians who do not follow OUR CONSTITUTION, either peacefully or not. If we can’t vote them out then we must seek other ways. What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” do they not understand. Oddly it is 1 Party that wants to dis-arm us, could they nave an AGENDA ? Citizens have a RIGHT to Own & Carry arms, PERIOD.

      1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

        Both parties want to disarm us. One states it clearly, the other only gives our right lip service come election time when they need money and votes.

    4. avatar PMinFl says:

      ^^^^this^^^^

    5. avatar Someone says:

      True. Now the question that stands in front of us: What are we going to do to not only protect the leftovers, but also to recover the original constitutionally protected human right to keep and bear arms? Looks like the jury box is out, we can’t count on ballot box and most of the big soap boxes are owned and operated by gun grabbers.

    6. avatar Toni Smith says:

      which is exactly why the founders made sure the cartridge box was on the table not just the ballot box and the jury box. They knew that eventually no matter how many checks and balances were put in place it would take the cartridge box to set things right again. It is just as certain as day follows night follows day.

  8. avatar NH Guy says:

    Roberts…the new Souter.

    SCOTUS isn’t interested in upholding the Constitution. The “Justices” are only Interested in protecting the interests of the governing class, and the reputation of SCOTUS in the eyes of their ruling class peers.

    1. avatar Chuck Voodoo says:

      Kavanaugh is an idiot as well.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Read the article again. At least three of them disagree with the decision to punt, and a fourth wants to hear a 2A-related case in the near future. It’s not the best outcome, but if Trump can appoint one more constructionist Justice within the near future, that will provide a solid four-person band of brothers to grant certiori for such cases (and if we consider Kavanaugh as a fifth, then a potential conservative majority).

      I nominate Federal Judge Benitez.

      1. avatar PMinFl says:

        Too old but good thought

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        You do know the judge that blocked Benitez was a Trump appointed judge?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Has nothing to do with what I said above, Chief, but thanks for playing.

      3. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        “I nominate Federal Judge Benitez.”

        The young female Mormon judge with a lot of kids.

        Unless RGB expires quickly, we likely won’t be able to seat a replacement anyways, thanks to that damn virus…

      4. avatar Chief Censor says:

        You must be one of those delusional Californians.

        Hasn’t time shown you the error of your ways?

    3. avatar TommyJay says:

      Chief Justice Roberts must go. It isn’t just about guns either. We don’t know enough about Kavanaugh yet, but by now it is abundantly clear that the left owns Roberts. There needs to be a serious lobbying effort to encourage Roberts resignation.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Roberts has to go, indeed. He’s in charge of the FISA court and should be demanding answers to why the FBI/DOJ has repeatedly lied to them. But apparently it’s okay to lie to his court as long as you’re a government official. Traitors.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        We have seen Kavanaugh for what he is. We were not supportive of him for the court. He has shown us time and time again where he stands. Let’s not forget his work in the Bush administration.

  9. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Nothing was ever coming from this for anyone outside NYC. Yawn.

  10. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    “Squeeze my hand once if you want the case declared moot.”

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I’ll take “She’s stopped blinking. What do we do now?” for 200, Alex.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      One blink for agree, two for dissent.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        She dissented. Twice!

  11. avatar No one of consequence says:

    “JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, and with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins except for Part IV–B, dissenting.”

    Just so we know who was voting to let it go, and who was voting to hear it.

    1. avatar No one of Consequence says:

      (Yes, I know this is in the article.)

  12. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Does this mean bloomberg’s and cuomo’s security guards can have all the guns and ammo they want and go anywhere they want without fear of arrest? Why yes they can. The unholy difference between the slave masters and the slaves lives on. Now shut up about those guns and get back to picking cotton.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Picking cotton and selling clothes is not essential according to Trump and the governors.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        But TRUUUMP!

  13. avatar Porkchop says:

    I’ve practiced law for almost forty years. Courts can only decide the issues that are put in front of them. In this case, the plaintiffs got everything they wanted before it got to the Supreme Court. There was nothing left for the Court to decide. Generally, courts don’t enjoin parties from doing things that they have already stopped doing and that they have committed not to do again. The only thing that surprised me about this case was that it was not dismissed as moot before oral argument.

