SCOTUS Schedules NY State Rifle & Pistol Association Case for December 2

Supreme Court in fall Bigstock

Bigstock

The US Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for December 2 for the much anticipated New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case. This case has the potential for setting back gun control in America by a couple of generations, bringing us closer to the original meaning of the Second Amendment.

The NRA-ILA has a lot of background information on the case.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a gun control law for the first time in nearly 10 years. The case arose from a New York City regulation that banned city residents with “premises” handgun licenses from taking their own legally-owned firearms outside Gotham for lawful purposes. The city defended the law all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, insisting it was essential to public safety. But ever since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of that decision, city and state officials in New York have been running scared, desperately maneuvering to convince the justices to dismiss it. Now, it seems, their reckoning may be nigh, as the high court has scheduled the case for argument on Dec. 2.

The lawsuit, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. City of New York, offers a revealing look into the mindset of gun control extremists, and in particular, their refusal to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s precedents that recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, individual liberty.

Indeed, over a decade after the Supreme Court made clear that handguns are a protected Second Amendment “arm” and cannot be banned, New York State still generally prohibits the mere possession of pistols and revolvers. State residents, however, may qualify for an “exception” to this ban by obtaining a license issued by the locality in which they reside. The difficulty of obtaining a license depends on where in the state a person lives.

New York City, to no one’s surprise, is the most onerous place to get a handgun license. For the “average” person (that is, for someone who is not well-connected to city officialdom or rich and famous) the only feasible choice is a “premises license.” That license allows a person to keep a handgun in his or her home or place of business. Even then, the process takes many months, multiple trips to police headquarters, and hundreds of dollars in mandatory fees. Licensing officials also have broad discretion to deny licenses, even when the applicant has no criminal convictions.

Until this court case arose, premises licensees could only transport their firearms outside their homes for narrowly circumscribed purposes, and only then, if the firearm were unloaded and in a locked container and separated from any ammunition. Licensees could visit a shooting range within the city itself, for example, but they could not leave the city with their own guns, even for lawful purposes like firearm training or competition or to take the gun to a second residence elsewhere in the state.

City officials tried to justify these restrictions by claiming they could not keep tabs on licensees who left New York City, although they had no evidence the licensees were causing problems with their handguns beyond city limits. The thinking seemed to be that unless New York City bureaucrats somehow monitored and documented every place licensees went with a handgun and what they did with it, the licensees must be doing something bad.

Courts in New York (including federal courts), do not like the Second Amendment, which emboldens the state’s anti-gun officials to pass ridiculous, overreaching, and punitive gun control laws like New York City’s travel ban. Thus, the ban survived judicial scrutiny all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms – including handguns – for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense. Nevertheless, the court has since 2010 declined to hear any Second Amendment cases challenging gun control laws. In the interim, however, President Trump has appointed two new justices to the court – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – with strong records of taking the Second Amendment seriously.

And so it was in January that when the plaintiffs in the New York City case asked the court to review the Second Circuit’s decision upholding New York City’s travel ban, the court agreed.

New York City initially reacted with defiance, but as the reality began to sink in that they would finally have to justify their laws against serious judicial scrutiny, they began to furiously backpedal. First, the city amended its regulations to allow the plaintiffs to take their handguns to ranges and residences outside city limits. Then state officials got into the act, passing a law to underscore that handgun licensees could transport their licensed handguns for certain permissible purposes. The city then asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming they had given the plaintiffs everything they wanted.

The plaintiffs, however, urged the court to go forward, noting that the recent laws could always be changed and that New York City handgun licensees still remained subject to the anti-gun whims of city officials. Only a clear Second Amendment ruling could protect their rights in the long term.

The court responded by scheduling a hearing in October on the question of whether the case should go forward.

In the meantime, however, five anti-gun U.S. senators stuck their noses into the matter by submitting a “friend of the court” brief in August authored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). More an unhinged political rant than a legal argument, the brief essentially accused the court of unprofessional political bias, insisted that it not hear the case, and warned that the court might need to be “restructured” to be more favorable to Democrats.

Perhaps it is a merely a coincidence that it took the court just over a month since that brief was filed to schedule a case that had been pending since January.

Nevertheless, it is not a forgone conclusion that the court will even hear the case in December, much less that it will issue a sweeping ruling on the right to keep and bear arms that will finally bring Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel. The case could still end at the October procedural hearing without being decided on the merits.

