Cold And Rain Await Those in Line Tonight for the First SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Case in a Decade

Supreme Court Gun Case New York

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

By Jeff Hulbert

With much of America tuned to Sunday football, holiday food shows or Hallmark Christmas specials, a group of hardy and determined spectators have formed a line outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

Braving the cold and forecast rain overnight on a darkened sidewalk, their task is to zealously guard their spots at the foot of the steps that lead to the Court’s front plaza—all in an effort to obtain one of the very few public seats in the courtroom gallery. It is an effort to witness oral arguments for the most significant Second Amendment case to be heard by the Court since 2010.

With the press occupying most of the courtroom seats, alongside designated guests of the justices and other legal VIPs, there could be as few as 6 to 10 gallery seats up for grabs for the general public.

What all sides are waiting for is Monday morning, when the Justices will finally hear arguments from frustrated New York City gun owners after more than a year of maneuvering by the City’s politicians to try render the case moot.

The lawsuit — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York — was first filed in 2013, and challenges decades of infringement schemes that stopped city residents from transporting lawfully-owned firearms outside their homes.

Incredibly, it is the first gun control case to be heard since Chicago resident Otis McDonald won his lawsuit at the High Court ten years ago—a ruling that cemented every American’s individual right to own firearms.

Gun control groups nationwide are panicked about NYSRPA case. Their alarm stems from the possibility that the conservative majority on the Court will use the case to force a review of every gun licensing and restriction scheme across America.

In a transparent attempt to keep the Supreme Court from hearing the NYSRPA case, City officials and politicians retracted their transport infringements this past year. Then the City and their gun control minions petitioned the Court to rule that the case moot—that is, that New York City gun owners have already received the “freedom to transport” relief they demanded.

The justices will hear the mootness arguments in addition to arguments on the merits of the case tomorrow and the possibility exists that the justices will indeed rule the case moot. But knowledgeable Court watchers believe that would only happen if the Court is looking for an even more substantial 2A case to rule on.

For more background on how the Bloomberg-funded gun control orgs have issued calls to jam the perimeter of the Supreme Court Monday morning with anti-gun and anti-court protests, read my earlier article from earlier in the week.

In 2010, I was one of the line-standers who camped out on the sidewalk overnight for one of the unreserved public seats to witness to hear arguments in McDonald v Chicago.

Supreme court line standing waiting mcdonald case

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

I was lucky enough to be a line-stander in mid summer with pleasant overnight temperatures and no rain. The intrepid folks waiting in line to hear NYSRPA arguments Monday morning will have to endure temperatures in the low 40’s and almost certain rainfall all night.

otis mcdonald v city of chicago

Alan Gottlieb (L), Otis McDonald (C), Jeff Hulbert (R) – (image Jeff Hulbert)

It was an unforgettable experience, capped off by an opportunity to shake Mr. McDonald’s hand and thank him for his persistence in seeing his case through to the finish with the help and unshakeable support of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb.

New York State Rifle & Pistol v City of New York Supreme Court

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

It is hard to believe that it’s taken 10 years to stand with the next crew of Second Amendment line-standers at SCOTUS.

New York State Rifle & Pistol v City of New York Supreme Court

Members of Patriot Picket outside the US Supreme Court (Courtesy Jeff Hulbert)

The energy I draw from them will be with me in the morning, as I return to the plaza of the High Court to stand with my Patriot Picket group to face off against the organized anti-gunners who will gathering in force.

Watch this space for more tomorrow.

comments

  1. avatar Hydguy says:

    Roberts will screw us again

    1. avatar Red says:

      Thank you negative Nancy, now go sit in the corner and STFU.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        He might be correct. Roberts is the new Kennedy, and Kennedy was soft. It’s because of Kennedy that Heller/McDonald were watered down. Alito, Scalia and especially Thomas wanted a much stronger pronouncement. Because of Kennedy, we got what we got.

        If Roberts can find a way out (Obamacare was a tax! — even though he was the only Justice who thought so), he will wiggle through it.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “If Roberts can find a way out (Obamacare was a tax!…”

          That’s what concerns me the most. A massive expansion in gun rights might give him the excuse not to do what’s right. I can easily see him justifying not expanding gun rights with the excuse “The American people aren’t ready for that much ‘freedom'”. (What Roberts may believe, that is.)

