Salon Throws in the Towel on NYSRPA v. City of New York

new york state rifle & pistol association supreme court

We’ve extensively covered the pending New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case (see here). There’s no way of knowing how the court will rule, of course, but the gun control advocates at Salon and other media outlets seem to be girding for a decision that slaps down the city of New York and furthers gun rights for all Americans.

We certainly hope they’re right.

Realizing it would likely lose the case, New York City amended its transportation rule in June to permit residents to take their handguns to second homes, businesses or shooting ranges outside city limits. And in July, the city filed a formal motion with the Supreme Court, requesting that the case be dismissed as moot. The court denied the motion in October, setting the stage for another Second Amendment showdown.

In December’s oral arguments, the city again asked the court to moot the case. The city made no attempt to defend the transportation ban.

Unfortunately, given the city’s capitulation and the Supreme Court’s right-wing orientation, the only real remaining question is the scope of the NRA’s inevitable victory. Even if the court reconsiders the city’s request and enters a dismissal order, the NRA will walk away with a significant win, having forced the city to rescind one of the most stringent gun-control laws in the country. On the other hand, a decision on the merits on constitutional grounds in the NRA’s favor would reward the organization with an even bigger triumph, endangering gun-control laws everywhere.

A nation awash in firearms in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic awaits the court’s decision, which is expected by the end of June.

– Bill Blum in The Supreme Court is poised to extend gun rights at the worst possible time

comments

  1. avatar its coming says:

    Don’t think this one is going to do it with how little the Justices spoke of the actual case during trial. It was mostly centered on mootness from what I read.
    It is fine though. SC is holding two other big 2A cases and more are percolating up. Only a matter of when. The if equation is over.

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

      “SC is holding two other big 2A cases and more are percolating up.”

      If we win on this one, how could those other two play out, realistically?

      1. avatar TFred says:

        “If we win on this one, how could those other two play out, realistically?”

        This very moment, there are TEN cases that have been submitted to the Supreme Court which are “on hold.” That means the court has considered the request to hear them, but has not acted on that request. They haven’t accepted them, and they haven’t rejected them.

        This typically means that they are waiting for something before they act. Until we know the scope of the NYSRPA opinion, all we can do is speculate.

        One of the most hopeful speculation scenarios would be that NYSRPA recasts the entire 2A paradigm for how the constitutionality of gun control laws are evaluated, and each of these ten cases are “remanded” back to their respective lower courts for reconsideration in light of the NYSRPA ruling.

        One of my hopes and prayers is that the justices are watching the world around them, starting with the massive gun-rights rally in Richmond back in January, and especially how the nation as a whole has reacted to this current virus crisis, and that they are fully understanding that we as a nation are not quite yet “done” with the Second Amendment.

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

          “This very moment, there are TEN cases that have been submitted to the Supreme Court which are “on hold.””

          Is there a URL for those 10 cases?

        2. avatar JG says:

          The best situation would be similar to the gay marriage ruling had invalidating all state laws on the matter immediately. Not likely, but it would be in line with the Constitution.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          JG, there are some federal laws which need to be reconsidered, as well, going back 86 years!

      2. avatar LKB says:

        If SCOTUS reaches the merits in NYSR&PA, all of the held 2A cases will almost certainly be “remanded for reconsideration under our opinion in NYSR&PA.” Essentially, the appellate courts will be told to do those cases over based on whatever standard is articulated in the NYSR&PA opinion. Many of those appellate courts will then similarly punt the cases back to the district courts with similar instructions. (This is how the system is supposed to work.)

        If SCOTUS finds NYSR&PA moot (possible, but given the length of time since oral argument without a decision, perhaps increasingly unlikely), then I strongly suspect that cert will quickly be granted on one or more of the “held” cases. Again, the fact that cert hasn’t been granted on one yet has me thinking / hoping that Roberts hasn’t joined the anti-2A block on the mootness issue (if he has, then Thomas / Alito / Goresuch / could simply vote to grant cert in another case).

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      I’d be more sanguine if we had another placement. I still don’t trust Roberts.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        He is the weakest link in a originalist court.

