New York Still Struggling to Avoid a Hit to Gun Control Laws

Bill de Blasio new york state rifle & pistol assn city of new york

(AP Photo/John Locher)

The city of New York is apparently going to change the law at issue in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York in another effort to render the case moot. The Court isn’t likely to fall for such a transparent dodge.

(New York City’s) proposed changes, likely to take effect in a month or so, would remove those restrictions. Whether they would also end the case is another matter.

Until the Supreme Court agreed to hear the dispute, the city had defended the regulation vigorously and successfully, winning in two lower courts. In inviting public comment on the proposed changes, the Police Department said it continued to believe the regulation “furthers and important public-safety interest.”

Still, the city seems determined to give the plaintiffs — three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Assocition — everything they had sued for. The plaintiffs, in turn, do not seem to want to take yes for an answer.

– Adam Liptak in Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

comments

  1. avatar HP says:

    I hope the case continues in the court system, and the SCOTUS ultimately rules in favor of the NYSRPA.

    Then for good measure, I hope the SCOTUS orders DeBlasio and Cuomo to beg forgiveness for years of gun control tyranny, and orders them to present themselves before the American people, put their heads between their legs, and kiss their own arse.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      If the case doesn’t continue NYC will sometime in the future change it back and or institute something even more draconian.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Exactly.

        They obviously do not want to change their asinine gun control laws since they fought this all the way to SCOTUS. They are only doing this now in an attempt to end the case and if that were to happen, they’d put the same gun control or something similar in place.

        The case needs to continue and SCOTUS needs to issue a ruling that will never allow NYC or any other gov’t from putting in place this type of law.

    2. avatar HP says:

      Roughly 9 hours later and no one mentioned my Braveheart reference. This is why I’m not a comedian.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        I’m sure you have other talents. Sometimes it’s best to leave the comedy to the professionals.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sometimes it’s best to leave the comedy to the professionals.”

          Where’s the fun in that? Letting dufusses like me embarrass themselves trying to be clever is far more entertaining, and laugh-filled.

      2. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

        I charged across a field in a kilt, holding my claymore. Also, a sword.

        I do that most weekends: does it still count?

  2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    We won’t be safe until writing, voting or even discussing gun control becomes a crime punishable by death. Want to usurp, undermine, ignore or erase the Bill of Rights? Pay with your life.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Denying free speech rights is not liberty. No matter how tempting it might be. No, especially because it would be so tempting.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Sorry kiddo, “free speech” does not cover acts of treason or insurrection. The 2nd amendment is the law of the land. If you want to lobby for a constitutional amendment, feel free. Anything else is an act of treason.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Expressing the idea that individuals should not be able to own firearms is not treason, and it’s not insurrection. Actually denying people the right to keep and bear by force (even force of law) would not be legal under the Constitution as written. But expressing the idea, no matter how much any of us might hate the idea, is not a crime.

          I don’t care who’s in charge at the moment, the government cannot be allowed to decide which ideas can and cannot be expressed. The fact that leftists are positively drooling over that power makes it even more important.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          It provides aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, the textbook definition of treason.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Phil Wilson,

          Does Free Speech allow me to express the idea of executing all of a certain demographic?

          And does Free Speech allow me to then advocate for executing all of that certain demographic?

          I would say an emphatic, “Hell no!“.

          Remember, we cannot use one right to eliminate another right. That means we cannot use Free Speech to try and end other rights, such as our right to life, our right to liberty, and our right to keep and bear arms.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Does Free Speech allow me to express the idea of executing all of a certain demographic?

          And does Free Speech allow me to then advocate for executing all of that certain demographic?

          I would say an emphatic, “Hell no!“.”

          The SC ruled long ago that speech is not protected only when it incites direct, imminent action that is illegal. You can say “Kill the Ump” all you want. Or even, “All computer nerds should be tarred and feathered”.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          I am not familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court decision that you describe.

          Regardless of any U.S. Supreme Court decision, it always has been and always be wrong to openly advocate for the execution of all (any demographic), regardless of how immediate the executions are supposed to happen.

          The fact that our U.S. Supreme Court says it is okay to advocate for executions of innocent people shows how corrupt and utterly wrong our U.S. Supreme Court can be.

          Caveat: to be absolutely clear, I am referring to serious efforts. Having said that, I believe even figures of speech (like your example about an umpire) should be punishable as misdemeanors since they still call for murdering someone even as a figure of speech. Calling for beating, raping, and murdering are not something to “joke” about.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          What you describe is the aggravating problem with “free speech”. If free speech is controlled by politicians (legislation, regulation, permission), it is not free speech, is it? Who evaluates every utterance for suitability?

          Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) “…only speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The court overturned the conviction of a KKK leader who espoused political reform through violence. The court held that his speech was not likely to incite imminent action and thus was protected.”

          Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The court ruled that freedom of speech does not include the right to incite (which means immediately start) actions that would harm others.

          Think about all the so-called militias that are “preparing” for war with the government. Those militias do not violate law until they identify a specific target (which constitutes a criminal threat), and incite the members to take immediate action to damage or eliminate that target. Just planning, sloganeering, gathering equipment (and weapons) is not evidence of incitement (which, different from cheerleading requires direct action in close proximity to the cheers).

          The Waco murders are an example of people doing nothing illegal, yet government launched an armed punitive raid. Government never even tried to justify the raid on the basis of a violation of “free speech” protection under the first amendment, only that the people killed were anti-government, had guns, and children were present.

          The SC declared in Matal v. Tam (2017), a trademark dispute between a rock band and the government trademark/patent office, “[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” ”

          And….

          “A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”

          In short, saying “bad things” about someone is permitted/protected. The first amendment ensures that bad manners are protected. If you are offended by speech, you can ignore it, counter it, challenge it, agitate against it. You may not squelch it. Specific, direct and imminent threats, however, are not protected.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      There really are some few restrictions that make sense. My first gun purchase was blocked – not by law, but by the store manager – until my father approved of the purchase. That makes sense. If a state and/or the feds pass a law to that effect, I’ll have no problem with it. Keeping guns out of the hands of proven dangerous felons makes sense. There really is room for rational gun control discussion. Making a blanket statement that all gun control is wrong? That’s makes no more sense than the other side making a blanket statement that “no one needs guns”. Let’s not be as crazy as the gun grabbers, alright?

      1. avatar HP says:

        Uh oh, you’ve violated the purity litmus test. Expect to be browbeaten into submission by the increasingly unhinged nutters who post here.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Please continue as I would be interested in who you consider a nutter.

          and Paul says…”Keeping guns out of the hands of proven dangerous felons makes sense…”

          and the non-dangerous felons? what about people with felony arrests but were proven innocent?

        2. avatar Anymouse says:

          A felony arrest doesn’t make one a felon — they need to be convicted. What is a dangerous felon? My uncle is a former police officer who was convicted of felony federal tax evasion. Are my uncle, Wesley Snipes, and thousands of others “dangerous” felons for not paying enough taxes? What about felons who didn’t pay their child support? What about other financial crimes, like embezzlement or insider trading? Purgerors? Do we expect Bernie Madoff to start sticking up convenience stores if he were able to buy a gun when he gets out next century? Physical crimes not against a person, like burglary, larceny, fraud, smuggling, or auto theft? Prostitutes? How about a college student selling drugs to other students (not banging on corners)? If someone hasn’t shown a history of violent felonies or misdemeanors, are they truly dangerous?

        3. avatar HP says:

          My statement stands. The insane extrapolation and conclusions you both came to based on my vague comment is doing little more than proving my point. Though neither of your remarks are the worst I’ve seen. Peruse the majority of commenters on this or any other thread. You’ll see multiple calls from basement neckbeard warriors to execute anyone who isn’t a purist, and pretty much anyone who thinks differently at all at this point.
          Let’s not forget the “free state” conglomeration of misfits who’s only answer to the encroaching liberal dread in this country is to tuck tail and run like scared dogs to a (for now) “free state”. Abject cowards, the whole lot of them, hoping to be eaten last. They’d be unfit to wash George Washington’s knickers if they were alive at this country’s birth.
          The people who claim to be ready to go down swinging, and aren’t afraid to advertise it all over the internet. These people reek of “keyboard warriors” considering anyone who’s truly taken the “cold dead hands” stance probably never had any type of online presence to begin with, much less broadcasts it out for anyone and everyone to read.
          I could go on, but what’s the point? It won’t change anything.
          Now, nutters, you can let the vitriol flow.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You’ll see multiple calls from basement neckbeard warriors to execute anyone who isn’t a purist, and pretty much anyone who thinks differently at all at this point.”

          Your point? Everyone who doesn’t agree with me 100% of the time is just deplorable. I may be wrong sometimes, but I am always right. (“Hey, hey, you, you…get offa my cloud”)

          “Abject cowards, the whole lot of them, hoping to be eaten last.”

          I don’t need to outrun the bear, only outrun you.

        5. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          AFAIK a felony arrest, not convicted, stays on a standard background check for 7 years, not sure about NCIC.

        6. avatar SouthAl says:

          Why would a “proven dangerous felon” be out in society at large, in a position to buy, or otherwise acquire, a gun? Would said laws against buying or possessing a gun be effective at keeping a gun out of the hands of the unsupervised “proven dangerous felon” referenced?