Will the Supreme Court hear the case in December en route to a sweeping ruling on arms? It remains unclear. What is clear is the need for a lawful ruling the finally brings Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel.

Mark it on your calendars. December 2nd.

Then all we have to do is wait until sometime next spring for the decision’s publication.  In the meantime, we can stock up on popcorn.

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Oh boy. Here we go again, wishing SCOTUS would issue a sweeping rejection of a myriad of gun control laws, And the absolutely insane belief that lower courts will respond likewise. Not bloody likely. The very best that can happen is every law in opposition to a new SC ruling in our favor will need to be challenged, individually, in courts that opposed the Heller/McDonald decisions.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “The very best that can happen is every law in opposition to a new SC ruling in our favor will need to be challenged, individually, in courts that opposed the Heller/McDonald decisions.”

      Well yeah, and that’s half the fun, or more if you’re into schadenfreude. Watching the antis twist and scream each time the knife gets turned a bit with each new case. It’s a multi-year political snuff flick.

      There’s a lot of work to be done in the maintenance of a Republic, constant work. When it’s left unattended for a while it starts to pile up and you end up with a backlog. That’s where we’re at. So yeah, if the SCOTUS does things just right then it’s time to roll up our collective sleeves and really get to work.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’ve got my fingers crossed for a blanket “strict scrutiny” standard for all 2A cases. 99.9% of gun control doesn’t pass the smell test of strict scrutiny as it’s basically the 2nd amendment equivalent of prior-restraint.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’ve got my fingers crossed for a blanket “strict scrutiny” standard for all 2A cases.”

          Which affects current laws how? Each would need to be challenged, one-by-one.

          For a transport case, involving one municipality, looking for blanket “strict scrutiny” as the level of review for all gun control law is a real stretch. We will end up with a narrow (because that is what SC prefers) ruling, applicable to NYC only.

        2. avatar Dog of War says:

          Well we can always hope, but I’m not betting on strict scrutiny being applied to the 2A in this case. Although this case is almost assuredly a slam dunk against New York state, given that NY’s only real argument against the plaintive is ‘the NRA are the bad guys and BTW we’re going to overthrown SCOTUS if you decide against us.’ So I expect another Heller like decision, SCOTUS is going to step right up to the line of saying strict scrutiny but not really cross it. But hey… as I said, we can always hope. And ultimately this will be one more win for the side of liberty.

        3. avatar Dog of War says:

          Sam I Am:

          Well it’s still important that we aim for ‘strict scrutiny ‘ being applied to the 2A any time we can. To use a metaphor we’re still facing a wall of unjust laws, but we can at least upgrade from a claw hammer to a sledge hammer to try and knock it over.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Looking for “strict scrutiny” regards 2A is a nice thing to hope for. However, reality is SC works very hard to find a very narrow procedural problem to decide, versus large constitutional principles. Call it “make work”, self-preservation, whatever. Heller was a large scope case, yet the SC was careful to restrict its reach. Was a better case for sweeping change.

          Do not overlook Roberts. He told the government they should not try to disguise Obamabcare as a tax . Then he decided that finding something viable in Obamacare was primary because surely Congress intended, somehow, to establish Obamacare, and deference should be granted so that legislation wasn’t being blocked simply because it made no sense, or had far ranging consequences. Roberts then determined that in order that the will of Congress prevail, declaring it constitutional to tax a person’s decision to not participate in purchasing health insurance would move Obamacare from a gross overreach of government to something routine and mundane (A very narrow ruling).

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So yeah, if the SCOTUS does things just right then it’s time to roll up our collective sleeves and really get to work.”

        “Our” is a bunch of individuals who will need to find the money to engage first-rate constitutional lawyers to fight recalcitrant governments and lower courts, all the way to SCOUTUS, only to find SCOTUS will not entertain the cases for another ten-fifteen years. All the while, the laws stand.

        Just wanted people to understand it is not prudent to let expectations run wild in their minds.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          ‘“Our” is a bunch of individuals who will need to find the money to engage first-rate constitutional lawyers…’

          I’d say that’s a good start but ultimately goes back to something we were discussing the other day which is essentially the concept of political entropy. Combating that takes a constant effort across an array of issues and activities that in sum could rationally be called “active citizenship”. That requires everyone to pull some weight.

