The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Supreme Court Case Circus is Coming to DC

Supreme Court Second Amendment case arguments

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

[ED: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York on Monday, December 2. TTAG contributors LKB (a member of the Supreme Court bar) and Jeff Hulbert of Patriot Picket will be there reporting on the arguments and the surrounding protests throughout the day.]

By Jeff Hulbert

With one week to go before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the first significant gun rights case in a decade, the hand wringing by the gun-grabbing Left has escalated into a full-on social media panic, complete with public calls to gridlock the perimeter around the High Court with anti-gun protestors next Monday.

Here are some of the agitated posts now making the rounds, many spearheaded by the founder of Moms Demand Action group Shannon Watts, who confidently boasted just last week, “Gun extremists are scared shitless of women and moms.”

Supreme Court Second Amendment case arguments

Courtesy Twitter

Just what is at stake here that has them so agitated?

On the morning of December 2nd, the Justices will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York — an action that some gun banners initially derided as a “minor” gun case of limited scope.

Supreme Court Second Amendment case arguments

But now, gun control groups, led by Blooomberg front groups Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety, are pleading with their supporters to flood the zone at the SCOTUS sidewalk on December 2nd, declaring “We must not let the NRA win!”

However, the success of the case so far has prompted New York City officials to roll back their own law in a desperate effort to render the case moot.

Supreme Court Second Amendment case arguments

Courtesy Twitter

It was a forced retreat, repealing regulations that prohibited all opportunities for NYC residents to leave home with their firearms in order to travel to gun ranges or destinations of their choosing outside the city.

In anticipation of what many anti-gun scholars saw as a likely smackdown by the Court, the New York State legislature backpedaled even further, passing a law preventing New York City from reinstating such restrictions at any time in the future.

It was, and is, an arrogant attempt to prevent the Court from ruling the City’s infringements of the right to keep and bear arms.

Part of Monday’s arguments will include a petition by the city to declare the case moot. But the panicked commentary in the media and the gun control orgs’ calls to action betray their fear over the possible outcome of the suit and its effect on gun control laws nationwide.

Amping up the agitation on the Left is the realization that the most recent justice to be installed on the Court, Brett Kavanaugh, is now in position to press his long-held view that all the “interest-balancing” contortions used by the lower courts in the past be set aside in favor of a straightforward review of Second Amendment cases using “history, text and tradition” to reach decisions.

Slate.com has framed the Left’s concerns about Justice Kavanaugh’s influence in stark terms, noting the ideological shift that took place when Justice Anthony Kennedy stepped down last year:

Now Kennedy is gone, replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a gun-rights enthusiast who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment. With a firmly pro-gun majority in place, the conservative justices finally seem ready to supercharge Heller.

It’s no wonder, then, that Leftist gun control advocates are banging the pots and pans with such ferocity.

Ian Millhiser, writing for the left-leaning website Vox.com has gone as far as to concede that . . .

Gun Control supporters are desperate—and have already taken drastic steps —to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.

Millhiser adds that the NYSRPA case is “a small legal dispute…and yet it is this smallness that makes New York State Rifle so dangerous to the consensus [interest balancing] framework”.

Millhiser’s conclusion: next week’s case “gives the Supreme Court an ideal vehicle to hold all gun laws with skepticism—even very minor ones”.

Sounding the alarm and issuing declarations that they should own the sidewalks at the Supreme Court next Monday, the anti-gun Left has not hesitated to try to fire up their base by dredging up images from their “STOP KAVANAUGH” demonstrations outside the Supreme Court a year ago.

Supreme Court Second Amendment case arguments

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

One can only guess whether the intent of the Civilian Disarmament caucus is to ring the Supreme Court with a massive protest next Monday.

Supreme Court Second Amendment case arguments

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

Or re-enact their charge up the courthouse steps a year ago to kick at the huge doors of the court with their boots, while pounding the decorative bronze panels with their fists—and all while screaming at the police who took up positions to stop the vandalism.

Supreme Court Second Amendment case arguments

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

My Bill of Rights demonstration group, The Patriot Picket, and I will be there with our signs and flags to stand for our full rights under the Second Amendment. I urge you to make a stand with us at the Supreme Court next Monday morning from 8am to 11am.

For those driving into DC to stand for 2A, you will find lots of paid parking at Union Station, just off North Capitol Street, NW DC.  From there it’s just a short walk to the Supreme Court building, which faces the east in front of the U.S. Capitol.

The shrieking and drama from the anti-gun Left is likely to be on full display Monday. Less sure is what will happen in the chamber as the justices hear the arguments. Some legal observers believe the justices could indeed rule the case moot, with a declaration that New York City gun owners have achieved the legal relief they had sought with the City’s repeal of the law in question.

