Will New York City Squirm out of the Supreme Court Case?

Supreme Court Gadsden flag scotus

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

This is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal and legislative news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. For a deeper dive into the topics discussed here, check out this week in gun rights at FPC

New York State Rifle & Pistol – Will the city succeed in avoiding review?

Monday saw the Supreme Court oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. The City of New York, a case we’ve been discussing almost ad nauseum for the last year or so. As we’ve also been covering, the city engaged in what Justice Gorsuch called a “herculean, late-breaking effort to moot the case.”

That characterization is pretty apt. We’ve been unsure whether the City’s attempt to get out of review would work. This puts the justices between a rock and a hard place.

The Constitution is pretty clear about the requirements for federal courts to have jurisdiction over a case in Article III. There’s a reason for strict standing requirements, but the ones in our constitution enable situations like this. If the City has really “mooted” the case, the Court has no legal jurisdiction to decide the case.

The focus of the argument was pretty squarely on mootness. The liberal wing of the Court have bought the mootness argument, with Kavanaugh and Roberts being the possible “swing” on the mootness question.

Nothing we can do now but watch and see. Even if this case fails on mootness, there are more solid cases in the pipeline the Court could just as easily take up. Check out briefs filed in Medina and Worman for some examples of the other Second Amendment cases waiting in the wings.

Assault Weapons Ban

Bigstock

Injunction Sought Against California’s Assault Weapon Ban

This week, Firearms Policy Coalition announced the filing of a motion for a preliminary injunction in Miller, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., a Second Amendment challenge to California’s assault weapons ban. The focus in Miller being a ban on common rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. The court filings are available at www.assaultweaponlawsuit.com.

The motion, before Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, argues that the federal Court in California had already “recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear common arms and firearm magazines that are useful for self-defense or use in a militia. . . This case is a logical result of [that] analysis and seeks nothing more or less for the common arms that can use those magazines.”

The motion seeks to have the state barred from enforcing those aspects of law inconsistent with the court’s precedent and the Second Amendment.

Walmart store shooting

BigStock

Major Businesses Under Fire From Gun-Free Zone Advocates 

The holidays are finally here and what better way to celebrate than to read score cards on… retail store gun policies? Various anti-gun organizations have formed a loose confederation called Business Must Act, which assigned grades to 29 companies ranging from “A” (read: most oppressive policies) to “F” (we presume this stands for Freedom).

The grades are based on three standards: prohibiting customers from bearing arms, donating to Congressional recipients of NRA dollars, and “demanding action on gun reform.” They also grant bonus points for ending gun sales.        

This isn’t the first time private businesses have tried to enforce their political views on legitimate businesses, and it certainly won’t be the last. These measures have nothing to do with gun safety. Of the above factors, only prohibiting customers from carry can’t be even remotely considered related to safety, and even still, such policies are largely unenforceable.

The rest of the metrics are obvious attempts at accruing passive support for defeating political candidates and policies that their group considers undesirable. In addition to being unrelated to safety, the scores are at times bizarre.

The group gave Kroger, a grocery store chain, five bonus points for no longer selling guns. The silver lining is that you are always free to shop at and support Second Amendment-friendly businesses, and the “Freedom” rank might be helpful for that. 

Form 4473 and GLOCK (courtesy fbi.gov)

courtesy fbi.gov

Fidelity, Bravery, Incompetence – The FBI Failed to Complete Hundreds of Thousands of Background Checks Over the Last Six Years

On Wednesday, Roll Call reported that data they had obtained indicates that the Federal Bureau of Investigation purged 1,115,630 unresolved NICS transactions from the beginning of 2014 through September 30, 2019. Out of an average 8.2 million background checks per year, these purges constitute an average of 2.3% of all applications.

This is nearly double the percent of denied applications, which is only 1.2%, and pales in comparison to the number of background checks delayed longer than 72 hours which rang in at an average of 10.7%.