    1. avatar achmed says:

      Yes. As annoyed as I am – it’s a moot case. They changed the law. The difference by the way between this and Roe v Wade is that in Roe they state did not change the law – it was moot with respect to Roe but not all the other possible Roes.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Something along the lines of Matthew 5:25, in which Jesus said,

      “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge,…”

      Sounds like New York had their own “come to Jesus” moment.

  14. avatar million says:

    you’d think Kavanaugh would’ve learned his lesson from his confirmation farce but guess not. the Left is going to impeach him as soon as they gain enough seats. allowing NYC to play their games while pissing on gun rights supporters is loser-think.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      You mean next winter? Trump can’t stop talking out of his depth because the Dunning-Kruger effect is so strong in him. The Dems just have to keep Biden gagged in a basement somewhere and their VP will soon rule the county. 4d chess? – Trump can’t even play “Chutes and Ladders”. I do credit his fluke 2016 victory with holding off the Dems for 4 years though.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        I feel like he will win again because of the panic caused by the virus. His fans will vote for him even though they are under house arrest and the economy is going into a depression because of Trump. Americans are too cowardly to chose a new leader under times of stress.

        Bush shouldn’t have gotten another term but he did because of two wars. Obama shouldn’t have gotten another term but he did because fanboys. Trump has the benefit of an exaggerated virus, fanboys and artificial lack of competition.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          A second wave in early November will be ideal, but the Leftists will just set up vote-by-mail for the big cities…

  15. avatar Shawn says:

    This is my surprised face. Oh wait, I’m not surprised at all. I’ve said it before and I say it again the courts will always side with the government when it comes to infringement on the our firearms rights. Over 99% of all judges in the country hate guns, hate gun owners, want all guns banned and confiscated by force and want the government to literally exterminate every single gun owner in this country. And that includes at least seven Supreme Court justices.

    Do not expect the courts to help us. Ever. In fact expect the courts to actually be openly hostile to us when the democrats ban all semi auto rifles. WHEN the democrats ban ALL semi auto rifles EVERY court including the Supreme Court will say its constitutional or won’t hear the case. When the democrats start the effort to confiscate those guns And people naturally start resisting getting killed every court including the Supreme Court will say it’s constitutional. WHEN that goes pear shaped the democrats start losing power they will make pass a bill saying ALL gun ownership is illegal. The supreme court will uphold it or not take the case. WHEN the democrats pass a law saying possessing a gun is punishable by execution without trial Including the murdering of your children and family and that even includes killing infants in the crib and a special task force is created for that task along with the full force of the military to literally kill every single solitary person that possess a firearm in the country their spouses their families and their children without trial the Supreme Court and every other court will say it’s constitutional.With that creates massive civil unrest in the government is about to be overthrown the Democrats will then pass a bill authorizing the use of nuclear weapons To kill as many Americans as possible that oppose them. Every court including supreme court will say it is Within the federal government rates to kill hundreds of millions of citizens. And the Democrats lose the support of over 90% of the United States population by killing millions of American citizens the Democrats will then go to with the ultimate plan: a complete extermination of every single solitary United States citizen. At that point the courts are still functioning they were all side with the government saying that United States government has the right to exterminate every single solitary United States citizen.

    within the federal government rights to kill hundreds of millions of citizens. When the Democrats lose the support of over 90% of the United States population by killing millions of American citizens the Democrats will then go through with the ultimate plan: the complete extermination of every single solitary United States citizen. At that point the courts are still functioning they were all side with the government saying that United States government has the right to exterminate every single solitary United States citizen.

    Everything I said sounded insane didn’t it? The problem is we are dealing with people that are more insane than that. As for the nuclear bombing thing the Democrats of implied by their own words that they would have no qualms about dropping a few thousand nuclear weapons on United States there since against United States citizens to achieve their goal of a gun free Utopia.However in their utopia only those on the far left or allowed to actually exist therefore everyone not far left or illegal immigrants; about 90% of the population needs to be killed to bring about that utopia.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “Over 99% of all judges in the country hate guns, hate gun owners, want all guns banned and confiscated by force and want the government to literally exterminate every single gun owner in this country. And that includes at least seven Supreme Court justices.”

      Hmm. Seeing as three of the Justices dissented and wanted to hear the case – and a fourth (Kavanagh) expressed his desire to see a major 2A case (one that won’t be eligible for mootness) appear before the Court soon – can you please list those seven or more you say hate the 2A?