Even if the case is ruled moot, the gun grabbers’ angst is not likely to end soon. There are a handful of other Second Amendment cases in the pipeline right behind NYSRPA v. NYC. Court watchers believe that if SCOTUS punts on this one, it will be because they are seeking to review a case where they can get more legal traction for a significant ruling on Second Amendment jurisprudence going forward.

But a significant number of Court watchers believe a ruling of mootness after such a transparent maneuver to sidestep an adverse ruling is unlikely and that the ultimate ruling in Monday’s case just might make history.

The countdown is under way.

 

Jeff Hulbert is founder of The Patriot Picket

 

comments

  1. avatar tinhats says:

    Just what I like to see. Not a mob trying to influence a vote, but a mob trying to influence the judicial interpretation/application of the constitution. Looks like democracy to me. sarc

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Looks like democracy to me.

      No need for the sarcasm disclaimer. That is EXACTLY what democracy looks like: mob rule without any inviolable rights for the individual.

    2. avatar dontbuygenone says:

      You know what keltec fans want most? A prepaid shipping label.

    3. avatar arc says:

      Looks like a bunch of screaming, whining, losers without any jobs.

  2. avatar JR Pollock says:

    The only way this could get anymore exciting is if “Notorious RBG” takes another trip up to Johns Hopkins Memorial…

    Then, they’ll start jumping off rooftops!

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      IMO

      We all need a “Proof of REAL life” PROOF that she really acts and thinks for herself and is not some near brain dead Alzheimer’s zombie at this point

      Far too many Americans think she is already dead or so near death that her vote might be influenced by the person REALLY signing her paperwork…in HER NAME

      1. avatar MLee says:

        Weekend at Bernie’s?
        It is a real brain scrambler that she is still sucking air. Man she has been through helluva lot with
        Colon cancer
        Pancreatic Cancer
        A coronary stent
        Fractured three ribs
        Lung cancer and left-lung lobectomy
        Radiation treatment to ablate a tumor

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          At this rate she will be “the Six Billion Dollar Woman!”

          We can rebuild her
          to keep her alive on year longer till orange man bad gone!
          We have ‘their’ tax money to blow!
          Even if she is a brain in a jar we have to do this!

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Still highly skeptical of “history, text, tradition”. Two of those ideas are circular reasoning. That is, the regulation of machine guns is permissible because the government, having made machine gun ownership uncommon, can legitimately declare machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not in common use.

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

      “Still highly skeptical of “history, text, tradition”.”

      That can work for us. ‘Gun registration’ is highly unusual outside of major cities, so that makes for an easy lift getting it declared unconstitutional, along with getting magazine-fed semi-autos declared traditional and therefor being banned unconstitutional…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I understand your thinking, and it could work, except it is SCOTUS. Consider: “tradition” and “history” hold that certain weapons are not useful in warfare (yet there is no weapon that is not useful in warfare). “Tradition” and “history” hold that “compelling government interest” can override constitutional protections. “Tradition” and “history” tell us that “explosives” can be regulated (controlled). “Tradition” and “history” tell us that no natural, human and civil right is absolute.

        It is just concerning when a justice declares that “text” is only one of three considerations when reviewing the constitutionality of a matter, meaning two-out-of-three is a superior outcome.

      2. avatar Roger J says:

        I am prepared to be disappointed.

    2. avatar Sam Hill says:

      Where exactly in 2a does it say anything, anything at all about common usage. As I recall it says shall not be infringed. Learn to quit compromising my rights away. Please.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Learn to quit compromising my rights away. Please.”

        Not compromising anything. It was done long before I was delivered. Just noting a potential problem with SC reasoning regarding the Second Amendment.

        You are “talking” to an absolutist who lives in Realsville. Have another look at some of my commentary on what absolutism actually means.

  4. avatar Rickster says:

    What part of ” shall not be infringed ” is so hard to comprehend ? May the SCOTUS rule accordingly.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What part of ” shall not be infringed ” is so hard to comprehend ?”

      Can you think of even one legitimate, permissible exception to that phrase?

      If even one exception can be justified, so can others. Surprising how many “acceptable” exceptions to “absolute” are deemed “just common sense.” (Hint: inmates in jails and prisons should not be allowed to arm themselves).

      There is no rational definition of “absolute” that includes exceptions.

      1. avatar OBOB says:

        your ‘straw man’ fell apart under its own weight

        when you are Jailed or imprisoned===you are no long a citizen and not really covered by the constitution because society has ruled that you are in need of a time out or death in some cases

        1. avatar Country Boy says:

          FWIW, SCOTUS has already ruled, several tims, that the 2nd A appies to felons too. Google it.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “you are no long a citizen and not really covered by the constitution because society has ruled that you are in need of a time out or death in some cases”

          Not so. If prisoners are not citizens, they would have no rights (under the construct you pose). However, non-citizens residing in the US have full constitutional rights. Thus the denial of exercise of a single right does not translate to making one a non-citizen. Believe me….prisoners do have constitutional rights.

