NRA Statement on New York City’s Desperate Attempt to Avoid Supreme Court Review

new york state rifle & pistol assn v city of new york

Bigstock

Once the Supreme Court granted cert in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York it began to dawn on the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex just how much the case puts their ever-growing web of Second Amendment infringing gun control laws at risk.

The Heller and McDonald decisions had been openly flouted by lower courts for a decade and SCOTUS was taking the opportunity to, uh, clarify those precedents and the limits on Second Amendment rights restriction.

As friend of TTAG and attorney LKB noted, the potential for applying strict scrutiny to laws which affect the right to keep and bear arms — basically treating the Second Amendment as an equal to other civil rights — could topple gun control laws all over the country. That’s a threat gun grabbers finally had to take very seriously. The last thing they want to see is Americans exercising the RKBA, willy-nilly, without appropriate supervision and control.

That’s why there’s now a move on in New York to render the case before the Court moot by changing the law. It’s a painfully obvious attempt to avoid what they see as a very good chance of an adverse ruling. And the city has asked the Court to delay further action on the case while they maybe, possibly, do something to the law in question.

Here’s the NRA’s statement on the city’s maneuver . . .

Fairfax, Va. – Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued the following statement in regards to today’s attempt by the City of New York to dismiss the NRA-supported Supreme Court case N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, et al. v. City of N.Y., et al.:

“The City of New York clearly knows that its current restrictions on the carrying and transportation of lawfully owned firearms are unconstitutional and will fail under any standard of constitutional review, as the NRA has been saying for years.

“Today, it asked the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and allow the City to slow walk a narrow expansion of its current policy through a lengthy bureaucratic process — the result of which, even if adopted, would still unduly infringe upon the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

“That is not how things work in the Supreme Court; the Court does not put its review on hold while the government embarks on a journey that at best might fix only a limited part of the constitutional defect.

“This is nothing more than a naked attempt by New York City to resist Supreme Court review of policies that even New York must recognize as inconsistent with the holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“The City of New York did not respect its citizens’ Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court granted review in this case and it will not respect them going forward. We are confident that the Court will reject New York’s desperate attempt to avoid review of its blatantly unconstitutional laws.”

Again, New York hasn’t changed its ridiculously restrictive law yet. They’re just claiming that they might do so in the future and asking the Court to delay for now. But according to LKB, there are exemptions to the mootness doctrine that the Court could invoke to allow the case to go forward even if New York City does actually rush through a change in the law.

And the fact that the proposed law change is so clearly intended to sidestep the pending case is an obvious, cynical move that won’t win them any friends on the Court.

Keep your eyes on this.

comments

  1. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

    Roberts will kill the case. Count on it.

    1. avatar Truckman says:

      he cannot block it by himself hopefully they can get it done to give us our rights back

      1. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

        He will join with the three worthless broads on the court and probably Kavanaugh. I have no faith in any of them.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          The Court could side with the Plaintiffs without reference to the 2nd Amendment. They could toss it on interstate commerce clause grounds. The law prohibits transporting a legal item across State lines to another State where it is also legal. That is attempt to apply NY law in another jurisdiction. It is a law someone like Kagan will toss. If you want to worry about what Roberts would do, this it and it’s the kind of he did with ACA.

        2. avatar 4808 N says:

          Kavanaugh has a “remember me?” Moment upcoming. Let’s hope he makes the most of it.

        3. avatar TexTed says:

          “He will join with the three worthless broads on the court and probably Kavanaugh. I have no faith in any of them.”

          I thought your initial post was absurd. This follow-up shows that you are an idiot. You may not agree with Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsburg, but to call them “three worthless broads” says a lot about you.

        4. avatar Adub says:

          My father told me never to call chicks broads.

        5. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

          LOL

        6. avatar raptor jesus says:

          Those three worthless broads made the right moves in their careers to wind up on the Supreme Court.
          What have you done worthy of being remembered?