      Kthxbai.

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Hate to say it Haz but just because Kav says he wants to hear a 2A case soon, doesn’t mean he’s leaning right. If his tilt on guns is left, well, I don’t have to tell you what will happen.

    2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “I’ve said it before and I say it again the courts will always side with the government when it comes to infringement on the our firearms rights.”

      Lie, ‘shawn’. The supreme court didn’t back the government in ‘Heller’ or ‘McDonald’.

      So much for “… the courts will always side with the government when it comes to infringement on the our firearms rights.” you lying sack of dried-up virus-infected shit… 🙂

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Heller, which gave us such pearls of wisdom as:
        “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.”,
        rubberstamping the NFA (not just any arms) and gun free zones? I don’t see “except for reasonable regulations” in 2A of my copy of the US Constitution.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” I don’t see “except for reasonable regulations” in 2A of my copy of the US Constitution.”

          Well, you gotta gitcher mind right. Kavanaugh mad it very plain…the rule of review is history and tradition. Thus, that which the government has historically infringed, the government may continue to infringe. Historically unchecked government overreach is the history of unchecked government overreach, thus permissible.

          Elegant when you consider it.

  16. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I’m not one to say, “Told you so.”

    That’s not true.

  17. avatar Hillbilly says:

    The case was pretty much already over when NY caved. As others have stated surprised it even went this far. The bigger issue is why we should have to bring these cases all the way to the Supreme Court to have the states finally decide to abide by the Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The bigger issue is why we should have to bring these cases all the way to the Supreme Court..”

      Because the SC is the supra-legislature, and the final say on everything. I wonder why we bother with lower courts.

      1. avatar Hillbilly says:

        You completely missed the point, about par for you. Let me spell it out for you: You should not have to bring cases to Court in order for the Governement to abide by the Bill of Rights.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You completely missed the point, about par for you. ”

          As did you, once again.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      The statists will say, “See, gun control is constitutional.” They are now even more embolden to continue their stripping of the Bill of Rights from once free people.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        What is stopping them from passing any 2A infringement they fancy and see what sticks to the wall? In worst case, if some of it will eventually get all the way to the SCOTUS certiorari, they just pull it back. No harm, no foul, hundreds of thousands of our dollars spent, years of enforcement behind us. Next time they can pass it again with a little more flourish and let us to push the boulder up hill from the very bottom.

        Why should one wing of the government fight the other wings? What’s in it for the courts?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What’s in it for the courts?”

          Personal self-satisfaction of being “woke” (enlightened), and validation of the individual’s impression of themselves.

          For a “conservative” SC Justice, there is nothing more invalidating, invigorating, soothing or self-satisfying that being able to demonstrate how unprejudiced they are by personal politics. Such is manifest in episodes where they clearly reject their own inclinations, and “rise above politics” to endorse the positions of the anti-American mob. Allows conservative Justices to prove they aren’t rubber-stamp sock puppets.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    Due to the current state of emergency look for NYC to reinstate this law and double down on it. You’ll need permission to pick up a firearm in your own little studio apartment.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      How many city residents with firearms of any sort haven’t left the city for their vacation homes upstate and elsewhere by this point? But yes I would not be the least bit surprised if you are proven exactly correct. Sucks this one didn’t pan out but it was great seeing local media have panic attacks for a bit. Better luck with the other potentials.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        New York gun owners moved to Florida and Virginia.

        This was supposed to be the case. There is no other potentials. Stop it already. If the courts are going to rule in favor of the constitution it will come with a caveat that allows them to abuse your rights.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Can’t stop won’t stop and it was very much a test the waters case and reading the opinions there will likely be others so plenty of crosstopic shitposting material for you to come. It would have been nice for an increase in scrutiny but that was best case from the beginning.

  19. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    Justice Roberts is the gift that keeps on giving. NOT!

  20. avatar FB says:

    Pathetic. Another layer of erosion.

  21. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Roberts is a pantywaist liberal.

  22. avatar loren Mahanay says:

    SCOTUS has no balls. F-ing cowards!

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      They are not cowards, you are. They are the ones that denied the constitution in your face while you are holding a rifle. They are more concerned with corona than you.