        7. avatar Someone says:

          And if the felon in question is so dangerous with a gun (that we need to check everybody who tries to buy a gun to see if it isn’t him), is he a harmless lamb if he doesn’t (legally or not) get a gun? What about knife? Or tire iron, or pointy stick…

      2. avatar GunnyGene says:

        “There really is room for rational gun control discussion. ”

        Or do you really mean: There really is room for rational Freedom discussion? What other Liberty are you willing to compromise on in exchange for a little dubious safety?

      3. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “… not by law, but by the store manager”

        That is a very large, and very important, distinction in this discussion.

        When the Government tells you no, there is a problem because made a rule that disallows that behavior from them.

        When the Store Manager tells you no it is OK because you have recourse. You can convince the manager to allow the sale or take your business elsewhere.

        You can’t convince the Government to complete the sale, nor can you take your business elsewhere because the Government is everywhere.

      4. avatar pwrserge says:

        Anybody too dangerous to own a gun, is too dangerous not to be in prison. If a few career criminals find it a little easier to get guns, that’s a small price to pay for protecting the rights of millions.

      5. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Here’s your goat.

      6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Paul,

        As pwrserge said below, if we (society) do not trust an individual with a firearm, why do we trust them with knives, machetes, clubs, chemicals/poisons, gasoline/matches, and motor vehicles?

        And yet another incredibly important question: why do we trust politicians to define who is trustworthy?

      7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Paul,

        Your statement, “Keeping guns out of the hands of proven dangerous felons makes sense,” is pretty much meaningless. Why? Because police arrest countless thousands of “proven dangerous felons” with firearms every year. And countless additional tens-of-thousands (if not hundreds-of-thousands) “dangerous felons” acquire and carry firearms every year.

        Remember, we are talking about criminals who have no loyalty to society’s laws. Just as criminals have zero difficulty acquiring illegal narcotics, criminals have zero difficulty acquiring “illegal” firearms. How is that possible? Human beings are incredibly imaginative and resourceful creatures. If they really want to do something, they WILL find a way to do it.

      8. avatar Eric O says:

        Why a proven dangerous felon is out of prison in the first place is the problem. The whole felon compromise/argument undermines one of the most basic arguments against gun control: that without guns, people intent on harming others will find another way.

        Our broken criminal justice system makes felons every day for the most absurd reasons imaginable; a class 6 felony doesn’t even result in more than a year in jail, like many misdemeanors, yet such a person is now prohibited from the most effective tool for self defense? Then consider the approximate number of felonies committed everyday, by even the most upstanding soccer moms, and it becomes really apparent that “felony” is an extremely poor way to determine the basis of whether it not a person gets to exercise their rights.

        People are either safe to be in society, or they are not. Whether they are armed with a gun makes no difference.

    3. avatar Komrad says:

      What a horribly anti-American sentiment. Do you like being a drooling moron?

    4. avatar Joe Huffman says:

      There is already Federal law that could be used, 18 USC 241 and 242. The conditions for getting the death penalty are a bit more stringent that what you might desire. Perhaps you could consider a compromise on that point? You would get more support for your position that way.

      On Twitter I use the links http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 and http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2 with the hashtag #EnjoyYourTrial.

    5. avatar Someone says:

      Let them discuss whatever they feel like. Free speech should not be regulated.
      But god have mercy on soul of anyone who actually tries to impose gun control under color of law!

  3. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Screw New York and the city of the same name.
    Freggin bunch of weasels they are.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      Please don’t confuse ore equate New York State with the idiots living in New York City. There are lots of freedom loving patriots living in upstate New York.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Whenever I see a NY license plate, I wonder if they’re from the good part of the state or NYC and the nearby counties. Plenty of great people from NY but very few are from NYC.

      2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

        I lived in rural upstate till 2000. 1st Orange then Ulster. I went back about 5 years ago. Its now a suburb of NYC and just as screwed up.

        1. avatar Larry says:

          Jay, I’ve always considered those counties basically NYC, types . Extend the Penn state line across to Mass/ Conn boarder ,anything below the line was always a foreign land to me .

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    The fact that they know they’ve done wrong means they should suffer. They knew they were in the wrong when they did it and they’re trying desperately to get away with doing wrong so they can continue to do wrong. This is the kind of shit gallows are built for.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “The fact that they know they’ve done wrong means they should suffer.”

      By ruling Constitutional carry ,as it already is the law of the land,at least on paper.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        This particular case is unlikely to go that far. The two most likely things to occur is that the Court will set the standard of review and that it will eliminate the transport restrictions of the NYC law as well as any similar law that prohibits or criminalizes the transportation of firearms in compliance with federal law. For example, both NYC and NJ are infamous for arresting and prosecuting people who are transporting firearms in their luggage while traveling by air, if the person takes possession of the firearm containing luggage or attempts to check the luggage in at the airport. That the federal law–I can’t recall the acronym right at this moment–supersedes the NY or NJ law requiring a state issued permit in order to possess a firearm– has never stopped them. That practice may also hit the trash heap. But since the challenged ordinance has nothing to do with carrying a firearm on one’s person, I doubt the Court will address that issue–but its decision will likely set the standard of review for such laws.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Ah—FOPA. Firearm Owners Protection Act should be recognized as superseding all contrary state laws.