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Too late for him to block it, Cert has been granted. I would be happier if RGB was already gone, but even Mr Waffle should be able to get to strict interpretation.

      1. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

        By “block”, bad choice of words, I meant that Roberts and likely Kavanaugh along with the three worthless broads will find a way to uphold the law. As for TexTed, my labels are exactly accurate. The ONLY reason Kagan and Sotomayor, the two least qualified persons to ever sit on it, were put on the court was to defend the Obama regime’s treasonous agenda. The fact that you can’t see that tells me all I need to know about you. Wake up.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Dummy, Kavenaugh wrote the majority opinion on Heller in the appellate level.

        2. avatar jeff says:

          Also go read the documentation and see what the court accepted. There is about three sentences about the actual case and the rest is about how heller and mcdonald are being ignored and the court needs to set a strict scrutiny of the law. It was accepted written like that so the writing is pretty much on the wall if nyc doesn’t somehow torpedo this it will be a bigger decision than heller and mcdonald combined. It will invalidate most infringements of the second. Sit back and enjoy the ride……the antis are running scared.

    3. avatar Caveat says:

      Progressives face no accountability for their actions, and never have to live under the policies they subject on others, especially the “elites”, as they always exempt themselves one way or another. To end their house of cards, simply subject them to the rule of law, no more no less.

      Unfortunately AG Sessions, the greatest traitor since Benedict Arnold, kept the status quo and pissed away two years of justice. If progressive leaders begin to be charged with their many crimes, the house of cards will collapse.

      Enough of this two tiers of justice, and their unlimited free passes. The amount of scandals in just the last five years, is enough to send half of the progressive politicians, and more than half of their minions to prison.

      Progressives speak of equality. Well the origin of that English word is Aequitas which is the Latin concept of justice, equality, conformity, symmetry, and fairness.

      They want equality? Give them JUSTICE!

    4. avatar John Boch says:

      Why aren’t you just a ray of sunshine? Do you have any substantive evidence to back up that rather bold assertion, or are you just operating on your faulty gut?

      1. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

        Can you say “bump stock ban” boys and girls?

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Can you say “bump stock ban” boys and girls?” I wasn’t aware that the final judgment was already in on that one, either.

        2. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

          Roberts, and either Kagan or Sotomayor, had the opportunity to stop the ban from going into effect. They failed. I was horrified when Roberts refused to stay it. I was not surprised that the woman refused it. That was a given. The ban is in effect. do you honestly believe that it will be overturned? I don’t. That is why I have no faith in the court as to the NY case.

        3. avatar LKB says:

          Get real. That was a motion to stay on an appeal from a denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Almost impossible to get from SCt, and almost unheard of when you’re dealing with a case dealing with federal regulations (thus implicating Chevron deference).

          Sure, I’d have preferred that Roberts grant a stay. But to scream that the sky is falling because Roberts did what Supreme Court Justices do >99% of the time is just ignorant.

          You wanna prove me wrong? Point to me to a single case where a Supreme Court justice has granted a stay on an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction, where the case at bar was challenging the promulgation of a regulation by a federal agency.

          Go ahead. I’ll wait.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Holy cow, LKB! Did any of that mean anything? Sometimes I can see the wisdom in Pol Pot’s vision of government.

        5. avatar LKB says:

          Larry:

          If someone wants to argue the merits of various gun control laws, they should educate themselves on how firearms actually work. Otherwise, you often see them embarrass themselves (e.g., “shoulder thingie that goes up,” “full semi-auto,” etc.) to those of us who actually do know firearms.

          Similarly, when someone wants to pontificate about what’s happening at the Supreme Court, but does not actually understand how that Court works, they often wind up beclowning themselves to those of us who do. (Certain media people do this all the time.)

          Such is the case here. I’m hardly in the CJ Roberts Fan Club, but the idea that his denying a motion for a stay in the bump stock case is indicative of anything (other than that he’s doing what Supreme Court Justices always do in that particular procedural situation) is just plain silly.