      2. avatar TFred says:

        When the opinion is issued, if Thomas is the author, I’ll feel pretty good. At least until I read it! 🙂

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

          Well, Thomas just personally witnessed how the Leftists treated the newest associate justice, and keep that in mind as he (hopefully!) authors the ruling… 🙂

    3. avatar TFred says:

      “from what I read”

      Not to be snarky, but why would you believe what was written about this case, other than from sources such as TTAG, etc, of course. I can assure you these gun-friendly sources painted a much different picture than the mainstream news did.

      I attended the oral arguments, and yes, it is true that the liberal justices and the attorney for NYC hammered mootness over and over again. But why? It’s ALL they had left. A desperate “Hail Mary” that was doomed to fall well short.

      Why was NYC and the gun-hate mob so afraid of this case? NOT because they cared about licensed gun owners carrying their pistol to their lake houses.

      They knew full well going into this case that a ruling against them was quite likely to not only strike down their piddly law, but it was much more concerned about the how the Second Circuit contorted mis-interpretations of Heller and McDonald and some how came up with the idea that this piddly law was permitted in spite of the Second Amendment.

      The Second Circuit’s flawed thinking – and that similarly flawed thinking employed by other courts all over the country – is what this case is about. And that is what terrifies them.

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

        Heller-McDonald settled the right to “keep and bear” inside the home was un-connected with military service.

        I will be gloriously happy if the NY Pistol decision was that the right extended outside the home, but the states could determine the mode of carry, either open or concealed.

        Then we could pop a railcar-load of popcorn as the states are forced to decide, open or concealed. I’m visualizing the anguish in places like California if it should be “out-of-sight, out-of-mind”, or if “The people have a right to know” and demand open carry.

        I’d wager if they were forced, they’d go concealed carry. Although, if they chose open carry, the Leftists could fight back by harassing and ostracizing the open-carriers.

        Hey, I can dream, can’t I? 😉

        1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          “Although, if they chose open carry, the Leftists could fight back by harassing and ostracizing the open-carriers.”

          I don’t know Geoff, I think most Ca leftys would be so terrified at the sight of a openly armed person at the grocery or God forbid, at a movie theater, they might quite literally, piss themselves.

        2. avatar No one of consequence says:

          Klaus:

          They could, but I for one have never understood the thought process behind getting in the face of someone who’s obviously armed.

          There’s always calls to 911, but with cell phones, it’s very hard to make an anonymous call to 911 (unless you know what you’re doing), meaning simple “OMG a man with a gun” case-of-the-vapors calls could and should be defused by the 911 operator, and truly false “swatting” calls (“OMG a man with a gun is threatening people”) could be remanded for prosecution.

        3. avatar Brian says:

          Cali would most definitely go concealed. That way they could review their CCW laws and make them even more time consuming and expensive to obtain

        4. avatar Mark N. says:

          No one and Klaus: the fact of the matter is that until about seven years ago, “open unloaded” was still legal in California. So a group of people in various locations decided to make a point of it by having gatherings at Starbucks and boardwalks carrying unloaded firearms. Inevitably someone would make a 911 call of “OMG MWG!!” with their panties all in a twist. The 911 operator would send a police response, which more often than not involved multiple officers arriving with guns drawn, demanding ID, disarming carriers and checking to make sure that the firearms were unloaded, and then going through a whole rigamarole about why these people insisted on carrying guns and scaring the sheep. the Legislature responded with alacrity, banning the open carry of firearms in all incorporated cities and towns, leaving only the forests and deserts where firearms could be lawfully carried.

          Let’s add to that: The Gun free School Zone Act (both under Federal and state law) have a 1000 foot exclusion zone, which requires that all firearms within that zone must be unloaded and in a locked container (unless one has a CCW, which under state law allows carry in the zone but not on school property after a change in the CCW laws). In pretty much any urban area, the density of schools is high enough that there are few places where it is actually legal to open carry, and it is literally impossible to go anywhere around any town without violating the law.