          Besides, your conclusion is a specific exemption/exception to “absolute”. (i.e. “non-citizen”)

        3. avatar enuf says:

          I get the sentiment and I agree with it but even the most heinous felon on Death Row is a Citizen right up until they kill him or he dies on his own accord. His rights have been restricted upon a fair trial and judgement. Doesn’t mean he has no rights, just far fewer than normal decent people.

          Or even less than abnormal indecent people, for that matter.

      2. avatar Matt Williams says:

        Yep. Substantive due process simply isn’t compatible with absolutes. The issue isn’t whether the right can be infringed; it’s “what does the right protect?”

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The issue isn’t whether the right can be infringed; it’s “what does the right protect?” ”

          Which is a question no different from, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

      3. avatar Phil says:

        Their rights have been removed through due process. Go troll somewhere else.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Go troll somewhere else.”

          Get a clue, Phil.

      4. avatar Jason says:

        “Can you think of even one legitimate, permissible exception to that phrase?“

        The simple answer to this question is NO. There is not a single permissible exception, but you already knew that. The text of the law is clear.

        If you want to disarm the prison population then you need to amend the text, not pretend it says something that It doesn’t. But you already knew that.

        This amendment process is permitted by the constitution, but you already knew that as well.

        What you are doing, Sam, is playing the same stupid legalistic word game that got us into the predicament in which we all now find ourselves in the first place, the one where they want to pass and enforce laws for which they are unable to garner the constitutionally required support, but I’m pretty sure that you already knew that as well.

        So, I’m curious. Do any of the words in the constitution mean anything at all, or is it more like abstract art?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You misunderstand completely, just about everything.

          Point is, “absolute” is “absolute”, or it is not. “Shall Not Be Infringed” is “Shall Not Be Infringed”, or it is not. It is intellectual (and legal) dishonesty to shout slogans that are self-defeating on their face. We need to face our own duplicitous thinking and shouting. In short, we are proclaiming “except” to every pronouncement of “absolute” and “Shall Not Be Infringed”. We are playing word games, just like the anti-gunners. We need to face up to our own insincerity.

          The Constitution is the base legal document/contract. The words stand as written, until modified (amended). The Constitution provides that government cannot deprive a person of their enumerated, or unenumerated “rights” without due process of law. The simple meaning is pre-existing natural, human and civil rights can be infringed if done so properly, in accordance with established legal process (a crevice available to be filled with innumerable forms of mischief). However….the Constitution provides for modification/amendment of the words, meaning and impact of the base document/contract.

          When a contract provides for subsequent modification without terminating the contract, and constructing a new one, the modifications are legally superior to the base document. If one party agrees to purchase two items per month, then the modified contract is amended to require three purchases, the one party can no longer claim to be in compliance by purchasing only two items per month. So it is with the constitution. The base document required “due process” to deprive a person of “rights”. However, the contract was amended (including the “due process” clause) to read, “….shall not be infringed”. The wording is not “….shall not be infringed EXCEPT FOR….”. In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, the amendment overrules the “due process” provision of the base document.

          Claiming that an amendment to the contract can be subordinated by the very clause the amendment addresses is legal mumbo jumbo, intellectual gymnastics. However, the case has been decided, and infringements permitted as being within the scope of the constitution. So, exceptions always negate “absolute”, and pretending otherwise makes us look foolish and simpletons. The argument now is not “absolute” or “exceptions”, it is which exceptions can carry the day politically. Let’s just admit we are playing word games, and move on to discovering which exceptions we are willing to endure.

        2. avatar Danny-338 says:

          I think some people are missing the point. The Constitution should mean exactly what it says. The Second Amendment should mean exactly what it says. If they don’t, then what was the point of writing it down? What was the point of the writers arguing and debating the wording?

          It is the very reason why I vehemently disagree with the executive and judicial branches “interpreting” what a law means. If the legislature has failed to articulate what the law means in how it is written then they have failed and the law should be struck down.

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          Are people who have been incarcerated for violating the rights of others a part of “the people”? I would argue that they are not. They have been separated and isolated from “the people.” They become a part of the people again when they are released.

          It is the same logic as to why foreign nationals (illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants, or whatever) are not covered by the second amendment. They are not citizens of the United States and therefore not part of “the people” of the United States. If they become naturalized citizens of the United States then they are a part of the people.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Are people who have been incarcerated for violating the rights of others a part of “the people”? I would argue that they are not. They have been separated and isolated from “the people.” They become a part of the people again when they are released.”

          Isn’t this an exception to the clear wording of “the law”? People convicted of crimes do not become “non-persons”; they retain constitutionally protected rights…except….

          If you closely re-read your comment, it is an interpretation of “the law.” One might even say you comment is simply declaring a “common sense” exception to the Second Amendment. Once you step on the slope, you open the door for someone else’s “common sense” exception, interpretation.

          Interpreting an absolute such that it is no longer an absolute means the item in question clearly is not absolute.