          That takes a lot of forms and a hell of a lot of effort by a large number of people within their various abilities. But that’s the nature of a republican form of government. The opportunity cost of freedom is vigilance and effort. The opportunity cost of resting on our laurels is a loss of freedom.

          “Just wanted people to understand it is not prudent to let expectations run wild in their minds.”

          You do this a lot. Personally I rate it as an extremely valuable service.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The opportunity cost of freedom is vigilance and effort. The opportunity cost of resting on our laurels is a loss of freedom.”

          Not a very welcome admonishment, that. We want our representatives to be eternally vigilant in our stead.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

          Someone has to and in a Republic that’s us.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Someone has to and in a Republic that’s us.”

          There ya’ go.

      3. avatar Someone says:

        It cost antis nothing to pass more and more gun control. It costs us a lot in money and time to play whack a mole with their unconstitutional “commonsense measures”. Every time we miss, we move closer to the edge. Every time we hit them square on the head, they just come back with even worse gun grab. It costs them nothing, why wouldn’t they?

        We rely on laws and courts to help us ensure our freedoms and rights. But we already have the supreme law which says that the RTKBA is uninfringible and completely off limits. How does that work for us in reality?

        Presidential candidates are racing each other who promises more egregious gun grab. Media and leftist politicians brainwashed the populace into believing that we, the gunowners are a huge problem, public ownership of semi auto rifles is a health crisis and the NRA is a domestic terrorist organization. It costs them nothing.

  2. avatar MMurcek says:

    And worst case you get a 5-4 anti 2A result with John Roberts voting with the liberals.

    1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      That is my unending nightmare. I have long believed that Roberts has gone soft. There was a “conspiracy” thing going around after the Obozocare ruling that the democrats “had something” on him and were blackmailing him. I don’t know but I would not put it past them.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        Roberts was appointed by a Bush. Not a single solitary thing in history has been made better by the involvement of a member of the Bush family.

        If Jeb had won the nomination i’d have voted for Hillary.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          This !
          No Bush has ever been a conservative,Ever. Roberts as his pick was bound to be a less than ideal pick.

        2. avatar Bob says:

          Clarance Thomas was appointed by Bush Sr.

        3. avatar G. W. says:

          I would vote for Blue (the hound) before I would vote for that Criminal. Just giving Obama a lifetime appointment would have been the equivalent, in my humble opinion. That is, well after, the last thing I would wish for.

  3. avatar Jon in CO says:

    Is the scotus that busy that they need to be waiting for cases 3 months from now? This is why the justice system is broken.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The Supreme Court reviews thousands of petitions for review every year. plus capital punishment writs, and hears argument in over three hundred, issuing a written ruling in each. On top of that, in many cases, such as this one, there are not just two or three briefs to review and for their clerks to research, but dozens, and many are not “brief” briefs. And they have to review the record of the case as it comes up–every case is a blank slate. And you want a turn around in a case in which the last brief was filed this summer? Get real.

      And by the way, it is unlikely–in fact it is the usual practice–for the court to issue all of its decisions in the cases decided that term at the end of term in June.

    2. avatar IN Dave says:

      3 months to hear the case? Then they are about 6 months more efficient than the atf with form 4s. In the context of the government 3 months is overnight. Lol

      1. avatar Not Larry from Texas says:

        And the SCOTUS has probably more staff that the NFA branch, More funding and dose not have literally thousands of documents to review and approve. I am no thrilled at the slow progress of the NFA staff but to compare the 2 is unfair.

  4. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    One more thing, no matter how they decide we will likely not hear about it until June 2020.

  5. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    If things go as they should legally, I think this could be a watershed moment for restoring gun rights. But………keep your eye on Roberts, the weak link.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Here’s to RBG dropping dead in the next two months.

      1. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

        🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏X999999999999999999999999999999999999999^99999999999+1

      2. avatar OBOB says:

        I say she is dead right now…we need proof of life…hot breath on a mirror proof!

  6. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    Scotus sounds like a disease. He came down with a bad case of the scouts. Or it could be a place where someone kicks a Man when they don’t like them. Kicked him right in the scouts I did.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      There’s also a Catholic Philosopher named Scotus from the Middle Ages.

      Wait… that makes it sound worse.