          If you want to read something frightening, read the most-liked comments to this WaPo article about the threatening ‘letter’ Democrats sent to SCOTUS threatening to do something to SCOTUS if they didn’t like the way SCOTUS ruled on ‘NY Pistol’. :

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/warning-or-threat-democrats-ignite-controversy-with-supreme-court-brief-in-gun-case/2019/08/16/2ec96ef0-c039-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html

          Roberts most likely read those comments and is too scared to join Thomas and rule for gun rights. I want to be wrong on that, but I don’t think I am…

        2. avatar Hydguy says:

          There can be no ‘massive expansion of gun rights’. The 2A is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You cannot expand beyond that.
          Obviously, the very narrow exceptions are for people in prison, as they have forfeited their rights by their own actions. Same with people on parole.
          Aside from that, Thomas Jefferson said it best: no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

        3. avatar Nathan says:

          The Dems are holding the legality of the adoption of Robert’s son over his head to make him toe the line. It remains to be seen whether they will feel the need to yank that string tomorrow.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        I would say he cut right to the heart of the matter,as Roberts is the 64,000 dollar question and the outcome will hinge upon him.

      3. avatar Hydguy says:

        Awe.. his past rulings shouldn’t be taken into consideration?
        F O A D..

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      CJ Roberts as a poster on TTAG,so eloquently put it “Is The Turd In The Punch Bowl”

    3. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

      Roberts abducted two children from Ireland, after all. What a stand-up guy to have as arbiter of the free world.

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

    Godspeed, if the court rules favorably on the Bill Of Rights, restoring the Second Amendment to a first class right, the people of the U.S. would have clawed back some of their freedom.

  3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Gun control groups nationwide are panicked about NYSRPA case. Their alarm stems from the possibility that the conservative majority on the Court will use the case to force a review of every gun licensing and restriction scheme across America.”

    Amendment II

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    As they should be as all gun control laws are un Constitutional,each and every infringement.

    That the government has no business even contemplating such infringements as they are expressly prohibited from doing such,that is unless they aren’t fluid in english or able to reason.

    1. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

      Exactly…. and everyone who is playing this stupid game of “please give us our freedoms” is playing right into the hands of these goblins in government…
      THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE ONLY REFERENCE MATERIAL I NEED TO DETERMINE MY RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS… ANYTHING ELSE IS “MOOT”…
      COLD DEAD HANDS, MOLON LABE, DON’T TREAD ON ME…ETC….
      SO IN ESSENCE IDGAF WHAT THESE TREASONOUS TRAITORS RULE…. BECAUSE THEY’VE ALREADY TAKEN THE MASK OFF AND EXPOSED THEMSELVES FOR THE TRAITORS THEY ARE!!!!!

  4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    If there is a turd in the punch bowl we all know his name. Hes done it before and no reason to think that he wont again.
    Call it any name you want to. Any way you look a turd is nothing but a turd. Unless a Baby Ruth does actually float??
    You cant rely on a turd to always float.
    Nor to vote as we might wish it to.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      He has proven in decisions past that his first duty is not to the Constitution as written

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      {Roberts}

      “If there is a turd in the punch bowl we all know his name. Hes done it before and no reason to think that he wont again.”

      Here’s something that ought to really worry you, how do we know Robert’s wife didn’t have someone whisper in her ear while grocery shopping that something bad would happen to her or her kids if Roberts ruled Pro-2A?

      That kind of crap is straight outta the Leftist-Marxist playbook, and all’s fair in love and war…

  5. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Unfortunately, there are only 9 people who are eligible to vote on this, and none of them owe allegiance to anything other than the Constitution. They will give their opinion, and the rest of us can either go pound sand or try that “other” box.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Unfortunately, there are only 9 people who are eligible to vote on this, and none of them owe allegiance to anything other than the Constitution.”

      There are other allegiances, and in the real world, they trump the Constitution. Like their families. How do you think they will vote on NY Pistol if they believed their family might be in danger?

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      You just nailed it.

      It’s legally only an “opinion”, which is meant to counsel Congress. It’s not constitutionally intended to have any power. So we need to continue to hammer our Reps and Senators.

      I know, I know…before you have a tantrum and tell me this isn’t the actual reality of our modern SCOTUS, it’s what it’s *supposed* to be. In any case, I certainly hope the opinion/ruling is in favor of the 2A.