        4. avatar Danny-338 says:

          Sam

          Always providing me with food for thought. Thank you.
          Is it an exception? Are individuals who are incarcerated, still among the people? Have they not been separated from the people by the people (a jury)? Do they retain all of their liberties while jailed? Certainly they retain their rights but they are not free to exercise all of them while in jail. Is it a law passed by some level of government that puts a person in jail? Or is it the determination of a jury. Is the Constitution a restriction of the power of government or the people?

        5. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          Sam of course you are right, condemned persons do not lose their other Constitutionally protected rights, usually they lose all of the second, their right to vote and bits an pieces of the rest. They retain the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, eg. But, does “due process” allow the state to nullify certain rights? That is the whole argument against Red Flag Laws; they violate rights without due process; doesn’t that imply that with due process rights may be violated?

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But, does “due process” allow the state to nullify certain rights?”

          The term is part of the base document – the constitution. Apparently, the founders understood that some inalienable rights are alienable when subjected to “due process” (which, by the way is something they complained about in the DOI). My effort here is to note that the Second Amendment (and the First) establish certain things that seem are beyond “due process”. The constitution indicates the central government can take your RTKBA after “due process”. The Second Amendment states “shall not be infringed”. Reading the amended constitution, you can lose your rights after “due process”, however, not the RTKBA.

          Now, aside from the technical discussion about amendments, the situation we face is that something standing for “due process” is present regarding RTKBA, making the Second Amendment not absolute. Our continued proclamations about “Shall Not Be Infringed” win no legal or political contest, and we should drop the sloganeering and focus on dealing with current reality in a manner that can effectively alter the landscape. Sloganeering simply makes us noisemakers, with nothing to offer the cause.

          “Due Process”? Well, that is a funny old bird. The term has two “branches”: substantive; procedural. Substantive Due Process – The substantive limitations placed on the content or subject matter of state and federal laws by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Procedural Due Process – …requires the state and federal governments to follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters.

          With “red flag orders” a legal procedure duly enacted by government authority seems to constitute “due process”. In essence, “due process” is whatever government says it is. In reality, “due process” appears to mean that government can’t just make up laws on the spot. It seems courts are satisfied that if a law is duly enacted, it is “due process” on its face. The effect is an amendment to the constitutional protections without the bother of seeking a true amendment.

          If “due process” is in the eye of the political holder, we either change the politicians, or depend on a different branch of government to self-limit its own power.

      5. avatar Diksum says:

        “just common sense.” . Not enough people have it to make it “common”.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ““just common sense.” . Not enough people have it to make it “common”.”

          Well….there’s that.

  5. avatar Kyle says:

    My CCW is not valid either for participation in a demonstration, nor in DC itself. I do not, willingly, go to locations where the left, who have proven they endorse violent attacks on those with whom they disagree to the smallest degree, unarmed.

  6. avatar Craig in IA says:

    HEY! Well, looky here, now.

    Where are all the GOA, NAGR and insignificant gun peeps out there? Look at those posters, pics and ads by the bed-wetters. The target these creeps have in their sights is clearly the NRA, no mention of any of the other little guys… Yeah- I’d be pouring my money into those groups if I wanted to be relevant…

    Oh, and if memory serves me, NYSRPA is an NRA affiliate. I pray for justice for them and all the others out there fighting the nearly impossible odds. May SCOTUS rule in the eyes of our founders.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      So, I donate once a year at tax time. Had been $100 each to the NRA, GOA and SAF. Now and until Wayne is gone, it’s $150 each to the GOA and SAF.

      Wayne is corrupt, plain as can be. Supporting corruption always leads to something worse than what you try to keep going, in the misguided hope it will all workout in the end. Best solution is root out the corruption with all speed, remove it and restore good health.

      None of that can happen so long as Wayne LaPierre remains.

      And by the way, there is no reason the NRA and NRA-ILA could not be doing good works with someone other than that thieving money grubbing gun-ban compromising P.O.S. at the helm.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I just sent off another donation to the CRPA (California Rifle and Pistol Assoc.). They do a lot here to challenge Sacramento’s nonsense in the courts.

      2. avatar FiftycalTX says:

        WLP gets about $2 million a year in “compensation”. There are at least 5 million NRA members. So, instead of giving NRA $100, you could give NRA $99.60 and be free of WLP cooties. Now if you say NRA still does good things, not giving “because” of WLP and the $.40 of your money is cutting your own throat for no good reason. Rather than preaching to the anti-WLP faction on this board, contact NRA board members. We are in for the fight of our lives and we NEED NRA move than ever.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Personally, kids, I gladly and willingly provide decent money to organizations not to try to make some sort of political statement about the organization nor to try to feel good. (The same is true of my church.) I put the money where it will actually do some good and have a positive effect on what I hope to accomplish. None of the other “gun rights” organizations can come close to making a difference in the forever, ongoing battle of philosophies concerning privately owned firearms. They have no clout, no connections, no organization, no nation-wide network.

