Previous Post
Next Post

By the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation today expressed high hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will “step up to the plate” and expand further on the right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment in the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.

SAF Board member and syndicated broadcaster Tom Gresham was in the audience and he noted afterwards, “This may be the case that indicates whether the court considers the Second Amendment to be a legitimate right on the same level as the First Amendment.”

Gresham suggested that if the high court decides to reject the case, it will do so shortly. However, if the Court decides to rule in the case, that decision could be as far away as June, on the final day of the current session. The case is a challenge of a now-changed city regulation that forbade handgun owners from taking their guns outside the city limits.

“It has been ten years since the Supreme Court took a Second Amendment case, and this one could have far reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The last time the court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, our landmark victory that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

“We’re hopeful the High Court sees through New York’s attempt to moot this case by changing the law,” he continued. “The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it. That maneuver suggests the city knew all along its restriction would not pass constitutional muster, but only changed the law in an effort to prevent a court ruling that smacked it down.

“We will be watching this case closely,” Gottlieb said. “The City of New York, and any other government body for that matter, should not be allowed to trample on a constitutional right and then change a law at the last minute to avoid being penalized for their demagoguery.”

The case is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280.

 

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Previous Post
Next Post

21 COMMENTS

    • Leftist chit holes abound from coast to to coast New York chitty isn’t alone,although NYC historically going back to the founding has always been anti Freedom and Liberty minded.

  1. “This may be the case that indicates whether the court considers the Second Amendment to be a legitimate right…”

    Think about that for a minute. Do they need to consider whether any other amendments are legitimate? What about the constitutional right to an abortion? Oh yeah, that’s a made up right that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Try telling that to a dem and they’ll lose their mind with rage, but an actual amendment…

    • …but an actual amendment…

      …that speaks not to us, but the Government specifically instructing it not to infringe on a “self evident” natural right. Seems like this whole topic should have been a slam dunk decades ago, but Leftards, so…

  2. Don’t get your hopes up. It looks like Roberts is going to side with the liberal justices and moot the case.

    But he might not…

    We need one more justice on the court.

    • “It looks like Roberts is going to side with the liberal justices and moot the case.”

      I agree Roberts is the weak link here, but just curious what you based this on? Something he said in the transcript?

      • From Reuters:

        “Roberts asked whether the city residents who challenged the law would face negative consequences for violations of the prior regulation. Dearing said they would not. If Roberts’ concerns are resolved by that answer, it could be a sign he would join the liberals in finding the case moot.”

        • BS. Roberts also asked whether a mootness finding would prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to sue for damages under section 1983; counsel for NYC conceded it would.

          I’ll have more to say later, but the MSM spin on the argument — that Roberts somehow indicated he was in favor of mootness — isn’t backed up by anything I saw or heard. Methinks it’s wishful thinking by the press (and/or an attempt to set a narrative).

        • Classic fake news, or at least spinning the context of the point based on a micro-sampling of a few words.

          What they are not reporting is that much time was spent wringing out the fact that ALL the plaintiffs were getting out of this case if it were declared moot was the “representation to the court” that, essentially, NYC promised to behave in the future. Their lawyer specifically said that they were NOT getting an injunction that required NYC to act legally, and that was one reason why the case should not be moot. Despite the desperate assertions to the contrary, they did not get everything they wanted by NYC and NYS simply acting legislatively.

          It was clearly obvious that at least Alito and Gorsuch were not satisfied with that answer. Thomas and Kavanaugh did not speak, so we can only guess that they would not be satisfied either. It would take a more specific review an analysis of the entirety of Roberts’ words to try to dig out any real clues.

  3. “ and then change a law at the last minute to avoid being penalized for their demagoguery.”

    And what, exactly, would their penalty be? Worst case for NYC, the USSC says strict scrutiny must be applied, and the cities, states, and federal judges/lawyers crap on that.

    There are no punitive damages or other restitution against those that wrote the unconstitutional law in the first place, nor all of the judges that said the law was justified. And 6+ years to restore a right that will just get ignored.

  4. Trust not, and your trust will be vindicated. When any government lacky starts paying for my stuff including sales tax I might consider their recommendations as to where I can take it, until till then I can certainly tell them where to stick it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here