  5. avatar barnbwt says:

    Why does NY care so much about what happens outside its borders, with regards to this gun control precedent?

    I think Judicial Watch or someone needs to start filing some FOIA requests for communications between the NYC AG, Mayor, and NY governor and top congressional DNC officials regarding this case. I’d love to 1) know exactly what sort of coordination & strategy they are clearly using (which would also reveal a rather improper influencing of state-level elected officials by those that do not answer to their constituents), and 2) get an idea of just how boned they think they are if the case gets before SCOTUS, and what they think the implications are.

    It seems like they are exercising an odd degree of caution, considering the court will most likely issue a uselessly narrow ruling anyway.

  6. avatar barnbwt says:

    WTF kind of photo is that, anyway?

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      lol I was wondering too

    2. I think I figured it out.
      It is a photo of De Blasio taken through the hole of a hemorrhoid pillow.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Photo lacks cross hairs.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Your comment just brightened my day ! Bloomturd and his hemorrhoids

    3. avatar Jim from LI says:

      A view of DeBlahsio as seen from Andy Culo’s sphincter.

  7. avatar Bob Jones says:

    Winning anti-2A lawsuits below the SCOTUS level is easy because of Obama’s (and other’s) appointees. You can find a leftist judge in every state who will tow the party line. The Nation needs about 24 straight years of non-liberal presidents to fix the matter, which won’t happen.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      A couple of years of flat out, OPEN mass civil disobedience would do the job faster and with a more lasting effect. Instead of relying on others to fix the tyranny, the people ought to realize that its ultimately up to each one of them to band together and refuse to comply.

      1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

        Agreed. Yet, people think the police are going to come to their rescue and refuse to enforce these blatantly illegal laws. The city’s police department already proved that it agrees with these laws and will readily enforce them in the name of “pubic safety.”

  8. avatar surlycmd says:

    No matter how SCOTUS rules in any 2A cases, the gun grabber attacks will never stop. A parallel can be seen in the abortion issue. SCOTUS ruled abortion is protected in the Roe ruling yet Pro-Life groups have continued to get laws passed. The opposition will always continue to fight and no law or court ruling will ever settle an issue. Humans love to stand on a soapbox, tell others how to live and use the power of the State to force it down the throats of the people.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      A strict scrutiny ruling for the 2nd Amendment would be a caliber with some stopping power in a pro-2A litigant’s arsenal.

      We’d eventually wear them down with litigation.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      The difference is that one is an enumerated constitutional right and the other is a fictional right made up to pander to the feminazis.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…a fictional right…”

        Take a look at amendments nini and ten. The constitution is not an index of all the rights retained by the people.

        Note: “The right to privacy” is not an enumerated right; it is made up by activist judges extrapolating the fourth amendment.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that the “right to privacy” does not give you carte blanche to kill a human being because their existence is inconvenient to you. If abortion had the same standards for being legal as justifiable homicide, I’d grudgingly accept that. However, baby killing activists support “abortion at any time, for any reason” which is patently absurd. The baby has rights far more important than any “right” of the murderer to “privacy”.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Except that the “right to privacy” does not give you carte blanche to kill a human being because their existence is inconvenient…”

          A woman’s right to control what happens to her body is not prohibited by any constitutional provision/amendment. There is thus no exception enumerated that excludes eliminating another human that represents a threat to that woman. If a woman can legally and properly stop a human threat by use of a weapon, where in the constitution is a limit on timing, indeed on defining “threat”?

          The point you are raising (no enumerated constitutional right to abortion) is at issue here, not the results of exercising those unenumerated rights. That is, we are glad to point out that what we don’t like is not specifically detailed in the constitution as a “right”, therefore, any claim to the contrary is illegitimate, “made up”. However, the very same constitution proclaims that an uncountable number of individual rights exist without being named in detail within the constitution and its amendments.

          Opposing abortion on constitutional grounds, barring a constitutional amendment, is weak, too complex for the public, and thus unpersuasive. The SC determines what is/is not constitutional (until amendments are passed). The science of when a human is a human, coupled with the moral argument that makes murder illegal are where anti-abortion forces must prevail. Once science makes clear the line between proto-life and actual life is far earlier than the courts understand, the moral, anti-murder argument becomes strong.

          But back to the idea that sometimes unenumerated rights must be enumerated before such rights can be accessed….it is a two-edged sword; be careful of it.