          Nothing. Zip. Like it or not, and if you think they do, you’re delusional.

          If it makes you feel good to pour your money into a rat hole that keeps these little guys paying their rent, go for it- it’s your money. Personally, I believe WLP is worth at least what he’s being paid- he’s the one that took NRA from a completely safety and marksmanship orgainization prior to 1975 to the only gun rights entity today that everyone has heard of, is afraid of if they seek to disarm us, and wish they could do away with, once and for all.

          I think I’ve read NRA’s obituary something like a dozen times since 1976. It used to be one would read them in the NYT or WaPo, not on so-called “gun blogs” that pretend to have the rights of Americans in mind. Seriously, some of you really need to stand back a bit and assess the situation in a rational manner rather than listen to critics who have never introduced or battled legislation at any level, let alone organize and raise money for the cause. I know a lot of people here think WLP, or some other person should do the job for $40K per year, or just write it off entirely. You get what you pay for. Should NRA be brought down, the Second Amendment would follow in a month or so. There is no other group to fill the vacuum, like it or not.

  7. avatar MLee says:

    All those ignorant hens along with Ms Ugly Shoes Watts isn’t going to make a bit of difference showing up and wearing their stupid shirts. Sure sure the cameras will be there getting trick shots to make it look like it a packed barnyard complete with weak gutless husband who don’t want to be their but are too dominated by the wife to say NO EFFING WAY HONEY!
    It will be interesting to say the least, minus the ignorant hens.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “All those ignorant hens along with Ms Ugly Shoes Watts isn’t going to make a bit of difference showing up and wearing their stupid shirts.”

      Such demonstrations have two major goals: maybe intimidate the proceedings by casting a shadow of public outrage if the court doesn’t “do right”; firing up the base. It’s a no lose proposition.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        The court has already literally been threatened by DNC Senators stating “We will ‘restructure’ the court if you do not vote in our favor on this court case.”

        I doubt a couple of dumb commies marching around with anti-Kavanaugh signs will have any sway on SCOTUS compared to a group of the most powerful people in our government.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I doubt a couple of dumb commies marching around with anti-Kavanaugh signs will have any sway on SCOTUS compared to a group of the most powerful people in our government.”

          Indeed.

    2. avatar Just Saying says:

      MLee, you are correct, to many husbands have abdicated their role as men and let the crazies come out.

      Societal influences aka radical feminist/leftist have scared people into capitulation.

      However, in their defense, their weakness is because of decades of social engineering and an even weaker political class that sold out the people.

      1. avatar MLee says:

        @Just Saying
        That’s one thing my overbearing domineering mother did teach me then, stand on my own two feet and don’t allow people to think for me.

  8. avatar FedUp says:

    But Demanding Mommies and Giffords aren’t anti gun…just ask them.

    (and if you believe that, I’ll let you buy my bridge in Brooklyn)

    1. avatar MLee says:

      My overbearing domineering mother was VERY anti-gun. “guns are for killing” she said.
      Well that lesson didn’t sink in at all. I *LOVE* guns. The more the merrier.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Guns are for killing, it’s true.

        And they are also useful for a lot of peaceful pursuits. There’s no rule that says you *have* to kill with them.

  9. avatar Truckman says:

    If the court rules according to the constitution new york will lose

  10. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Vox had a screed about this today, they are very worried. That’s a good thing.

  11. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    You got to admit regardless of what you think of the anti gun crowd, their participation for their side is 10 times or more the participation of the 2A side. How many showed up on the 3\4 of November, 200 or 300 if you held the camera right. Another point is that all these groups bought and paid for by Blomberg are his foot soldiers on the ground supporting his campaign for President.
    Its not what you want pro gun groups to do for the 2A. Its what you can do for the 2A.
    Get off your ass 2Aers and get something done!!!

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      It helps that the anti-gunners are funded by the likes of Bloomberg. The turnout is impressive because the Demanding Moms have paid staffing and can afford to bus in bodies for the demonstration. Wouldn’t surprise me if the demonstrators are paid, too.

      Meanwhile, over on the pro-gun side, all the grunt work is done by volunteers short on time, and the demonstrators show up on their own dime, some of them using up a sick day or giving up a day’s pay.

      So, yeah, the public show can get pretty lopsided.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Wouldn’t surprise me if the demonstrators are paid, too.”

        Around Denver whenever there’s some big Lefty/Statist demonstration you can find ads online for people to show up. $12-$14/hour.

        Makes me laugh. Even the Left won’t pay $15/hour. Ironically, even for a “Fight for $15” protest.

    2. avatar thommie357 says:

      Here in NH, pro 2A folk do show up in Concord, and we do vote. Thank goodness we have the current governor b/c the current legislature is in lock step with the national movement against 2A. Holding my breath for the next election.