  7. avatar Dale Menard says:

    If one of the liberal justices happens to pass away, will Roberts decide he has to keep the status quo?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I think you might see the fastest SCotUS confirmation in history. Mitch is ready to ram as many appointments through as he can as fast as he can.

      1. avatar Perry says:

        Trump to McConnell to Court Appointment – over 150 double plays in 3 years!

        I’d like to thank “Dingy” Harry Reid for invoking the Nuclear Option. “Phyrric Victory” comes to mind.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          Harry Reid always was a lying pile of crap. I saw an interview where he was asked why he had make untrue finianincal impropriety claims about a Republican canadate (Romney IIRC), the lie was told shortly before a vote. Walking and talking turd Harry said with a BIG GRIN that the person he lied about had NO TIME to provide their tax document to prove H Reid had lied. This POS is PROUD of this act.
          Sad how a human can be comfortable (smile even) when being exposed as a total POS. Decades ago trators like him were taken out and shot, or faced the person they lied about with pistols at dawn.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not terribly likely. If this case gets past mootness, it is likely to go badly for NYC since its restrictions, telling its residents that they cannot leave the city with an unloaded firearm in a locked case in the trunk without police permission, is particularly egregious and cannot stand. I think it is more likely that the Court will take the 2d Circuit to task for its incredibly strained “logic” that concluded that the ordinance in question passed “intermediate scrutiny.” Along with destroying the 2d’s analysis, the decision will destroy the same “analysis” used in the 3d, 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal as well–which is precisely why NYC, NYS and the Democratic Party went out of their way to avoid SCOTUS review.
      The same happened in that D.C. CCW case, Wrenn v. D.C., where the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded in a 2-1 decision that only “shall issue” CCW was permissible in a jurisdiction that banned open carry. After the entire Circuit refused to take the case en banc, a number of liberal states leaned on D.C. to take the case no further, lest the Supreme Court uphold the decision and wipe out their restrictive CCW regimes.

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

        “…a number of liberal states leaned on D.C. to take the case no further, lest the Supreme Court uphold the decision and wipe out their restrictive CCW regimes.”

        The best we can hope for is a decision that the ‘bear’ in “to keep and bear arms” means what it says and unless one is a legally-prohibited person, you get to carry, either openly or concealed.

        The ‘bone’ the Court can throw to the slave states is to allow them to chose the mode of carry, either openly or concealed. Just *imagine* the uproar that decision will cause! My dream is that the slave states will put it on a ballot.

        “The people have a right to know who is carrying” bloc insisting on open carry, and the “Out of sight, out of mind” faction demanding concealed carry. The “Letter to the editor” pages will be *epic*… 😉

  8. avatar JoeWay says:

    Every case should be moot and thrown out with severe penalties against all attorneys or petitioners that bring action. Enough is enough.

  9. avatar Nanashi says:

    Can Ginsberg hold on till then?

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      you believe that she is alive??

      I have not for months…vampire or zombie…yep! Alive nope!

  10. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    SCOTUS really needs to nail Ny to the wall on this one so they can’t take another run at it in a couple of years. Sneaky SOBs have that in mind.

  11. avatar GunnyGene says:

    In the long run it’s not going to matter what the court decides. This problem (opposition to the 2A, socialism generally) is not going to be deterred by legal pronouncements. This problem will only be solved the old fashioned way. With force of arms.

    That may sound like a threat, but it isn’t. I’m much to old to be making threats. It’s a prediction, based on logic and the long history of humanity. Good luck to you all.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Maybe SCOTUS can keep ’em at bay while we are still around.

      What’s your guess, based on that long history of himanity, as to how long we can hold out before it comes to force of arms?

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        It’s not a time based prediction. It’s an event/situation based one. It will happen when the evils are no longer sufferable. As was demonstrated in the years leading up to the Revolution, and in earlier societies going back to the beginnings of civilization.

        And so it will be again.

        1. avatar George Washington says:

          Oh how I wait….. And wait…… And wait….
          I can’t wait until it gets to that point….
          Omg…..I CAN’T WAIT…. IT’LL BE A GLORIOUS DAY FOR THIS NATION….

          But to be sure, I don’t know if the people of this country have what it takes to stand up for themselves…. They haven’t for about 50 years now….

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “the old fashioned way. With force of arms”

      You may be right, that’s how most dictatorships are established so there is a long tradition of force of arms being used to take away freedom’s. And one of the greatest freedoms is a citizens right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the court system.