        3. avatar Texican says:

          Sam I Am, in one sentence you say a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body and in another you say if another human, the one IN her body, is a threat she can eliminate it. You cant have it both ways. If it were only her body I would agree. But the baby inside her is another separate human being living inside her with all the attendant rights that beingness confers. For millenia it has been regarded that way. Once a baby is conceived it is human and on the path to becoming a full grown human. Killing it is murder. And paying an abortionist to kill a baby is the same as hiring a hit man to kill someone outside the womb.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But the baby inside her is another separate human being living inside her with all the attendant rights that beingness confers.”

          Not having it both ways. A woman’s right to choose for her life is established as a constitutionally protected (though unenumerated) right. My slice is that if a woman has a right to eliminate a human threat outside her body, she also has a right to eliminate a human threat inside her body.

          The SC ruling turned on the “science” of the day, declaring that cells and developing life is not full, actual, aware, human. When science moves the line of “life” closer to conception, things may change (and my thesis of threat inside and outside would probably fall apart, along with “my body, my choice”).

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          Yes, all people — including pregnant women — have a right to defend themselves when another human presents a credible and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. If a baby in the womb presents a credible and imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the mother, then the mother is certainly entitled to save her own life and deliver the baby (either naturally or via Cesarean section). And attendant healthcare providers are obligated to exhaust all reasonable measures to save the life of the baby.

          As you may know, such a situation constitutes about 0.0001% of all abortions. What is most heinous, egregious, and inexcusable are the the other 99.9999% of abortions which are elective procedures that savagely mutilate and vacuum babies (piece by piece) from the womb. There is no “natural right” for such an act.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There is no “natural right” for such an act.”

          It truly depends on what “is” is. The definition of life is a legal one, not moral, or religious. Thus, if a foreign body establishes a threat to the life of the carrier, one can argue that the carrier has the natural right to life that supersedes the existence of the foreign object. Right to life is the same as right to survive.

          The whole point of this thread is that the ninth and tenth amendments declare that all natural, human and civil rights are not listed in the constitution, and the lack of listing does not hobble or negate those unlisted rights. The natural right to eliminate a thing that will harm the carrier is unlisted, but no less valid. Again, the constitutional issue is “when does a separate life exist inside the carrier?” So far, that question was answered in Roe v. Wade, and multiple rulings since. Until the science changes, or a constitutional amendment enumerates that the rights of people (humans) begin at conception, concluding a right to abortion is an unenumerated right is perfectly logical.

          Under the ninth and tenth amendments, whatever natural, human and civil right you wish to claim exists. It is up to the courts and national legislature (via amendment) to determine such declared right doesn’t exist.

          Legal and moral are not synonymous, or interchangeable (nor are “law” and “justice”). “The law is a ass”, but there it is.

        7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          I did not intend my statement to reflect the current state of law in the United States. Rather, I intended my statement to declare righteous truth. And the two most important points are:
          (1) Yes, a woman has a right to deliver a baby (whether or not the baby is viable) if continuing the pregnancy causes a credible, imminent threat of great bodily harm or death.
          (2) There is NEVER a valid reason to mutilate the baby and suck the parts out with a medical vacuum cleaner.

          Some nebulous possible threat in the future is NOT a valid reason to invoke deadly force in self-defense. Therefore, a pregnant woman cannot righteously claim a right to deadly force in self-defense because the pregnancy could cause problems next month, next week, or even tomorrow. And no, emotional distress is not a righteous reason to kill a baby either, just as I cannot legally kill a neighbor who causes me emotional distress.

          Again, I am not referring the state of law in the United States. Rather, I am declaring what is true and right. And it is critical that our society understand truth and righteousness. Otherwise, our society can apply the same rationale for abortion — murdering another human being for personal advantage/gain — to any human. Sadly, to prove my point, we are already seeing people advocate the rationale for abortion to murder babies who are born. (Reference Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s commentary on the process to determine whether to preserve or murder babies after delivery.)

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Oh, I completely understand you. Unfortunately, truth and righteousness are not law. It is entirely possible to make a moral case for/against abortion. However, claiming that a right to abortion, in the face of the retained rights protected by the ninth and tenth amendments, is a made-up right, or something just invented by lawyers/judges is not persuasive.

          Since the retained rights are not listed, we have no way to reference the constitution as it is, and claim that if not specifically called-out, a right is “made up”, or artificial, or invalid, or illegitimate. We like to shout that we have unenumerated rights we believe are beneficial to us, but deny the same justification for unenumerated rights we don’t like. It is a losing proposition, and diverts resources we need elsewhere.

          As it stands, though, the morality of a people is determined by popular vote (democracy). I am reminded of a tribal story of a man who is imprisoned for crimes that he did not believe were crimes, or at least didn’t apply to him. After suffering in prison for some time, the man appealed to the judge to set him free so that the convict could return to his tribe and tell them of the error of their customs, and that great punishment awaited them. The judge replied that since the convict, and his tribe, didn’t accept the purpose and existence of the law, why would the tribe believe a person who “took the ride”? After all, the law was the proclaimed rule by which tribes could prosperously live. So if the tribes denied the power of the law, what power did the convict believe he held that the law and law giver didn’t have?