          Let’s add one more factor: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in a case called Peruta (cert. den.) that there is no right under the Second Amendment to carry a concealed firearm, and therefore the State has discretion in issuing or denying such licenses, or even banning them completely. Currently pending, but being held pending the NYSRPA case, is this very question. Which way the court jumps, after having painted itself into a corner (since it cannot decide that there is not right to bear arms at all), will largely depend on the analysis the Supreme Court requires. Although the balance has been changed by Trump, the Court is still slightly dominated by liberals, more than a few of whom are rabidly anti-gun. Those forces will try to find any means available to them to conclude that, in essence, urban areas are “sensitive places” where the carrying of loaded firearms may be banned. (The GFSZA issue has not been raised in the pending case.) If it cannot, then the odds are that the State will try to enact a discretionary licensing system for open carriers, since the liberals are trying to eliminate the concealed carry permit system, leaving it on the books but making it too difficult and expensive for most to qualify or even try.

        5. avatar A. C. says:

          Mark N wrote:
          “(since it cannot decide that there is not right to bear arms at all), ”

          The Supreme Court has rejected precedent before. See this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
          Yes, I’m nearly positive this court won’t do that with regard to the Second Amendment.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          A.C., that page you posted of the court overruling itself is fascinating. Thanx!

        7. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          Mark N: I have to tell you – I have never been one of those “Well move out of California! Guys. I get it that people have jobs and family and commitments that make it near impossible to just get up and go.

          But, with what I know and what you describe (and I don’t mean just about guns either – other crazy laws. taxes, the cost of living, the indoctrination that children get in schools, the illegals, the prison population, my God it goes on and on) I would have to wonder.

          My people didn’t have to flee a state. They had to flee a continent in 1938. There was no “stay and fight the good fight” unless you wanted your family dead or in a concentration camp. It didn’t matter who you were or what your father did or grandfather did.

          I spent 10 years in the aerospace business. I was no stranger to SoCal in the 80’s. It was awesome to be able to leave El Segundo or Pico Rivera after work and be able to surf in an hour or ski in 2.

          But, it makes me wonder how much liberty conservatives or POTG will surrender for a great job and really, really fantastic weather.

          I wish you guys good luck most sincerely.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      It centered on mootness because that was the question at issue… that said, I tend to agree. I do not think this will be some massive decision that wipes out ‘intermediate scrutiny’ as much as I would like it to be such.

    5. avatar John Jay says:

      I would not worry about that. Most appeals cases do not hinge on oral arguments. The briefs submitted carry far more weight. Despite the questions centering on mootness, I would look to the briefs of each party to see the weight of the constitutional argument.

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

    “The Supreme Court is poised to extend gun rights at the worst possible time”

    Sounds like the best of times, to me… 🙂

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Positively Dickensian, innit?

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

        Tiny Tim – “Guns for everyone!”

        *Chuckle*… 😉

        1. avatar No one of consequence says:

          You didn’t think that was *just* a crutch, did you?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          It was a .410 pump action double barrel with the armpit thingy that stayed up. Duh. 🙂

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

          “You didn’t think that was *just* a crutch, did you?”

          A cane gun is an AOW, right? Just five bucks for the stamp?

          I might need to build me one of those in .410, with an additional 200-dollar stamp for the integral suppressor…

    2. avatar The Rookie says:

      That the author frames it as “extending” rights rather than “restoring” them says all you need to know about him and his opinion’s worth.

      1. avatar arc says:

        Mhmm. Reaffirming / restoring gun rights.
        Rights don’t come from government and government has no power to grant or restrict them.

    3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Worst of times for those pushing to convince the public that erecting a bunch of useless obstacles in the way before they can exercise their rights will somehow make them safer.

  3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    strycht screw tinny.

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

      But what limits on strict scrutiny?

      That’s the real question, or we will be playing ‘Whack-a-Mole’ on gun control forever. They will throw up road blocks faster than we can ever knock ’em down…

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        As I hinted in a recent comment, the problem that we are facing is that we have to carve out a significant slice of our limited resources of time and money to fight back against these heinous, unconstitutional laws — whereas it is the full time job of government entities with immense resources of time and money to enact these heinous, unconstitutional laws.

        I don’t see how we will ever prevail long term in this arena.

        1. avatar No one of consequence says:

          With personal liability and accountability (beyond not getting reelected) on the part of lawmakers, perhaps.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          The long term solution to this sort of nonsense (governments enacting heinous, unconstitutional laws) is a simple, expedient, transparent, reliable system where the courts actually render fair decisions on these matters and the lawmakers who enact these heinous, unconstitutional laws WILL go to prison for a long time upon the courts finding said laws to be unconstitutional.