  12. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    And congress threatened SCOTUS! SCOTUS should tell Congress it is in contempt, just for S&Gs.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      The idea that Congress threatened the supreme court is fake news, propagated by the alt-right.

      Reality is just so boring, but reality is, in fact, real.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Except that the idea that Congress threatened to restructure SCoTUS isn’t fake news, and any notions that it is are what’s actually fake news that is propagated by the alt-left. (Which apparently includes you, by the way, in case it wasn’t already obvious.)

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/warning-or-threat-democrats-ignite-controversy-with-supreme-court-brief-in-gun-case/2019/08/16/2ec96ef0-c039-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html

        How would you know if reality was, in fact, real if it is readily, consistently, and quite concretely demonstrated on a regular basis that you don’t accept it yourself?

        You don’t, quite frankly, and that’s because you clearly don’t want to. That’s readily, consistently, and quite concretely demonstrated here on a regular basis each and every single time you comment, regardless of the subject matter.

        Don’t bother denying it, either, else you’d further out yourself as a consummate liar to boot.

  13. avatar Warlocc says:

    “Monday morning from 8am to 11am”

    That’s the problem with protests and demonstrations. Nobody on the left seems to have jobs.

  14. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Even living over 1,000 miles away, I think I would’ve tried to make it there had I heard about this earlier then just now.

  15. avatar Rubiconcrossed says:

    Its a dog and pony show for both sides. True, its paranoia by the Left over absolutely nothing and its a good chance for the Supreme Court to fake support for 2A because their decision either way is a win, win for them. No guns are being outlawed for ownership, no guns being confiscated , no magazines being banned. If Scotus refuses to hear the case because of this technicality that N.Y. rescinded the law they save face and if they hear the case and rule against N.Y. they still save face and fake 2A support.

    The old saying “Much ado about nothing” because the law passed previously no longer exists and the Justices make it look like they are doing something. What a joke, and what a hoax on a gullible public and the biggest fools are the gun owners who think they won something with the courts. In reality the court had both New York and the Gun Owners by the balls only both sides were too dumb to know they both were being made fools of.

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      Good point

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      I disagree. Consider this. Heller was a “little” case, dealing only with te rights of denizens of D.C. to keep operable firearms in their homes for the purpose of self defense.Thus, the direct holding of the case was pretty insignificant. However, its impact was immense. It is the first case that directly holds that there is an individual right to keep arms in the home,. and it took not long at all for that decision to be applied to all of the states in McDonald. The only problem with Heller is that it did not set a standard of review for restrictions on 2A rights, a flaw that was utilized by the liberal circuits to adopt a sliding scale review for the second step of their analysis, even though the Heller majority rejected any such test. In short, the liberal judges, unwilling to accept such a freedom, have been spitting on Heller ever since it was decided…and the conservative majority is well aware of it.

      NYSRPA v. NYC is a “little” case, as the direct question is whether the City of NY can prevent its gun owning residents from removing their firearms from city limits without the express written permission of the police. The regulation was ridiculous on its face and served no legitimate public interest that was supported by anything approaching actual evidence. The trial court and the Second Circuit should have had no difficulty declaring the ordinance unconstitutional. But they failed to do so, essentially holding that one may “bear” arms where ever one wants only if the police/government allows it was a “minor” impediment to the exercise of 2A rights. That the court took a case that will, by its direct holding, affect only NYC residents is a strong indication that the Court has every intention of issuing a decision that will “clarify” (or better yet set) the standard of review. With a conservative majority, that standard will undoubtedly be much stricter than the “rational basis in fact if not in word” standard of review now being applied in anti-gun jurisdictions. And that is what has the banners so worried: what that standard of review will be is anybody’s guess.

      What do I expect? I do not think that Kavanaugh’s test will serve as anything but a starting point for the analysis the court will require. On the other hand, after studying constitutional law, it was my opinion that the court appears to decide what outcome it desires, and then sets the standard of review to achieve the desired result. I think it is patently obvious that it will find the ordinance unconstitutional; just for starters, it contradicts the guarantees of FOPA (that NYC has been ignoring for years). “Bear” must have meaning as something more than a mere privilege exerciseable only at the whim of a governmental employee. And I think that the Court will address the indignities piled up on Heller. How strict their requirements will be I have no idea. But I do know that the decision will have nation-wide impact, particularly in the gun restricting states such a NY, NJ, Ma, and of course Ca.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        If “Heller” had a significant impact, would we still be facing the anti-gun decisions of the lower courts? A significant impact would have been if Heller overruled every law that proposed to regulate guns as a “compelling interest” of government to provide for the safety of the public.

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    If NYC wins this case we will see a patchwork of restrictions all over the country. I’d feel a lot better about this case if RBG was replaced by now with someone more agreeable to gun rights.

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

      “If NYC wins this case we will see a patchwork of restrictions all over the country.”