        9. avatar Texican says:

          Sam I Am, legal doesn’t mean moral. It was legal to exterminate Jews in Hitler’s Germany. The American Abortion Holocaust has killed over 60 million people. That’s almost as many as WW II worldwide. And over 1.5 billion abortions worldwide. The sooner it is outlawed, the better. Truth and Laws come from God and I feel sorry for those who don’t see and know that truth. God says life begins in the womb and that he knows us before we are even conceived. Hopefully, our country will return to that belief before it’s too late.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Truth and Laws come from God…” Which is an opinion not universally shared. God does not have a courtroom on the planet, but people do. God does not have a legislature to establish “truth and righteousness” here on the planet.

          In reality, every person has a personal God (even if it is only themselves) subservient to a persons individual beliefs about “truth and righteousness”. There is no appeal to God’s non-existent planetary court to sort out human laws. If one believes that human rights stem solely from God, who is that God? Elohim, Allah, Vishnu, Lucifer, Alfred E. Newman?

          As to abortion, why is that procedure immoral? Why is removing a growth on the finger (fingernail) moral, acceptable, righteous, approved, yet removing a growth of tissue inside the body is to be held contemptible?

          If, as and when science moves the line defining human life right to the moment of conception, society has declared it’s morality in describing mere cellular growth as non-human. Therefore, removing embryo cells is not a moral matter, just a medical convenience like a nose bob. This is why the current warfare over abortion exists: when do cells become human? Proclamations from this or that religious or tribal custom are yet irrelevant; legislation and court cases determine when cells become human.

          Regardless of the “morality” of abortion, to claim that the right to abortion is bogus because it is not listed anywhere in the constitution is just sophistry. No one knows the number or description of the rights reserved under the ninth and tenth amendments, and for anyone to proclaim that a right we don’t like is unconstitutional is just silly.

          We can have a discussion on the morality of abortion, or the changes in science that are seeming to move the time of “live” closer to conception, but trying to justify an anti-abortion stance on the idea that such a right is not listed in the constitution is just logically, legally and constitutionally sophomoric. Besides, when we decide that we have some unenumerated right that permits us something, the other side can declare that such a right is “made up”, nowhere in the constitution.

      2. avatar surlycmd says:

        So how does that view translate into stopping anti gun groups and politicians from passing restrictive laws? It doesn’t and it never Don’t think a SCOTUS ruling, on any issue, will dissuade the opposition from an end around attemp.

        Fighting for freedom from restrictive laws will never end. It’s foolish to believe otherwise.

        1. avatar surlycmd says:

          Damn fat finger. It should read:  It doesn’t and it never will. My bad.

  9. avatar Dan in Detroit says:

    So the laws went into effect because they were NEEDED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, and now the city is voluntarily cutting them out even though they are NEEDED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY?
    Is this not one of the most obvious lies they could spit out in order to restrict rights?
    How do people not see through this, and why do they keep electing these ^@$%&s?

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      For the public safety of the five families’ involuntary financial collection agents. They don’t like the donors resisting.

  10. avatar Chris says:

    Good, now hear the California gun roster and assault weapons thing and I’ll be happy. President Trump has been the gift that keeps on giving, appointed two members to scotus and without them this would have never happened.

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

      “President Trump has been the gift that keeps on giving, appointed two members to scotus and without them this would have never happened.”

      Let’s save the emotion until the eventual ruling, OK? Chicken eggs hatching, etc…

  11. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “… do not seem to want to take yes for an answer.”

    One important point that you are, I am sure intentionally, skipping over….. you change the law to shut down the court case. Fine. Now what is stopping you from changing it back after the case is closed?

  12. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Well, now we have something to evaluate – NRA lobbying efforts to make a 2A case before the courts go away.

    “The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case,” Mr. Levy said in 2007. “It was a very acrimonious relationship.”

    As Mr. Levy and his colleagues were persuading a federal appeals court to strike down part of Washington’s tough gun control law, the N.R.A. tried to short-circuit the case.

    “The N.R.A.’s next step was to renew its lobbying effort in Congress to repeal the D.C. gun ban,” Mr. Levy wrote in 2008 in a Federalist Society publication. “Ordinarily that would have been a good thing, but not this time.”

    “Repealing D.C.’s ban would have rendered the Heller litigation moot,” he wrote. “After all, no one can challenge a law that no longer exists.”

    “After expending considerable time and energy in the halls of Congress, we were able, with help, to frustrate congressional consideration of the N.R.A.-sponsored bill,” he wrote.

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

      In light of the recent airing of ‘dirty laundry’, it’s not exactly surprising, isn’t it?