So what can we glean from this? The federal government is massively inefficient at regulating the sale of firearms, despite substantial funding and Congressional support.

Rampant erroneous actions on the part of the government here is also consistent with our position that universal background checks won’t have a significant impact on public safety, especially not enough to justify the costs to Americans.

search children's room guns

Bigstock

Philly asks parents to sweep kids’ rooms for guns

In a fantastically bizarre twist on the typical tactic to “get guns off streets” through “buybacks,” the Philadelphia City Council, police commissioner, and others urged parents this week to search their children’s rooms for weapons, and to hand in any discovered derringers or hidden holsters at four churches on Saturday.

This whole charade is just weird. It makes one wonder how many underage kids managed to get hold of guns in Philly for the city to even conceive of this. Also, asking others to turn in someone else’s property with “no questions asked” is a pretty dubious position for the government to put itself in.

Does this mean the city doesn’t care if parents of legal adults are empowered to dispose of a lawfully owned gun?

Clinging to an absurd conception that a specific firearm has any relevance to a criminal, acting Commissioner Christine Coulter rationalized the move with. “If we get one turn-in from a gun buyback, odds are that gun will never be used in violence.”

In similar fashion, if I feed my keyboard to a trash compactor, it will not likely be used to write about gun rights again. This, of course, has nothing to do with my propensity to do the same.

comments

  1. avatar troutbum5 says:

    There is nothing wrong with looking through your minor child’s room on occasion. In fact, it should be done periodically. Your house, your rules, and you are, or at least should be, the responsible adult. Years ago, for good reason, I tossed my teenager’s room and found her pot stash. This led to a long discussion and a change in behavior. When I was a kid, I couldn’t hide a nudie magazine or condoms in my room, because my mom would find it. Hide a gun in my room? Forget about it.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Yeah my mom would occasionally sweep my room as a kid…glad she never found my pot! She didn’t care about nekkid chicks. Figured it made me “normal”(just Playbore anyway). ALERT: Just got a value 200pak 556 winchester white box at WallyWorld in Hammond,IN. for $49+ tax. Dude said it was hidden in back. Wish I had more $! He asked me “how many”😖😯 They have more right now…

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I thought WallyWorld had announced it wouldn’t sell “assault weapon style ammo” anymore, and had sold off all its existing stock in the resulting panic buy?

        1. avatar former water walker says:

          I was in WW buying antifreeze and brake fluid. I have literally NEVER bought ammo at a Wal-Mart. I had just bought a car battery and got gas before. Yeah I was shocked. I was going to hit a few Indiana gunshops looking for bargains in ammo. There was a bunch of other ammo in the case too. The ammo guy seemed quite annoyed I didn’t buy all the WWB😏

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      A parent might find a lot more about their kid by “sweeping” their kid’s phone, laptop or other device, along with their various social media postings/sites. When I was a kid we all kept our guns and ammo in our bedrooms.

  2. avatar FedUp says:

    If the City has really “mooted” the case, the Court has no legal jurisdiction to decide the case.

    That might have been true if it was mooted before SCOTUS granted cert.
    The fact that it was “mooted” as a response to SCOTUS granting cert just shows that the city is desperate to keep SCOTUS from doing its job.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      The fact that New York City repealed their law AFTER (and only after) the United States Supreme Court announced that they would hear the case also shows that New York City KNEW their law was heinous and unconstitutional.

      The fact that New York City knew their law was unconstitutional, upheld it for decades, and only repealed it AFTER the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case shows that New York City is most assuredly NOT trustworthy and the Court should smack them down.

    2. avatar Jack Smackinlibs says:

      The fact that it was “mooted” as a response to SCOTUS granting cert just shows that the city is desperate to keep SCOTUS from doing its job.

      Unfortunately, there is no such limitation stated. This is why much of the anti-mootness questions focused on the issue of monetary damages which could be claimed by the petitioners (NYSRPA et al) because the smallest bit of live controversy could keep the case alive.