          That right there is the fundamental problem. When we violate someone’s rights, we face significant penalties. When lawmakers and bureaucrats violate someone’s rights, they face no penalties at all.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          This is why gun control must be framed as a civil rights issue. Violate a citizens civil rights under color of law and you will lose your job and maybe even go to jail.

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

          “This is why gun control must be framed as a civil rights issue.”

          Because it is!

          That’s the playbook we must adopt. Make them *fear* the personal consequences of passing gun control laws…

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          A handful of legislators can pass a law which costs $millions to challenge, which is defended by spending the money of the same people paying for the challenge. But it costs nothing to ignore, unless those legislators vote to spend the big bucks for some manner of enforcement, which is unlikely. I (and several other people I know personally) carried illegally for over 35 years before I got a license, and that license was available for 5 years before I convinced myself to trust it, and applied. If government makes carry illegal again, I will carry illegally again.

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        The extent of little mikeys money is difficult to grasp and he’s got a LOT of it to throw around.
        He has billions. One billion is a thousand one million dollar stacks. He’ll keep throwing a few million here and there to further his agenda.
        So 2AF, GOA, and smaller state groups that rely on donations from people like us will keep on keeping on with filing suits like this in a game of whack a mole.
        Who knows, maybe something else will latch onto his lizard brain and he’ll throw his money in a different direction. Hell, he could order up a thousand ventilators to help his fellow commies in NYC. But he hasn’t. Because he’s an evil, selfish, ultra wealthy bastard.
        I don’t think he’ll stop until he’s gone and trying to bribe his way into heaven.
        All for naught.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “Because he’s an evil, selfish, ultra wealthy bastard.”

          I think you misspelled “prick.”

      3. avatar Justin says:

        There is also the issue that we are fighting a battle while paying the enemies soldiers. What does a state care if it costs millions to fight in court, it’s not like they there are real consequences for them. As long as politicians and thier lackeys have immunity from criminal prosecution for what basically amounts to a civil rights violation they are free to do what ever they like. Even if the supreme court was to hand down a ruling stating “shall not be infringed” actually means something what are they really going to do when yet another law is attempted.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sooner or later someplace has to get enough actual conservatives in office to pass a law legalizing lynchings for those who vote to remove civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Picture the Mall with one gallows and 400 Senators and Congressmen waiting in line for their turn, while the cameras roll and a few million armed men stand witness.

      4. avatar Barry Hirsh says:

        The Court has already set the example by using text and historical analysis, bypassing the counterfeit “three-tier” system.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    I don’t see this as a floodgates open decision. Every local restriction has peculiar rules and would need to be argued UNLESS the court goes all in and says not only is this law unconstitutional but local laws all over are when they preempt the state or feds.
    A ruling like that means hundreds of financially crippling lawsuits citing the decision as basis.
    We can only hope.

  5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    This case is almost a repeat of the Dred Scott vs. Marie Sanford almost two centuries ago. Back then the court stated that if a black person was a citizen of the United States, they could possess a gun and actually travel wherever they pleased with it. I’m sure the white liberal members of the Supreme Court are very aware of the language in the Scott v Sanford case. Because I’m sure Justice Thomas has informed them on such matters.

    The question is do the white liberal Supreme Court Justices want to use similar language, in their ruling this summer on the NYS Rifle pistol case? And will the white liberal establishment support similar language since they’re against black people possessing guns and traveling wherever they pleased with them???

    BTW
    There are many white historians across the political Spectrum who complain about President Lincoln and his habeas corpus actions during the Civil War. Judge Tawny from the Supreme Court is their hero as he ruled against Lincoln locking up white people. However those same white historians are very quiet on Tawny’s decision supporting the idea that a black person is not a citizen and cannot possess and travel with guns wherever they please.

    1. avatar Mercury says:

      Unless you’re counting Kennedy, there are no white liberal Supreme Court justices. Sotomayor is hispanic. Breyer, Kagan and Ginsburg are all Jewish by birth. Stevens was the last liberal Supreme Court justice (and boy was he ever.)

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        Accidentally a word. “Last white liberal Supreme Court justice.” I shouldn’t proof on one cup of coffee.