      “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the NRA board and all ‘leadership’ has got to go!”…

  13. avatar tdiinva says:

    Ok, so the Court declares the case moot. Then move on to the next law. File suit against the State of NY for prohibiting out of State residents from possessing a handgun in the State under the 2nd and 14th Amendments, and interstate commerce grounds. Why the 14th Amendment and Interstate Commerce clause? Because as soon as you declare your intention to visit or pass through NY City and State you are not only deprived your rights in NY, you ate deprived of your right to bear arms in every State on your path. If you have a license to carry or a FOID you should be able to possess a handgun under the same conditions as a NY State or City resident. You are also put in legal jeopardy if you are forced by circumstances beyond your control. Let’s see if NY will defend that law. If they don’t move on to the next law. At some point they will need to defend it or else their entire gun control ediface will come down. You don’t have to take big bites to get where you want to go.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…under the same conditions as a NY State or City resident.”

      Which means adhering to the approval process, the same as any other NY State or City resident. I think this will be the Achilles heel of national reciprocity. Not that carry permission in one state equals carry permission in all other states, but that any permit must meet the approval process in every other state (or the intended states of travel and destination).

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        One step at a time. At this stage gun owners should not ask for reciprocity. They only need to have their basic right to have a firearm respected. Legally carry a gun in Ohio? At a minimum you should be able have the gun in NY State. We talk about the gun controllers playing the long game. It seems that most of people who inhabit firearms are like five year olds. They want it now and are incapable of playing the long game.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They want it now and are incapable of playing the long game.”

          Long game? How ’bout 108 years of long game, losing ground consistently?

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          tdiinva,

          In addition to the fact that we have been steadily losing ground for over 108 years as Sam I Am mentioned, we are also talking about restoration of our rights.

          If state government employees literally and legally raped your mother, wife, sister, etc. every month, would you readily support a legal strategy that would only allow state government employees to rape your mother, wife, sister, etc. every other month? After all, it would be a small positive step in the right direction. Or would you oppose that legal strategy and advocate a legal strategy that never allowed state government employees to legally rape your mother, wife, sister, etc.?

          That is more akin to what we are talking about. And that is why many of us are not satisfied with these slow strategies.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The long game favors tyranny. That will never change. Over generations, liberty loses unless each generation combats it. We won’t regain our real freedom in a lasting way over more than one or two generations unless one of the generations fights hard enough and wins. It simply isn’t how the liberty -tyranny equilibrium works. An individual has one lifetime whereas governments typically have many. This generation must stand up and succeed or the next generation has an exponentially more difficult battle in store for it.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        NY and NJ require discretionary police approval merely to purchase a firearm. At worst, the law should require that anyone who passes a background check gets to possess without an intervening requirement of police approval or a showing of “good cause.” Transporting firearms in states not one’s residence should require no more than compliance with FOPA. Those are the “easy” cases. CArry cases are harder, whether that is some form of national recognition of CCWs or a right to open carry.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          The authorities in shall issue States have already made that determination for them. At a minimum, that must be honored. You can argue details and what ifs all you want but if somebody files a suit in Federal Court NY is going to fold again rather than risk everything. At some point they will give it up or be forced to defend at the SCOTUS with a serious risk of failure.

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

        Simple solution – If you are not a legally prohibited person, you have a right to carry.

        Everywhere…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Simple solution – If you are not a legally prohibited person, you have a right to carry.

          Everywhere…”

          That principle is already encoded in the BOR. Legislation is even more ephemeral.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Simpler solution; if an individual is not in the legitimate custody of another, they retain the exercise of their unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. So simple, even a tyrant can understand… Shall not be infringed.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Simpler solution; if an individual is not in the legitimate custody of another, they retain the exercise of their unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms.”

          Including the blind, the deaf?
          (actually have this question pending for brother-in-law)

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Including the blind, the deaf?
          (actually have this question pending for brother-in-law)”

          Yes, of course. Why not? I’m not sure I understand the question. If you mean blind and deaf persons that have a guardian, I am referring to those who are in the custody of another due to not being capable of making their own decisions, temporarily or otherwise. Examples include those undergoing surgery. They are in the temporary custody (protection) of their surgeon. A custodian can decide to allow them to posses a firearm if they choose but the custodian shares responsibility.

          We have people carrying in Ohio that are blind, deaf, or both. My fellow radioman and good friend is soon to get his first firearm to carry around the house and he is blind. I suspect that he is going deaf as well.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanks for the response. ‘Preciate you taking the time.

          BIL posits that a blind person, sitting in a wheelchair waiting for a bus, or a meal at a restaurant should be a prohibited person because of the potential for error. While there is no such exception in the constitution, nor, to my knowledge, court approved legislation/regulation, the question is interesting. Home use can sorta be understood, but public carry (where target shooting is not required to carry in public) would just push gun-grabbers over the edge. How much disability is too much?