      But sure, POTG can throw that out the window and establish their will through force of arms, that will play well in Peoria.

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

        “…being used to take away freedom’s.”

        Being used to take away freedom’s… what?

        Free Clue, son. Just because a word end with an ‘s’, doesn’t mean you automatically tack an apostrophe (‘) on before that ‘s’… 🙂

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          That’s a speech recognition error that I don’t bother to correct. I’m sure you got the just of the post.

          I am familiar with both possessive and contraction usages of the apostrophe, but I thank you for your concern about my grammar abilities.

          Do you actually have a comment that addresses the content of my post, I would find that interesting.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          And just who is ‘Clue’, I’m sure it’s a person because you capitalized the noun, right? Are you talking about the board game Clue?

          Or was that just a speech recognition error you didn’t bother to correct?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Just because a word end with an ‘s’, doesn’t mean you automatically tack an apostrophe (‘) on before that ‘s’…”

          Afraid that’s most common today (I think it started with the song “Pipeline” by the Chantay’s, or the Shantay’s).

          Sorta like beginning all paragraphs at the left margin, with no line break between, depending on the reader to guess of the hanging sentence is the end of the para, or indication that the next word exceeded space available without using hyphens.

      2. avatar Barnbwt says:

        Odd sentiment for a revolutionary socialist…

        Yes, popular revolt does tend to end badly for all involved.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I am quite confident as well that lower courts will largely ignore a ruling from the United States Supreme Court which requires strict scrutiny for all Second Amendment cases.

      What that ruling will provide us is an overt righteous basis for all future actions.

      Unfortunately, having a righteous basis for action is irrelevant since most people only care about pleasure, comfort, laziness, and passion — and condone anything and everything (including manipulation, coercion, theft, assault, and murder) to get what they want.

  12. avatar George Washington says:

    GOD…. The first few comments to this article are another example of the BS legal MUMBO JUMBO….. You know…. The people who THINK, and I emphasize the word THINK they can confuse every matter with a bunch of BS WORDS….
    HOW ABOUT YOU READ THE SIMPLE WORDS WRITTEN DOWN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS NATION…… READ THEM!!!!!!
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED….. NO EDUCATED IDIOT MUMBO JUMBO NECESSARY….

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…… GOT IT? MFERS ….

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      The 2A is not a cafeteria, you can’t pick and choose what words or phrases you like and ignore the rest of this amendment.

      Well regulated militia has a specific meaning, so let us turn to the Webster’s dictionary of 1828 to find the definition of regulated:

      “Regulated
      REG’ULATED, participle passive
      Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

      Webster’s dictionary 1828”

      So there it is, ‘subject to rules or restrictions’, the word regulated means that it is subject to regulations, it could not be simpler.

      Now, prove your integrity and patriotism by hoping for my early death, just like you do with the supreme court justices.

      1. avatar million says:

        Noah Webster’s dictionary definition from 1828 provides every possible meaning of the word “regulated”. But the phrase “well regulated” as specifically stated in the 2A means to be properly functioning. Something under government control may well be “regulated” but it would never be considered “well regulated”.

        The term “well regulated” means to function properly ostensibly due to practice and maintenance.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So there it is, ‘subject to rules or restrictions’, the word regulated means that it is subject to regulations, it could not be simpler.”

        Old news. Already relegated to a subordinate clause. Note that the Second Amendment does not state the the Militia’s right to arms shall not be infringed. The framers wrote that “the Militia” is “the People”.

        No matter how you slice it, the People, not the government must be armed in order for the Militia to function at all. The Militia predates the Constitution, indeed predated the Confederation. Neither the Constitution, nor the Confederation created the Militia.

        The central government was the focus of the Constitution, not “the People”. “The People” were granting the Federal Government certain, restricted, powers because the States (empowered by the People) were superior to the entity the States created, and ruled. The Constitution appoints the Congress to equip the Militia, and the States to train and regulate. Congress failed to take on the appointed responsibility, and the States permitted the organized Militia to decline into an unorganized Militia.

        Lastly, the National Guard is not the “modern” incarnation of “the Militia.” The National Guard was created by federal law (legislation). The Guard was created to be under federal control, not state control. With the National Guard act (1903), Congress took finally fulfilled a responsibility to equip military units in each state.