      That’s what the Left wants, to make it so confusing as to what restrictions apply in each little jurisdiction, that the gun owner throws up their hands and says “Fuck it. I just won’t travel with my gun, it’s too much of a risk of it getting seized and destroyed.”

      The way to attack that is to heed the lessons of the “Black Codes” enacted after the emancipation proclamation, because they are gonna fight gun freedom as much or even harder as they did to Blacks back then. Treat it as a civil rights issue, because it *is* a civil rights issue…

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)

  17. avatar Hannibal says:

    I’m not optimistic, but I hope to be wrong. The real pain will be waiting for the decision to come down.

    “Millhiser adds that the NYSRPA case is “a small legal dispute…and yet it is this smallness that makes New York State Rifle so dangerous to the consensus [interest balancing] framework”…

    Maybe the little dictators in NYC shouldn’t have reached so far, so often. But they knew they could get away with it. They knew that NYC could do whatever it wants. Boy it would be hilarious if it’s their ridiculous, petty, useless little infringement that ends up ending the second-class status of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      I don’t know about hilarious but it would certainly be poetic justice.

    2. avatar yitz says:

      not such a little infringment if if you live in nyc like I do!
      now I can take my guns to ranges out of the city for training, unlike before. we have a long way to go but for those of us out here in nyc even this relatively small step has had a positive, meaningful affect on us.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        I don’t even want to know what you had to do to get a permit down there. Good on you and have fun.

  18. avatar Nanashi says:

    “Kavanaugh […] who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

    ACTUAL KAVANAUGH QUOTE
    “fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.” (This one was before he was even nominated)

    For that matter, just read his opinon in US v Davis and tell me, with a straight face, he supports the Second Amendment.
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/18-431/
    “Faced with an onslaught of violent gun crime and its debilitating effects, the American people demanded action. In 1968, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act. ”
    “The Court’s decision today will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future.”

    1. avatar LKB says:

      OK, I’ve re-read Kavanaugh’s dissent in US v. Davis ( in which he was joined by Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). Nothing in it indicates to me that Kavanaugh is a 2A squish.

      The discussion of the 1968 GCA that you cite involved the provisions making it a federal offense to commit crimes with a firearm. While one could make a federalist / originalist argument that such provisions exceed the proper scope of federal power, I’ve never seen anyone argue that such provisions even remotely implicate the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “OK, I’ve re-read Kavanaugh’s dissent in US v. Davis ( in which he was joined by Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). Nothing in it indicates to me that Kavanaugh is a 2A squish.”

        Still curious if you find Kavanaugh 2A supportive after the first quote in the comment, “ACTUAL KAVANAUGH QUOTE “fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.” ”

        Kavanaugh seems to have unequivocally declared that “tradition” and “history” permit certain restrictions on the weapons the public may possess as an impediment to government tyranny. It would seem that while the founders were convinced that the people would retain so much military power, that the central government would dare not try to use its power and army to subjugate the populace., Kavanaugh accepts the theory that the potential tyrant possesses the right and power to restrict the means whereby the populace may repel a tyrannical government.

  19. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I look forward to the NYC lawyers making the case that city residence aren’t really citizens and if they were they’d be able to carry arms and travel wherever they please.

    New Your City is making the same argument that was made in the Dred Scott vs Irene Emerson which latter became the Scott v Sanford case in 1857.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Functionally there may be an argument there but we have the whole abolition of slavery bit so serfdom could be a tough sell nationally.

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

      You’re right to bring up the specter of “Dred Scott”, because the leftists will treat a decision favoring us as just as immoral as the initial Dred Scott ruling.

      And when the SCOTUS eventually falls back under Leftist control, you can bet your ass they will reverse Heller, McDonald, and (hopefully) NY Pistol, and pat themselves on the back declaring they were the morally-correct ones for doing so.

      Understand this – They will *never* give up…

  20. avatar Pete says:

    They need to send in the ANTIFA shock troops to intimidate the court.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      That is probably for later in the case to show how a ruling can put people in danger.

  21. avatar so much wonderful says:

    Loving it.

    Squirm!!!!

    Time to hold the antis feet to the fire baby!!!!

  22. avatar million says:

    I assume Roberts is going to go full cocktail party and scuttle any chance of 2A expansion here.

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    SCOTUS will probably punt with Roberts leading the way. Thomas will certainly scream to the high heavens but nobody will listen.

    Roberts used to be a judge. Now he’s SCOTUS’ Ed Stack.

  24. avatar Will Drider says:

    If AMERICA has any faith in the instution of the SCOTUS there would be no benifit to protesting outside the Court. Justice should be Blind to the Protests and all undue influence that are not directly related to the Case(s) at hand. That is SCOTUS’s mission and mandate. However, if the SCOTUS Justices don’t uphold their sacred trust and give weight to personal leanings or outside non evidentiary information: they are no more than a Clown Car providing favorable entertainment to those who applaud the loudest. Tyranny can fester in all branches of government. It will be plain to see if which form of SCOTUS emerges.