          The point is simple: under the particular procedural posture of the bump stock cases, it was all but certain that no Supreme Court stay would be issued — indeed, I doubt even Clarence Thomas would have issued one had he been the assigned justice. Disappointing, sure, but that’s just the way things work.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Similarly, when someone wants to pontificate about what’s happening at the Supreme Court, but does not actually understand how that Court works, they often wind up beclowning themselves to those of us who do. ”

          I do not have intimate knowledge of the internal mechanisms of the SC, but I am a keen observer of published opinions. And I refuse to discount the political passions of court members as influencers on decisions. So…

          The only reasonable, rational conclusion one can draw about SC (or any court) is the jurists will do whatever they want, when they want. When the SC can invent a tax from legislation that clearly forces people to engage in commerce. There is no defense lying in the premise that if one is not intricately involved with the SC, well, that person has no understanding in their criticism. And the Obamacare fiction of being a tax is compelling people to engage in unwanted commerce. Likewise, the Scalia decision* that construed farmers keeping production for themselves, or refusing to produce is interference with interstate commerce demonstrates the SC operates just as much on prejudices as on law.

          Any court that takes the position that the statement,”…shall not be infringed”, or, “Congress shall make no law…” is subtly nuances so as to allow courts to ratify violations of the clear language of the constitution are not excused by declaring a lack of training in the Machiavellian, even Byzantine, operations of the SC disqualifies the average citizen from making cogent observations and arguments about the issued decisions.

          *Wickard v. Fillburn (1942)

        7. avatar LKB says:

          ” . . . are not excused by declaring a lack of training in the Machiavellian, even Byzantine, operations of the SC disqualifies the average citizen from making cogent observations and arguments about the issued decisions.”

          I’m not saying that only Supreme Court practitioners can make “cogent observations and arguments about issued decisions” — many nonlawyer pundits and citizens do so quite well. By the same token, just because some laymen *can* make cogent observations does not mean that everyone does.

          If we are trying to predict what the Court will do — which, as you’ll see, is the context of all the comments in question — being able to actually discern what is going on based on a knowledge of the law and appellate procedure vs. just going on a gut reaction (or reducing everything to a legal realism prism of “judges just do what they want and everything else is just backfill”), the former approach is going to yield more accurate predictions much more often.

          Yes, cases like the Obamacare decision and Wickard (and Slaughterhouse, and many others I could name) are maddening, as are the recent antics of various Obama-appointed district judges in issuing nationwide injunctions. Do cases like those mean that judges never follow the rule of law, or do not try and follow the rule of law most of the time? Nope.

          (BTW, Wickard wasn’t a Scalia decision — it was by Robert Jackson, as Scalia would have been 7 or 8 at the time that decision was issued. Moreover, Scalia famously criticized Wickard as having “expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason.”)

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Correct, Scalia could not have been involved in Wickard. Should have made a transition statement there.

          OTH, predicting the future based on the past is a valid method of analysis. Many of us do understand the SC (and probably most courts) love to speak to the smallest issue they can find before reaching the larger issues of constitutionality…why rule based on the language of the constitution, when you can find picayune points to make a ruling while avoiding criticism of rulings based on bald comparisons between the “real” issues, and the words of the constitution?

          Because of the muddled history of SC rulings, it is valid, and a safe prediction that the SC will do whatever it sees convenient to itself (as I remember, Roberts twisted legislation to find a tax so that the SC would not be accused of being political…which, if true, is a gross dereliction of judicial duty).

          Bottom line remains that the SC will do whatever it wants, and history supports predictions of bizarre rulings.

          And as an added, not totally unrelated note, we have lived in Jefferson’s judicial oligarchy so long, we no longer understand anything different.

  2. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    Keep it up boys and girls, eventually Doomberg will either run outta money or decide it’s not worth it, and go on to ruin someone else’s life.