        The Guard is funded by the federal government, with states retaining some control over the use of the Guard for internal purposes. However, the states do not have primary control over the Guard. This was all in response to what the central power saw as a need to prevent states from refusing to allocate Militia to the federal government (a provision in the constitution notwithstanding), such as happened in the War of 1812, where New York refused to allocate militia to fight against Canada, across the border. (The founders had quite a bit to say about how they would allow the national government to use Militia, specifically not to use Militia of one State against another, and other circumstances.)

        Now to the specious implication that “restrictions” contained in a dictionary definition of Militia permits the federal government to apply such….NO. The States own and control the Militia. ( a dictionary does not confer onto the central government the right to prevent the People of the militia from being armed with weapons of war) The States could run Militia as they saw fit, including restrictions on where and when Militia would be used, length of “call up”, military discipline, required training and the style and times of training. A Militia is made up of People/Individuals; the Second Amendment protects those individuals from national government attempts to disarm the populace.

        On a tangential, but related, note…

        Why do people insist that private citizens be disarmed, when such condition would leave Donald Trump holding all the weapons of coercion? If Trump is “Hitler”, and his supporters are “Nazis”, why would any thinking person believe that with a monopoly on firearms, Trump would not simply round up his opponents and put them in camps? He could only do that if there were no armed opposition to his power.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “No matter how you slice it, the People, not the government must be armed in order for the Militia to function at all.”

          Yes, that is absolutely true. But that statement does not in anyway negate the qualifying preface that the militia be well regulated, and the right comes secondary to the qualifying preface.

          You also miss the difference between organized and unorganized militia. National guard versus the people.

          The 2A requires the regulation of the militia, with rules and restrictions, as was understood at the time in the plain definition of the word regulate.

          There are no absolute rights, neither God-given (if she exists at all) or government granted.

        2. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

          “There are no absolute rights, neither God-given (if she exists at all) or government granted.” Really?!?! Why are you even on this site then?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Fact remains, neither the constitution, nor the BOR grants the central government power to disarm the populace, through confiscation or legislation.

          The Second Amendment had one overarching purpose…enforce the retention of power of the people to wage war against an out of control government. This cannot be accomplished if the government is permitted to decide which weapons are permitted to the people, to the Militia.

          There is no provision within the constitution to alter the meaning, detail or application of the constitution without amendment. Such beliefs are mere artifices to invert the power structure between the states and the federal government. Under the Constitution, ALL powers not specifically granted the federal government are retained by the states. The states retained the power to regulate their internal affairs, including weapon ownership by their citizens. The central committee has no such power.

          And no, I didn’t misconstrue Militia or National Guard. The Guard is not the Militia existing prior to the founding of the nation. The militias were state units right through the Second Civil War, identified not by US Army unit designations, but State unit designations. National Guard units have been US Army units since their creation.

          The founders did not confer power to the federal government to determine the limits of weapons of war held by the citizens of the States. If that were so, the Second Amendment is useless, superfluous, and irrelevant. Permitting the central government to have ability to hobble the States such that they could not match the military power of the central government was unimaginable to the founders. The central government was to equip the Militia, but nothing, anywhere, allows the central government to prevent the Militia from having other weapons, of whatever type desired.

          The Second Amendment is absolute on its face; the founders knew precisely what “shall not be infringed” meant, and what “Congress shall make no law…” meant. As regards the role of the central government in the affairs of the States, restrictions on the central government were absolute in that the central government was permitted no authority to expand its powers in those matters. Management of rights not granted to the central government absolutely rested within the States.

          But because anti-American forces are fond of “common sense” laws that interfere with the rights of the people, please identify any provision of the Constitution or BOR that grants such authority to the central committee. Indeed, identify writings of the founders that showed intent to allow the central committee to invade every facet of life with laws and regulations.

          Do you really believe that a fluid dictionary definition confers power to anyone or thing?

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

          “The states retained the power to regulate their internal affairs, including weapon ownership by their citizens.”

          So NY state and the California government are fully within their rights ban any and all guns within their respective state borders?

          That doesn’t seem to be making our case very well…

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So NY state and California governments are fully within their rights ban any and all guns within their respective state borders?”

          Aahhhh yes. The other edge of the sword. In the beginning the Constitution was not an all encompassing monolithic document, controlling every action of the citizens, or the States. So, yes, States retained plenty of freedom. The cure for bad law in the States was the political process (“throw the rascals out”), and the freedom to move to a more suitable State/territory.