      Personally, I think the mere fact that the case went to the federal appeals (2nd Circuit) should invalidate the mootness issue (which is sort of what you’re saying.) The fact that the City pushed the issue and has had 3 courts rule on it should override mootness, lest someone try to cite the fed appeals ct decision.

    3. avatar HP says:

      Logic would suggest that if the SCOTUS was going to decline the case on mootness it would have done so by now. But who really knows what they are thinking?

      1. avatar Jack Smackinlibs says:

        That’s a good point, let’s hope you’re right and let’s hope they sock it to NYC/NY and the rest of the infringing garbage.

        1. avatar Canon says:

          I read the transcript of NYSRPA v NYC and I’m worried about Roberts coming down on the side of Libs regarding mootness. I didn’t think that our lawyer was having a particularly good day. Hopefully Alito and Gorsuch can work some magic on him.

    4. avatar Icabod says:

      New York was caught, like a young shoplifter. When SCOTUS accepted the case they went. “If I put it back, I haven’t stolen anything.” That doesn’t mean that they won’t come back and steal the same thing.
      Theft is theft. New York was caught with an unconstitutional law. Even the court’s liberals know this and are seeking a fig leaf.

  3. avatar Rickster says:

    And the winner of ‘ THE MOST 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS INFRINGING STATE OF THE CENTURY ‘ is NY state . God help us ,it doesn’t look like SCOTUS will.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      While NY was looking over its shoulder, CA and VA passed it up in its blind spot. NY just happens to have the SCOTUS limelight right now.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        You have a few options we don’t over in CA but I would call that a 3 way draw with NJ. Virginia depending on what gets passed could be a certain kind of special.

        1. avatar HP says:

          NY is bad but at least upstate isn’t “NYC bad”. I mean it’s sort of like saying “Getting slapped in the face isn’t as bad as being kicked in the balls” but what else can we do at this point?

        2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          CA’s gun laws feel like getting slapped in the face with someone’s balls.

  4. avatar JP Ruiz says:

    It’s amazing how many ways the Democrats can get good ‘ole spanky-boy, lackey b***h, John Roberts, to do whatever they want for them. Unfortunately, it’s too symbolic of how too many “Conservatives” still think that “compromise” can be achieved with the Stalinist and Maoist Left.

    Roberts is afraid of the Court-Packing threat, but as we’ve seen with the Stalinist Progressives, that they do whatever they want. Roberts can give the Left whatever it wants, and they will still spank him.

    Be it 2020 or 2024, the Democrat Party WILL Pack the Courts to make their Maoist Dictatorship whenever they next seize power in whatever future election.

    1. avatar J Gibbons says:

      You can’t compromise with someone who isn’t satisfied with a mutually beneficial or equally disappointing result. The Communists on the left will always want more. Compromising with them only speeds them up.

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    It makes one wonder how many underage kids managed to get hold of guns in Philly …

    Probably hundreds, if not thousands, of underage children (in the age ranges of 14 to 17) have handguns in Philadelphia.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    The headline should read: Will Roberts Squirm out of the Supreme Court Case?

    Of course he will. Squirming is what snakes do.

    1. avatar d says:

      Proven by his vote on Obamination care.

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      Remember that feeling back before preschool when you felt that massive [email protected] welling up inside you, you elected to make a big production of it, you went for the gusto and got a nearly instant feeling of regret and remorse over your decision that led to a phone call to your mother, then a trip home early. That is the feeling I get anytime I hear of John Roberts.

  7. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Ask the “Gun Free Zone” people to live and work in one. Or revisit Aurora Colorado to see why Holmes chose that particular theater, the one with the “Gun Free Zone” sign.
    NYC needs its entire city government replaced.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Can we stop with the tired and incorrect trope that Holmes picked Century 16 because it was a GFZ?