    1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      Considering nanny Bloomberg’s age, I’m guessing he will be lobbying for pitchfork control in hell before too long.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Unfortunately, someone will inherit Bloomberg’s 59.4 billion dollars and be every bit as capable of continuing Bloomberg’s jihad against firearm ownership and possession.

        The real problem that we face are people who have amassed over 500 million dollars. And people who have amassed over 10 billion dollars are especially dangerous. Those people are not elected, are not accountable to anyone, and are capable of bribing or buying-off entire state governments — and quite likely even control of the federal government.

        Our nation does not allow corporate monopolies because of the obvious dangers that they present to our nation. Why does our nation allow individuals to have even more money, power, and influence than corporate monopolies?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Because taking money away from people is not a solution to anything and is just as unjust as taking guns away from people.

        2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          Pwrserge, yes it is. But it is amusing that the NYS and NYC death taxes he supports will eat a fair portion of that pile of cash.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          I do not endorse government taking away their money (for “redistribution” of course). Instead, require Mega wealthy individuals to give away their excess money to charities.

          Think about it: how does being limited to $500 million cause any hardship? It doesn’t.

        4. avatar No one of consequence says:

          US: you are entitled to your opinion.

          However, just because *you* can’t imagine a use for more than $500 million, doesn’t mean nobody else can either. Because having a use or need for something, and not being able to get it, is a hardship by definition.

          Forcing someone to give something away is just as bad as if you took it directly; at the end of the day it was theirs and now isn’t, by someone else’s choice.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          U_S, I hear ya, bro! Real similar to saying you don’t need a full auto rifle to hunt deer, right? Since *I* don’t see a reason for anyone to have more than 500 million, I will just go to your bank with my boys and their machine guns, and withdraw your other 50 billion dollars, that won’t be a problem, right? I mean, YOU don’t need it! It will help thousands to live a better life, even after I subtract the 45 billion payment to me, for my brilliance. Dafook are you thinking? If you don’t “need” it, I can just TAKE it?

          And you wish to discuss being “limited” to X amount? Where does the Constitution discuss the authority of ANYONE to impose such a limitation? Is this like a limitation of 2 rounds per magazine? Where did that authority come from?

      2. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Imagine they have standards too!?

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    New York City could easily eliminate their travel restriction tomorrow — and just as easily reinstate their travel restriction two weeks from now or after the date that the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to review the case.

    The fact that New York City enacted the law in the first place is a de facto demonstration that New York City has contempt for its residents. It is also a de facto demonstration that the United States Supreme Court needs to further clarify the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    We should all be hoping and praying that the United States Supreme Court reviews the case no matter what New York City does going forward.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      … the United States Supreme Court needs to further clarify the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

      Clarify it? How could it be any clearer or more emphatic? Does anything like “shall not be infringed” appear anywhere else in the founding documents? When they agreed on those 27 words, they must have really thought they weren’t leaving any room for interpretation. The naive fools. They should have added ” … and we really mean it. WE’RE NOT KIDDING!!

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Your wording,word play makes me think of one of my favorite Louder with Crowders,The Second Amendment For Leftard Morons.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          You do realize that Crowder is a gutless coward and chickenhawk who loved to cheerlead for never ending war but was too yellow to sign his name on enlistment papers? His name should be held in the same contempt as Jane Fonda’s.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Just remember the guy beating his chest and babbling about endless wars on a gun blog is probably an FBI informant.

        3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Chris

          IIRC he’s Canadian by birth and became a naturalized U S citizen,sure it’s the same person.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Blammo,

        And that should be the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

        Of course most of us doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would actually hand down such a correct, simple, and easily defensible ruling. Even a somewhat watered-down ruling should still help our cause. Either way, the Court needs to provide a ruling for the explicit purpose of busting the chops of cities and states that enact firearm laws like New York City.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Look at Heller. The Court has already plainly stated that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean what it says and the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN be infringed.

          Shall not be infringed; stare decisis says you simply can’t get there from here through the Court.