  23. avatar Yolbolsun says:

    So precedent set. You can write all the unconstitutional laws you want. But you have to walk them back if it’s taken up by the Supreme Court??? Wasn’t property confiscated and not returned?? So how is that moot?

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “So precedent set.”

      *WRONG*.

      No ruling, either way. It was a ‘punt’…

  24. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

    Hate to say I told you so but “I told you so!”

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      Nobody gives (much of) a shit what you think, anyways. You have no ‘history’ here in TTAG…

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        “Nobody gives (much of) a shit what you think, anyways. You have no ‘history’ here in TTAG”

        Damn Geoff, you’re full of piss and vinegar today. I’ve been posting on TAG for about 2 years. Where’ve you been? Don’t really care if you like what I have to say though, that’s your problem.

        I think you need to get out of the house, you’ve been in self quarantine too long.

  25. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Looking to the Supreme Court or any court for your civil rights to affirmed is a waste of time. The only long-term solution is to get rifle teams and to a education put back into the public school systems.

  26. avatar Chief Censor says:

    100% predictable it would turn out exactly like this. Same thing with Trump’s judge in California that blocked the ammo background check removal by a pro 2A judge.

    Trump’s judges are not helping like fanboys have said they would. It’s the same old story: the government doesn’t want you to have power. The supreme court does not want to side with the constitution because it weakens their powers.

    Now, everyone has to stop saying the supreme court will save them. It’s up to you to save yourself. No president, no sheriff, no judge, is going to save you. Those people hate you, your not their family nor friend.

    Now before you grow too old do something positive instead of relying on others to be responsible for your rights.

    Stop supporting the blue line and stop supporting “case law.” Stop being delusional.

  27. avatar F.Davis says:

    Seems to this dumb ol boy that the 2A is extremely clear & too the point ! The founders didn’t mince words , it isn’t lengthy & elaborate ! It didn’t need to be !
    But , in our new ” oh that’s offensive ” society where a person can get MILLONS for spilling THEIR coffee on THEMSELFS , language has become a weapon , often more effective than a firearm ! !
    There are those who argue that , making the manufacture of munitions illegal , dosent enfringe upon your right to keep arms !
    Saying the 2A dosent address munitions , therefore , we can render the 2A moot !
    Have all the arms you want , but ya can’t have bullets !
    It should not be necessary , however , in this ” LAWYER ” rule society we are becoming , the language in the 2A needs to be expanded to include munitions , accessories , parts & manufacturing ! !
    No INFRINGEMENTS !!

  28. avatar Barnbwt says:

    Charlie Brown has to actually kick the ball for it to be a punt. This is yet another case of Lucy pulling the ball away.

    The RNC gun control is sure worth it for the justices, eh?

  29. avatar Red in CO says:

    No surprise there. Of course the government supports the government! The courts, at every level, are worse than useless when it comes to protecting our rights

  30. avatar Alan says:

    I was born in N.Y.C in 1933. N.Y.C,. was home, even though I was on the road a lot of the time till 1967, when I said Good Bye to the city, and it’s ridiculous laws, regulations and crooked Police Dept.

    That said, and respecting the cowardly action of the U.S. Supreme Court in ducking the issue, refusing to hear the case against N.Y.C., I wonder as to the following. Should N.Y.C. reinstate the offending local laws, ordinances, regulations that gave rise to the Supreme Court case, which would not surprise me in the least, what then might The Court do, having blown it originally.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Should N.Y.C. reinstate the offending local laws, ordinances, regulations that gave rise to the Supreme Court case, which would not surprise me in the least, what then might The Court do, having blown it originally.”

      The SC can rely on the “history and tradition” of permitting NYC to play such games, and moot the case once more.

  31. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    So what’s to keep NYC from just reversing themselves and re-implementing their former laws?

  32. avatar MAGA says:

    I am so fed up with the republican party.

    Democrats take you to tyranny at 100 mph. Republicans take you there at 90 mph.

    To borrow a line from Samantha Bee, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh are a couple of feckless c***ts.

    https://youtu.be/pT9Y7mxlmLE

    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for “good” men to do nothing.

  33. avatar Bob curtis says:

    Kavanaugh and Roberts betrayed the 2nd amendment.
    Wimpy elitists !! They shud have voted for the plaintiff . Cowards

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email