          One of the reasons Franklin famously replied about the form of government was not only that national government, is a monster always fighting to devour the citizenry, but the States were capable of not only hostility toward each other, but toward their citizens. The States were sovereign principles. Ultimately the central government was proscribed from dictating this or that as national law, but one State could make this or that illegal, where another State declared this or that legal.

          Liberty is messy.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        Thanks for your reply, let’s examine your point.

        “But the phrase “well regulated” as specifically stated in the 2A means to be properly functioning”

        I read your assertion, and your meeting is clear. But you give no citations or justification for that viewpoint. Do you have a contemporaneous definition of the word regulated that comports with your asserted meaning?

        Webster’s dictionary of 1828 comes to us just 37 years after the ratification of the 2A.
        I would suggest that the definition as articulated by Websters would be the common usage of the word in that day and time.

        And in any case, well regulated does not mean no regulations whatsoever.

        1. avatar KJW says:

          I thought it was already widely accepted that “well regulated” does not mean government restrictions in the Second Amendment.

          https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I thought it was already widely accepted that “well regulated” does not mean government restrictions in the Second Amendment.”

          A dictionary definition of a term confers no new or additional power to the federal government.

          The Federalists believed that any power not specifically delegated/granted by the constitution was beyond the authority of the federal government. Thus, not specifically stating that the central government COULD control firearms held by the public was evidence that the central government had no such power. The Anti-Federalists trusted government even less than the Federalists, and insisted further definitization of the restrictions on the central government were necessary. Hence, the BOR was created to reinforce the restrictions on government, the 9th and 10th amendments being most specific that unless written into the constitution, powers remained with the States.

          Nothing in the basic Constitution or BOR enables the national government to disarm the populace. It is all done through legislation and court decisions. And the people are satisfied.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          It seems the article that you cite is very misleading about the Oxford English dictionary’s definition of well-regulated.

          From the Oxford English dictionary your article cited:

          well-regulated
          ADJECTIVE

          * 
Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.

          Origin
          Late 16th century; earliest use found in Geoffrey Fenton (c1539–1608), translator and administrator in Ireland. From well + regulated.

          Regulate

          1.1Control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

          ‘the Code regulates the takeovers of all public companies’

          Origin
          Late Middle English (in the sense ‘control by rules’): from late Latin regulat- ‘directed, regulated’, from the verb regulare, from Latin regula ‘rule’.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sam, you say:

          “Thus, not specifically stating that the central government COULD control firearms held by the public”

          But the 2A does specifically state that the militia should be ‘well-regulated’, meaning rules and regulations set by the government ordained by the constitution. It could not be clearer, that’s why the 2A starts with the requirement for regulation.

          And as stated above, the OED is clear on the meaning of the word regulate:

          “1.1Control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

          ‘the Code regulates the takeovers of all public companies’”

          Words have meanings, and the courts must follow the meanings of the word in question.

          I can assure you, in my opinion Mason and Jefferson we’re not thinking about clocks with the 2A was written.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Under your notion that a dictionary definition confers power, you are left with a situation where the central government indeed can arrogate to itself the power to disarm the populace through legislation, which is the exact opposite of what the founders intended.

          It is the right of the People to maintain weapons of war, not a militia, that is protected by the Second Amendment. The Militia is dependent upon an armed citizenry. “Shall not be infringed” is there to prevent the central government effectively abolishing the State Militias through starvation of funds and weapons. As I said, if the central government has such power by dictionary definition, the Second Amendment is entirely pointless.

          The States retained the power to maintain Militias made up of individuals. Hence, RTKBA is an individual right. Without individuals, there can be no Militia. Without armed individuals, a Militia is powerless.

          In the Second Amendment, the founders declared that the power of the States to retain and maintain Militia, individuals of the States shall not have their right to armament interfered with, no matter the deviousness of the central government to subvert and subjugate the People and the States.

          What you want to push is the idea that states and the people are subjects, inferior to and property of the federal government, and the government can regulate the people so as to deny the ability to discipline the central government. This is not a definition of “regulate” the founders could recognize.