  4. avatar LKB says:

    While I predicted that NYC would do something like this, when I read the proposed rulemaking I’m surprised at how nakedly cynical and disingenuous this is. From the notice of proposed rulemaking:

    “The Police Department has strongly believed, and continues to maintain, that the present Rule furthers an important public-safety interest. However, in light of the Osterweil decision and the ongoing NYSRPA case, the Police Department has reviewed the Rule, and has determined that it is possible to modify it to reflect a carefully considered accommodation to the legitimate interests of licensees while also ensuring the safe transport of handguns by licensees between authorized locations.”

    In other words, NYPD likes things as they are and doesn’t this their laws are unconstitutional, but are afraid that the Supreme Court will rule against them, so they are willing to make a change to the law to moot the case . . . but with no guarantee we won’t just change it back the minute the Supreme Court dismisses the writ.

    I can think of at least two well-settled exceptions to the mootness doctrine that will allow the Court to decide the case. However, it’s really down to whether Roberts wimps out.

    I’ll go out on a limb and say he won’t, simply because NYPD’s move is so over the top.

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

      I kinda doubt he will as well, simply because of the votes to grant cert. in the first place.

      If Thomas and Co. had any serious doubts as to Robert’s ‘reliability’, I think they would have sat on their hands on this one…

      1. avatar LKB says:

        Yup.

        The potential wimp-out would be for Roberts to author an opinion that dismisses the appeal for mootness, but throwing in some anemic language suggesting that the reg would have been struck. The anti-2A caucus (Breyer, RBG, Kagen, Sotomajor) would file a concurrence, joining the decision on mootness (thus giving it five votes) but not joining the portion suggesting that the reg was unconstitutional. The pro-2A block (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) dissent from the mootness holding (and Thomas would likely call the Chief out for being such a wimp).

        But I don’t see that happening for the reason you indicated, plus the fact that the Court *really* doesn’t want to encourage this kind of post-cert gamesmanship. Heck, I suspect that even Kagen would have some problems endorsing such a transparent attempt to end-run the Court, and RBG/Breyer may be concerned that allowing it might open the door to similar tactics in redistricting / voting rights act / discrimination cases. (Sotormajor is such a legal lightweight that she can’t see more than two moves ahead on anything beyond how she wants a particular case to turn out, so she’s hopeless.)

        What is interesting to me is that NYC has just flushed any serious argument that the regs in question might survive strict or even intermediate scrutiny, and thus that the case will need to be remanded for further findings. By acknowledging that there is, in fact, a less restrictive way to accomplish their end, they cannot say that the existing stuff is “narrowly tailored” or the “least burdensome” way to realize an acceptable objective.

        In other words, while a holding establishing a new “strict scrutiny” yardstick would ordinarily require the case to be remanded to the lower courts for factual decisions under the new test (remember, appellate courts usually do not make findings on disputed fact questions), NYC’s admissions now put the Court on nicely solid ground to just reverse and render.

        Having said that, while I’d bet that Roberts won’t wimp out on mootness, whether he has the spine to just reverse and render is indeed an open question.

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

          “…while I’d bet that Roberts won’t wimp out on mootness, whether he has the spine to just reverse and render is indeed an open question.”

          Just look at the ‘turd’ he dropped in the ACA ‘it’s a tax’ decision.

          And just how warm and smug we all were after hearing the oral arguments…

  5. avatar tdiinva says:

    It’s not moot while the law is on the books. They will have repeal the statute. The Court will still hear the case.

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    More popcorn, please.

    But, I want to delay paying for it until I decide if the show was worth it.

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

        “But, I want to delay paying for it until I decide if the show was worth it.”

        Smart move. I still remember all to clearly how as giddy as young schoolgirls we all were after hearing the oral arguments in the ACA decision.