  6. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Time for prayer. The Left, in general, does not appear to be a praying group. Evidence: drag queen story time. Evidence: Antifa. Evidence: their war on religious freedom.

    We pray. Prayer pulls us closer to God; closer to those inalienable rights God has given.

    Let’s collectively ask God to preserve the principles upon which this country was founded. Prayer is our advantage.

    OK, OK, I get the sappy-blog-post award for today. 🙂

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      SCoTUS is not an ecclesiastic court, although I’ll admit there are similarities. One similarity that stands out is this one:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
      C. S. Lewis “

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        If you want a religious court, go to Iran or one of few ISIS territories.

        And be careful of what you want because you might get more than you expected.

        1. avatar txJM says:

          Attitudes like this are why our country has been in a moral tailspin for the last 70 years.

          Equating Christianity with radical Islam is not just nihilistic…it’s pretty retarded.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Southern,

          The degradation of our country’s founding morals is the exact reason why we’re in our current situation. If you like an absence of a societal moral compass, move to Canada or the U.K. Then tell us all about the wonders of long healthcare waits, bans on guns and natural rights, high suicide rates, etc.

        3. avatar GunnyGene says:

          I was not wishing for a “religious” court. Apparently you missed the connection to tyranny in the Lewis quote. What greater tyranny could there possibly be than a religious one; enforced by those who are self appointed and self-righteous guardians of their particular theology? Are they not the very “omnipotent moral busybodies” that Lewis mentioned? Although they are certainly not the only ones who aspire to omnipotence.

        4. avatar Anymouse says:

          They need not be religious — just true believers. Bloomie is out to protect us all from guns, salt, and large sodas. Steyer wants to keep us from drowning while in coastal cities. Commies and socialists want to protect us from the evils of capitalism.

      2. avatar James Campbell says:

        Damn, Gunny is spot on in this comment section, referencing the “other” box and the CS Lewis quote.
        Props Gene.

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          Compliment noted, but not warranted imho. I used to have a much louder voice, but in my old age I grow weary of repeating myself. I’ve found that those who will listen have no need to; and those who should listen, won’t.

  7. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    The case is not about gun or magazine bans and that is why the Supreme Court agreed to take the case so they could fake support for the Second Amendment. If it had been about bans then the Supreme Court would have let the lower court anti-gun decisions stand just as they did during the last 2 years when not one ban was overturned, none, zero, zelch, nada. Get the picture on these hypocrites.

  8. avatar Docduracoat says:

    This is a good case to take to the Supreme Court because the infringement is so egregious.
    How did N.Y. Think they could outlaw bringing your legally owned gun out of N.Y. ?
    Because gunsz?
    Now I hope they get a serious smack down.
    Like strict scrutiny for all gun control laws

  9. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    Equality of rights is the goal here: strict scrutiny for all Constitutionally protected rights.

    If SCOTUS can just agree that the standard of review is strict scrutiny for Second Amendment infringements like it is for freedom of religion, freedom of speech and so on, it would be a huge victory. The vast majority of 2A infringements are based on intermediate scrutiny mumbo-jumbo and would never pass strict scrutiny and would fall like the massive bag of used diapers they are.

  10. avatar MLee says:

    All I know is that it’s going to be a good show.

  11. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    I heard some morons on the air today espousing leftist pyscho-babble and want to see them set straight. People seem to forget the rulings regarding the 14th amendment which could be interpreted to mean there cannot dramatic variations of gun laws from state to state.

  12. avatar Sam Hill says:

    Weather report? Fair to middlin’ expect more middlin’ than fair
    I love a rainy night. Raindrops keep falling on my head. Scotus and eight tiny Regents plowin’ thru de white shit. Didn’t want to say snow as some might think I was suggesting they are on heroin.

  13. avatar Independent Voter says:

    Our Second Amendment rights can only be infringed upon or restored.

  14. avatar Harry Petty Sr says:

    I can only ask for unity in prayer tonight. God is with us as He gave us these inalienable rights, not the govt or scotus. As a Christian I ask you all to join me in asking for His will today.

  15. avatar Ben L. says:

    My money is on SCOTUS calling it moot (because of the rule changes) and moving on. I hope i’m wrong, but as an avid gun owner, I’m used to being sh!t on.

    Maybe the court’s attitude will be that NYC could just as easily change the rules back, so they should rule? I hope so.

  16. avatar Salty says:

    Is this streaming anywhere??!

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