          Remains a very interesting question.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          No problem, Sam I Am.

          I’ve fielded questions like that before over the decades. We have people in wheelchairs, blind people, deaf people, etc all carrying in public in Ohio. One of our open carry advocates is a blind person. The perspective disparity originates, IMHO, at where one views the source of the right to keep and bear arms. If one believes that the actual source is government or society, then they would naturally bulk at the broader view. However, if someone believes that the source is from existence (my perspective) there could be no moral or legal reason for government or society to disarm anyone. A legitimate custodian can because they are responsible for the major decisions and reasonable safety of their charge during the time of custody. If an individual is at large without a legitimate guardian to ensure their reasonable safety, then it would be repugnant to disarm the individual.

          The blind carriers rely on shot distance, up to and including contact shots, depending upon what level of visual impairment they have. Obviously, it’s wise for a very blind person to have excellent retention methods in place; perhaps more than a sighted person would need. There are also ultra bright lasers that help those people with some eyesight but legally blind.

          If government isn’t going to assign someone a guardian to provide for reasonable safety of the individual AT ALL TIMES or that person doesn’t already have a legitimate custodian, then they ought not be forcibly disarmed. It ought to be their own personal choice.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Those are some of my thoughts. Just saying I can understand how the public would react to the idea of an independent, but blind gun carrier. BIL already decided that rights don’t matter when it comes to public safety (i.e. gun control). He did put me to thinking about the blind person, though.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Put another way, Sam I Am… Your BIL’s position places everyone else’s safety above the disabled individual’s safety. My question back for some is, “Is the disabled person’s life less important than every one else’s?” It’s certainly important to the disabled person.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Your BIL’s position places everyone else’s safety above the disabled individual’s safety.”

          Good point. But Spock already admonished us, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” (which I think really only applies to military combat)

        10. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “would just push gun-grabbers over the edge.”

          That can never be the limiting reagent or exercise of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms will be lost through attrition over time. Antis will always push the line further towards disarmament. There is no appeasing them for long. The winning strategy is to push towards normalizing carry, everyday and everywhere; all types of arms. For example, when we were assaulted with concealed handgun licensing around 2005 in Ohio, many of us began open carrying our handguns. We had much push-back from antis and from some gun owners. We refused to back down and handgun carry, open and concealed, was normalized. Open handgun carry is no problem for many of us here today. We then began normalizing long gun carry (we are still in that process). Once handgun open carry was normalized, those same antis and gun owners started lamenting “I’m okay with handguns but long guns are ________ (whatever stupid objection du jure).” If enough people sling long guns, it too will become normalized and that is very important. If one views the RKBA as a check to tyranny, then there has to be some people carrying long guns here and there as a reminder to government. Also, if the people only carried long guns when they were going to confront government, wouldn’t that telegraph their intentions and make them easier targets? It would be better for people to regularly sling long guns. That way, tyrants never know if today is THE day or if it is just another day.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “would just push gun-grabbers over the edge.”

          Intended that to be a good thing.

        12. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Home use can sorta be understood, but public carry (where target shooting is not required to carry in public) ”

          If you think about it, isn’t that a typical argument of the antis for everyone (except the “special” people)?

          ‘I can understand John Q. Individual carrying in their own home but public carry, especially without government licensing, should not be allowed!’

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I agree with you. But the emotional quotient of unfetter gun possession by the blind would be tough to politically counter.

          The main benefit to the BIL question is for me to acknowledge that my internal picture of POTG was that of fully ambulatory, non-disabled gun owners. Guess that says nothing good about me.

        14. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “The main benefit to the BIL question is for me to acknowledge that my internal picture of POTG was that of fully ambulatory, non-disabled gun owners.”

          In my experience, that internal picture is common among other POTG too. I’ve seen light-bulb moments on people’s faces as they started processing the notion of blind people carrying in public. Even though they defended the individual RKBA, they simply never gave those extreme situations much thought before.

          “Guess that says nothing good about me.”

          Lol. It says you are normal and human, just like most of us.

        15. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Those are some of my thoughts. Just saying I can understand how the public would react to the idea of an independent, but blind gun carrier. BIL already decided that rights don’t matter when it comes to public safety (i.e. gun control).”

          Yeah, I understood the situation from the context and that you typically support individuals rights in comments. Your BIL holds a very common view, IMHO.

          “He did put me to thinking about the blind person, though.”

          As Martha used to say, that’s a good thing.

  14. avatar Gregolas says:

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer state.

  15. avatar GS650G says:

    And if the case were dismissed NYC could reinstate it the next day.
    Nice try.

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    The point behind this is to give the court a chance to punt. If one justice decides they’d rather let this case die they now have a great excuse.

  17. avatar TFred says:

    Because, yes, they really do think we are *that* stupid.

    SMH.

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