          Nothing in the Constitution considered allowing the central government to rule the States. Nothing in the writings of the founders supports a notion that they were subordinating the States to the central government, except in areas where the States were contracting the national government to act on behalf of the individual and independent States, as provided in the specific wording of the Constitution. It was the SC, not the founders, who envisioned government power to be expanded through court decisions beyond settling disputes, but legislating in place of the States (through the Congress). You will look in vain for any statement in the constitution or writings of the founders that the national government can use “common sense” to justify national government supremacy over the States.

        6. avatar BoG 2.0 says:

          “Regulated
          REG’ULATED, participle passive
          Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.”

          Your post contradicts your assertation. To “put in good order” does not mean to be subjected to rules or restrictions. Nor is the constitution a blank dictionary for you fill-in-the-blanks with improper definitions and lack of grammatical rules.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          Bog, your argument is not with me, it’s with the Oxford English dictionary, from whence the definition comes.

          “Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.”

          That’s a direct quote from the OED that was cited by another poster, and I can’t argue with it.

          Websters 1828 dictionary agrees:

          “Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions”

          You may be willing to argue with ol’ Dan’l Webster, but anybody that defeats the Devil in a Court of Law has got my vote.

        8. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

          Each of you are thrashing about, blindly, in the weeds. The operative words are “a free state”. The 2nd was written to ensure that we remain in a free state. It most assuredly does not refer to any political entity, Federal, state or local. The founders wanted us armed and capable of defending our very freedom, the state of being free. Microscopic examination of the term well regulated is pointless.

        9. avatar jwm says:

          Looks like miner49er is stepping up to carry vlad’s water for him.

          One leftist nutter is pretty much the same as the next.

        10. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          Just the same I believe that by including the phrase, “shall not be infringed,” in the original the right was extended to all the People.

      4. avatar Barnbwt says:

        Says not to pick & choose, immediately partially quotes 2nd Amendment out of context (inaccurately)

        LOL

      5. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        We should all agree the SSS has well ordered and regulated me to register, they didn’t give me much of a choice. The authority they had and still have to do this is legislated in the US Code, the same code that defines all of us who registered as members of a militia (look at the law). Thus, all of us who registered are part of a well ordered and regulated militia to be ready to be called to arms at any moment by the Federal Government.

  13. avatar dwb says:

    Actually, the court will decide Oct 1st if its moot. Then if not, arguments will be hard dec 2. If it is… then we’ll see if they take another case soon enough.

  14. avatar Juice says:

    “This case has the potential for setting back gun control in America by a couple of generations”

    That seems like a very bold statement. At the federal level, that includes the Brady Bill and NICS, the ’89 semi-auto import ban, and the Hughes amendment.

    Assuming those aren’t going anywhere soon, then at the state level you’re talking about what? Red Flag, may-issue permits, gun owner i.d., state-level AWB/high-capacity bans?

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      I agree. This is a shrug at best. We won’t see a ticker tape parade of gun owners over this.

  15. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Hoping that we will get something good out of this yet expecting the worse. Strict Scrutiny out of the SC would get Trump a second term at least from the NRA segment of the vote.

  16. avatar enuf says:

    I’ll be hoping, but not holding my breath in anxious anticipation. Been around too long to get hopes up unreasonably.

    Little hope is all. Kind’a like a seasoning of hope, don’t drown in the stuff.

  17. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Not holding my breath for the government to place restrictions on itself.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    We will watch the local jurisdictions give the finger to any ruling against their gun control and bans.
    If the court rules in NYC favor we are fucked. No if and’s or buts about it.
    That’s the problem with these standoffs. Keio v New London shocked people who thought no one could lose their property to another person so the state could make more taxes from it.
    If they rule NYC can micromanage guns and their owners we are going to see a rollout of it everywhere. Your address and residency will determine if you have 2A rights or not.

  19. avatar 2aguy says:

    I just wish they could have waited till Trump put 2 more Justices on the court….one to replace ginsburg, the other to cover that moron, Roberts, vote. He will likely side against gun rights after being pressured by the democrats……he has already shown them his belly when they went after him on obamacare, so I doubt, completely, his ability to stand for the Constitution and the issue of guns…..he was a horrible pick.

  20. avatar Sam Hill says:

    Now that well regulated has been more or less defined if not clearly at least lengthly. To what does that apply? Me thinks it doth apply solely to the militia, and not the citizenry. Therefore the individual’s right to bear arms is not to be infringed. Shall we look up infringe in the dictionaries?

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