    The “protests” are for public consumption: kabuki theater

  25. avatar Chuck says:

    In truth the foundation for 2nd Amendment Infringement goes way back to 2 SCOTUS decisions in the 1870’s, Cruikshanks v. USA and Presser v. Illinois. In a nutshell, the Waite led Court held that the text of the 2nd Amendment only applied to the Federal government, and that States and Municipalities were not bound to follow the 2nd Amendment. The obvious problem with their decision, is that the Constitution’s 10th Amendmeent, only grants the States the freedom to legislate for or against only those rights not specifically enumerated within the Constitution. Well being number 2 in the ratified and adopted Bill of Rights is pretty damn enumerated in my mind. Add in that the 14th Amendment, ratified a few years before in 1868, effectively bound the States to follow the Federal lead on all rights, was completely ignored by the Waite court as well.
    The Waite decisions need to be revisited, due to their obvious conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Will that happen? Probably not in the 20 or so years I’ve got left.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It was. McDonald v. Chicago, a case striking down Chicago’s 20+ year handgun ban, held that the 2A applies to the states. That was about ten years ago.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      One must closely read the history of the constitution to understand that the framers did not create a document to protect themselves from State government, but from a central government that would inexorably seek to control the States.

      The 9th and 10th Amendments were were written to declare that not only did the States surrender only those State powers that were delegated to the central government (2A did not surrender any power over the States), the States retained all rights already acquired as individual States. Nothing in the writings of the framers (or the 9/10th Amendments indicates the States were writing a compact that would supplant State constitutions (which were superior to the US Constitution, just as the individual States were superior to the central government). The cases you cite were born of “original intent”. The power inversion contained in the 14th Amendment had yet to obtain the fullness we experience today.

  26. I see we have another feral pig problem that will be coming to DC.

  27. I hope the system work as it is, and is supposed to. She seems to be a good person, and a good legal scholar. She just thinks different than we(some of us) think. She is there, until she isn’t, no need to get nasty about her.

  28. avatar Tim Kiphart says:

    I will be there. No way I’m missing this opportunity to show my support for the 2A. Kudos to the poster up thread who said he’d have travelled the 1000 miles to get here with more notice. We need more people to actually show up at 2A events, but I get it. POTG are I intelligent, reasoned, unemotional folks who understand why we have the 2A. Its hard to get fired up for something that is so obvious.

    The gun grabbers, on the other hand, operate off ignorance and emotion. I liken the modern day gun-grab to Prohibition. Well intended folks who dont have a clue that banning something doesnt make it disappear from society, COTUS notwithstanding. True fact, Shannon Watts: I’m against “gun violence” too.
    I just happen to understand that criminals will always have guns. I’ll keep my rights and provide my own protection, thank you.

    It has been said that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Use a vacation day like I am, and skedaddle on down to DC to help keep evil from prevailing if you can.

  29. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Asking/encouraging people to rethink their certainties is part of what I try to do, at times.

    Regarding a part of your comment, “But they do not retain their liberty. They are not free. They are no longer among the people until their release.”, is this not an interpretation designed to justify an exception to an absolute?

    The base constitution says rights cannot be restricted, except by due process of law. Note, that an exception to exercise of our natural, human and civil rights is memorialized in the constitution. Then comes an amendment/modification to the base contract/contstitution…”….shall not be infringed”. Those are absolute words, and there is no carve out for people jailed through “due process of law”. A modification/amendment to a contract supercedes the related wording in the base contract/constitution. The framers were smart enough to realize they were inserting an absolute, else they would have made note of “due process” exceptions to the Second Amendment.

    As a strict constitutionalist (an absolutist), I insist prisoners have an inalienable right to armed self-defense (even though that presents interesting complications).

    As a strict constitutionalist, I maintain that if the public wants to disarm inmates, a constitutional amendment is required to establish an exception to the absolute words of the Second Amendment. But….as the mayor of Realsville, I recognize that it makes operational sense to limit weapons for prisoners. Thus, there is at least one supportable exception to the Second Amendment, the base justification for which is plainly “because it makes total sense”. That self-same justification opens the door for other exceptions to the Second Amendment that also “make total sense”. The argument then devolves to a matter of opinion of what “makes total sense”. That opinion is established through due process of laws enacted by elected representatives. After the first exception to an absolute, everything becomes tumbledown from there, based on which opinion can be established in law by the representatives of the people.

    In Realsville, our natural, civil and human rights are infringed; none are absolute. We look ridiculous endless proclaiming, “RTKBA” and “Shall Not Be Infringed”, like primitive shamans using incantations to ward off evil spirits. Neither of those incantations will stand up in court, and we need to be making effective, not feel good, defensed of our rights. Using slogans rather than intelligence wins us nothing.

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