        And the raw ‘shit sandwich’ we were eventually fed…

  7. avatar possum says:

    Toothpaste and mouthwash wash, the government is spending to much oniCerts

  8. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Unless R B G , passes , she won’t go away,,, she’s already said that a couple of years ago, she’s trying to upend every thing Trump wants, she’s already said she does not like Trump & don’t think he said be President,,,, Roberts is another story,,, he’s a R I N O in a black robe… useless as the lamo Congress we now have.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “she’s already said that a couple of years ago, she’s trying to upend every thing Trump wants”

      Perhaps she will rule in favor of bump stocks then. Trump certainly wanted and directly caused the bump stock ban.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Fascinating. Her clear and unequivocal statements of opposition to anything and everything Trump would seem to this ignorant slut to be grounds for impeachment. But we are too civilized for that, right?

  9. avatar Darkman says:

    Said It before and saying It again. Relying on the opinion of 9 people to decide if you have the Rights set forth in the Constitution. Is a Fool’s Gambit. The anniversary of the most Important day in the history of firearms ownership is next Friday. April 19 1775. The day that (77) Subjects of the British Crown stood against 800 troops and took their first steps on the long and bloody journey to Freedom. The men who died that day and the next weren’t generals. They weren’t politicians or even the “Founding Fathers”. They were just Men. Men who desired Freedom from Oppression and Tyranny. Men who wanted nothing more than the Freedom of Choice and the Right to make that Choice. They chose on that day to risk all they had including Their Lives. For something greater than themselves. For something they were unsure they would ever see. Yet they stood and were counted. Many gave their lives until that great day (Sept. 3 1783). When the Crown was defeated and Tyranny was at last thrown from the shores of a new nation. Many of the transgressions those men and women gave their lives to defeat. Are once again rearing their ugly heads in the face of OUR Freedoms. How We face those transgression is a Choice each Citizen Will Make. Do We once again become Subjects of a ruling class. That cares not for Our Freedoms but only Their Control. Citizen or Subject only You can decide. Keep Your Powder Dry.

    1. avatar Chaps says:

      Thank you

    2. avatar Matt(Tx) says:

      @Darkman I blatantly stole this and posted it other places. Thank you.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        By all means please do. Post it everywhere. Send it to your Congressman/woman, to your Senators. Shout it from the roof tops. Great men and women sacrificed much.

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

      {April 19, 1775}

      “The men who died that day and the next weren’t generals. They weren’t politicians or even the “Founding Fathers”. They were just Men.”

      Actually, some of them were local politicians and *maybe* a ‘Founding Father’ or two, if my recollection of the book “Paul Revere’s Ride” is accurate. Some of them I believe eventually attained the rank of General by the time the revolutionary war had ended…

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Geoff: took the time for further research. There were a couple of generals of the Militia involved the second day. As far as politicians term did not exists as there were no professional politicians in the day. No Founding Fathers were involved in the fighting or decision making during the fighting. There was no plan for the fight. Only a response to the threat put forth by the British.

    4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “April 19 1775. The day that (77) Subjects of the British Crown stood against 800 troops and took their first steps on the long and bloody journey to Freedom.”

      The day “The Shot Heard Round The World” !

  10. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    DeBlasio, Pittsburgh, and LA may have some rude shocks on the way, and they have nothing to do with earthquakes

  11. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    I still don’t understand why they care so much about hurting the lawful citizens and not about the gangs/criminals/cartels. Pure hypocrisy. My new mantra: If you ask “Why? that doesn’t make sense”. The answer is always “follow the money”.

    1. avatar Docduracoat says:

      To commenter Victoria Illinois,
      These are gun bans dressed up as gun regulations.
      All reasons put forward to support these kinds of laws ( to decrease road rage, to fight crime or terrorism) are lies.
      THat is why these laws always ignore actual criminals.
      They are aimed at citizens.
      Once the citizens are disarmed, then the oppression can REALLY start.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I still don’t understand why they care so much about hurting the lawful citizens and not about the gangs/criminals/cartels.”