      2. avatar Holy Cheez-It says:

        Jews are white when they want to be, and not white when they don’t want to be. Ask any non-white, non-Jewish person and they’ll tell you that Jews are white. What really matters is what’s on the inside, not who your parents were.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Ask any normal person, and they’ll tell Jews are white…because they are. You can see the color of their skin, right? I mean, that’s pretty obvious.

          Truth is, they ARE white…and they’re also a distinct ethnic group with strong in-group traditions and outsized financial and cultural influence.

          Calling Jews non-white is racist code-wording (stupid code wording at that).

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Ing, the “othering” of Jews has been going on for well over a thousand years. It makes it so much easier to justify murdering them.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sheesh. So you guys are claiming that a black Jew is somehow not a Jew? And/or that a white Christian whose parents are white Jews is not a Christian? Do you realize the stupidity of that argument?

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        To Mercury
        They look white to me.
        Catholics, Protestants, Lutheran’s, and others killed each other for Hundred Years in Europe.
        In fact there is something called the Hundred Years War. Where Europeans slaughtered each other for about 100 years nonstop. Before it seems they ran out of people to kill or they just got tired of killing.

        The US Army Major who murdered over 30 of his subordinates at Fort Hood Texas was a white man. I know he is of Syrian Arab extraction. If you look at his picture while he’s wearing his army uniform. He looks like any other white u.s. army officer.

        The white Jews racially discriminated against black people just as white Christians have done in the past. And for those that don’t know it there are dark-skinned Jews from Africa. Yellow skin and Jews in China. And dark-skinned Jews in the Indian subcontinent.

        But yes there are dark-skinned Jews in the Arab world as well.

        Btw
        Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont believes he’s not white???
        He says white people are racist. But Bernie Sanders is also a big supporter of racist gun control. Perhaps he believes because he calls himself a Jew, he gets a pass on this issue. Not for me he doesn’t.

        And the “wise Latina”, a white woman who speaks Spanish, and who sits on the Supreme Court now. She doesn’t get a pass either for her support of racist gun control.

    2. avatar Barry Hirsh says:

      You mean, Chief Justice Taney?

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Ya that sh’thead guy.
        (Smile)

  6. avatar A says:

    I can’t find anything real on this Blum guy. Only that he writes for as many left wing publications that will have him.

  7. avatar Prndll says:

    I see things like this as a victory for Trump, the American people, and for freedom. There might be victory for the NRA/gun lobby but that is secondary to the 2A.

    People do make dumb decisions but you can’t hold people down for very long. Freedom is ingrained within the American spirit.

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    It would be nice if they’d throw in the towel and admit that COVID-19 was a massively overhyped nothingburger so we could all go back to work and start paying off all this unnecessary added debt.

    But I guess I’ll settle for this.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      If it wasn’t clear before, it should be now. The people in charge are complete fools. Instead of forcing places like beauty shops and tattoo shops out of business, they could have just implemented a limited customer and best practices plan that allows for distancing, extra cleaning, etc. between clients. This could have been safer than visiting your local grocery store. Every single business that is closed creates a negative domino effect on the economy, which effects all of us.

      I’ve said this from the beginning. This should be a managed risk.

      1. Have any of the cable news pundits brought up this point?

        1. avatar Dude says:

          90% of cable news, pundit or not, has been the same for the past 4 years. How can we frame the current news cycle to make Trump look bad? They’ve degraded themselves to the point that most people tune out unless they want their inner prejudices fed.

        2. avatar Prndll says:

          Dude:
          I completely agree.

        3. avatar No one of consequence says:

          Something Mrs. C related to me yesterday (paraphrasing):

          Some people – many journalists – wake up each morning just KNOWING that Trump has done something horribly, despicably bad since yesterday. The only question is what was it this time?

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Dude, you’re right, but right now that is being attempted by claiming he wasn’t tough enough, soon enough. Which is stupid (my initial response was that he should have shut down the country in July of last year). But when they get over that, I’m sure they will eventually get around to blaming him for murdering the economy without a valid reason.

        5. Journalism has less social value than professional sports.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      I’ll keep on praying that for you, this remains a nothing burger at the same time I pray for friends and family for whom it has become a very big deal indeed.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Just like the regular flu it can be very bad for some. Pretty sure my wife had it. If so I’m one of the nearly 50% who don’t get sick from it at all.

        Look at it this way, every year we lose nearly 40k people to car accidents. And not just the elderly or those with compromised immune systems, but they kill healthy children, and hundreds of thousands more are horribly maimed. We could end all of that with a strictly enforced 30mph national speed limit. But we don’t. And we all make the deliberate decision every day to get behind the wheel, knowing that 10 minutes later we could be dead. We do it, we sacrifice all those people because it’s better than the alternative. This is no different.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          While the comparison is useful, it’s not the same. We lose some amount of car crash victims every year and we can make relatively good guesses at how many. This being a novel virus, it is very hard to make guesses- and those guesses are highly dependent on what we do, but we don’t know in what ways. Anywhere from a few dozen thousand (nationally) to a million. Tough to wrap one’s head around that.

          But the basic point stands that we are willing to let people die for our convenience and lifestyles. We just usually aren’t presented with it as such a sudden situation. But there is one more thing; there is something insidious about a contagion. If I’m worried about being in a car accident, I can do a heck of a lot of things to survive or avoid them entirely. Live in a city, take the subway, avoid busy streets- you’re pretty much golden. But with this kind of thing the only way to avoid it is to be off the grid as much as possible. That’s a very scary situation.

          There were a few thousand people killed on 9/11, much less that will be killed by this virus or even the flu in a given year. But it changed the geopolitical face of the planet. Statistics are never the whole story.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Downunder unemployment has doubled in about 6 weeks to just over 10% and without federal stimulus packages would be over 15%.

      China’s bungling and incompetence has not only released a global pandemic but has also started a global recession.

  9. avatar Darkman says:

    Said it many times. When you rely on 9 people who answer to no one. Are placed upon the court that determines not only what Rights you have and don’t have. Cannot be removed by the will of the people through vote or impeachment. The people have ceded their Rights to a system that is closer to serfdom and citizen. Is Freedom decided by decree. Truly Freedom? Or permission based on the authority of those in control? Keep Your Powder Dry.

    1. avatar Roger J says:

      Americas Politburo

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Supreme Court Justices are in fact impeachable. US Constitution, Article 2 Section . They can be removed by the will of the people through their legislators in congress. It may not move as fast as we might like it to, but it will move when the people become sufficiently motivated to demand it. Would you really like to watch the system go in what ever direction the wind happens to be blowing on any given day?

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        US Constitution, Article 2 Section 4. Don’t know where that “4” went.

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          Through their Legislators. Ya Right. Not likely going to happen when. Those very legislators support. The decisions made by the court. Even when they defy the Rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
          When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

        2. avatar Hntmaster says:

          Ok Darkman. What’s your plan?

  10. avatar Roger J says:

    ‘furthers gun rights for all Americans’ WRONG Returns gun rights previously established.

  11. avatar Ing says:

    “…endangering gun-control laws everywhere.”

    Damn, I really like the sound of that. Play it again, Sam.

  12. avatar JUST THE FACTS! says:

    Laws or No Laws America will take back all gun rights and we will recycle the rope just to be green…….

  13. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

    I think that scotus is going to toss out the ‘levels of scrutiny’ and will rewrite the proper way to scrutinize civil rights, specifically regarding 2A cases. Then my best bet is that scotus will send all the cases back to the lower courts they are hanging on to with the new scrutiny rules and tell them to redo the judgement using these new rules. I honestly hope that scotus will elevate 2A cases to the same level as the rest of our civil rights. It may not be a big giant win, but it sets the stage. There are a lot of cases right now regarding licenses, open carry, assault weapons ban, etc. Maybe if we’re lucky we can jam up the gun grabbers for a generation or 2. Maybe by then Bloomberg will be long dead and all of the money will be spent on hookers, booze and Lamborghinis.

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    “On the other hand, a decision on the merits on constitutional grounds in the NRA’s favor would reward the organization with an even bigger triumph, endangering gun-control laws everywhere.”

    God forbid a case come down to the merits.

    I’m not big on schadenfreude but panic in the ranks is a hell of a thing to behold if you can just sit back and watch.

    1. avatar Top says:

      “POPCORN! GETCHYA POPCORN!”

  15. avatar Top says:

    Sorry (not really) Mr. Blum, but the Supreme Court is poised to extend gun rights at the EXACTLY THE RIGHT time.

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