      Gangs, criminals and cartels don’t threaten “good people” going about their lives in “good places”. Neither “normals”, nor gun-grabbers habituate the “bad places”, where gangs, criminals and cartels operate. The threat is being in safe (“good”) places, and having someone who looks normal, snap and start shooting. School shootings (mass murders) seem not to happen in “bad places”, where “bad people” are congregated. School shootings happen in nice, safe places, and are always conducted by “normal” looking people who just snap.

      Gun grabbers do not fear bad guys. They fear everyone else. So, the only real solution is to remove guns from law abiding citizens, so those sorts of people can’t go snap in a crowd, and start shooting. And even if all the legal guns cannot be confiscated, there will be enough captured such that “good” people will feel safer…which one federal court ruled is justification for passing restrictive gun laws.

    3. avatar clst1 says:

      It’s not about guns, it’s about control. Full blown socialism will not work with an armed population.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Some of us are old. Squeezing off a few to obtain 3 hots and a cot for the rest of our lives is not all that offensive. And the good times to come are not all that attractive any more. Somebody should pay attention, but most likely that won’t happen until we’ve had a few thousand repetitions.

  12. avatar Hush says:

    TexTed says:
    April 13, 2019 at 15:50

    “He will join with the three worthless broads on the court and probably Kavanaugh. I have no faith in any of them.”

    “I thought your initial post was absurd. This follow-up shows that you are an idiot. You may not agree with Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsburg, but to call them “three worthless broads” says a lot about you.”

    Yes and for you NOT too says a lot about you!

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      He may or may not be ,he however has the three pegged as Marxist tools.

  13. avatar Mad says:

    Death to all tyrants

    1. avatar grey man says:

      Death it is … but first, Ru-Ru!

  14. avatar Docduracoat says:

    New York has already amended the law.
    It now states that New York City residents may transport unloaded firearms to second homes and businesses they own.
    They may not transport ammo in the vehicle at the same time.
    Still illegal to take it to a hotel upstate on a vacation.
    So, still draconian and clearly still an unconstitutional limit on what you may do with lawfully owned and registered property.

  15. avatar Aleric says:

    I see the NRA took time off from begging for money to issue a statement that has no bearing on this case whatsoever.

  16. avatar Prag Matic says:

    Tired of democrats gun wrangling?

    Vote Republican.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Take the guns first, due process later. Don’t worry about bump stocks, I’m writing them out. You mean chess Grandmaster republicans like that?

    2. avatar HP says:

      The Democrats are vile and detestable, but never forget, the Republicans did basically nothing to improve gun rights during the first two years of Trump when they also held the House.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Ah, but the Republicans did NOT have 60 seats in the U.S. Senate so the Republicans did NOT control Congress.

        (U.S. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate and then — and only then — actually vote on a bill. Since Republicans did not have 60 Senate seats, they could never vote to end debate on bills to restore firearm rights and therefore never vote to pass said bills.)

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          Harry Reed’s nuclear option deals with the 60 vote threshold. Democrats loved it when they were in power. Condemn it now.

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I look forward to Ginsberg and the other white lIberals using the Dred Scott v Mary Sandford case, to justify saying having a gun and traveling where ever you want to go, is not a right of any “black” american citizens. Now they can include everyone. Of course now they can update it to exclude only selected members of the elite.

    I hope the gun rights lawyers use the words Chief Justice Roger Taney (1857), When he said if black men were citizens, they’d have the right to carry a gun and travel where ever they please.

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

      “I hope the gun rights lawyers use the words Chief Justice Roger Taney (1857), When he said if black men were citizens, they’d have the right to carry a gun and travel where ever they please.”

      Oh, I *really* hope that as well!

      But we need to be careful invoking ‘Dred Scott’, since they are planning on using that decision when they get around in the eventual future to reversing ‘Heller’, et. all.

      They are going to call destroying the 2A to be every bit as righteous and moral as reversing the horrid ‘Dred Scott’ case…

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