      There is no evidence to support that hypothesis and good reason to believe he didnt care and may not even have known that the movie theater requested patrons not carry guns. Nietherbof which changes Colorado law which rendered the 2″x2″ meaningless anyway.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        *2″x2″ sign

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        strych9,

        I vividly recall two important details which lend credence to the notion that the Aurora, Colorado spree killer (I refuse to speak/write his name) chose that particular theater for its anti-self-defense status.

        (1) Multiple theaters which did not ban self-defense were significantly closer to his home. Why drive something like 15 miles to a theater when there were theaters just a couple miles away? Answer: that was the closest theater that banned self-defense.
        (2) He explicitly stated his concern about self-defense and armed response in his notebook.

        Disclaimer: I am stating from memory. If I have the facts or even general concepts wrong, please provide correct information and sources.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I lived literally three blocks from James Holmes at the time that he did this. I was out that night when people came streaming into the bar covered in blood and crying. My roommate worked with the guy. Two of my friends died that night and two others were fucked up for life.

          The only people who say this kind of shit don’t know the area at all or have a political ax to grind.

          Dem fax:

          Holmes lived about 3.5 miles from the theater he attacked.

          There were, technically, two other theaters closer to him at the time. Both small. One was a Spanish language only place in Hoffman Heights, Sonora Cinimas Aurora. About a mile from Holmes apartment. It still exists. The other was a small “Movie Tavern” type place at the corner of Potomac and Alameda. It’s now out of business. Both were closed at the time the shooting took place and neither was screening the film in question.

          There were two other theaters in the area showing that movie on that night. AMC Arapahoe Crossing 16, about 13 miles away and Harkins Theatres Northfield 18 about five miles away. Both would have been a considerably longer trip for him to take due to traffic and construction in the area at the time.

          Further, unless backed by a magnetometer there are no GFZs in Colorado. Federal property notwithstanding, a Colorado CCW is good anywhere, basically, other than Courthouses and major sporting events (and a few rough bars). The law requires that a GFZ have every entrance equipped with a magnetometer and security personnel or the GFZ is void under the law. Century 16, now Century Aurora and XD, didn’t have such measures in place. They had a 2″x2″ sign on the door which was, legally, a request.

          Holmes notebook contained the following (emphasis mine): “Maximum casualties, easily performed w/ firearms, although primitive in nature. No fear of consequences, being caught 99% certain.”

          From Westword (a paper around here, again, emphasis mine): “What better place to case than that of an inconspicuous entertainment facility?” he wrote. He drew diagrams of several theaters inside the Century 16 and noted to avoid those with too many exits. He also drew a map of the location of the Century 16 in relation to the police station and estimated the police response time at three minutes.”

          So he estimates police response time at 3 minutes but he’s worried about a GFZ? Doubtful.

          He knew what he was doing: “Terrorism isn’t the message…The message is there is no message. Most fools will misinterpret correlation for causation, namely relationship and work failure as causes. Both were expediting catalysts, not the reason. The causation being my state of mind for the past 15 years.”

          Sorry, much as we might like it and it might be politically convenient Holmes was not drawn to a GFZ and a GFZ didn’t exist at that location so he couldn’t have been anyway. He picked it, IMHO, because he knew the area reasonably well and was comfortable with it. AND it was showing the movie he fixated on. It may have been bonus points that this was in the same complex as the “Chuck E. Cheese Shooting” in 1993 which took place a couple hundred yards West of the theater but I have seen no evidence that Holmes was even aware of that attack.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Also, I forgot, this was read into the evidence at trial:

          “‘Venue, airport or movie theater.’ Then it says ‘airport’ with an X. ‘Substantial security. Too much of a terrorist history. Terrorism isn’t the message.” -Read by Sgt. Matthew Fyles

          This is then followed by the “The message is there is no message.” portion I quoted before.

          We also get this from his notebook: “Buy stun gun and folding knife. Research firearm laws and mental illness. Buy handgun … acquire remote detonation equipment and body armor.”

          So we might surmise that he knew that other than places with specific security he wasn’t going to come across a GFZ since he researched Colorado law. Yet he chose to avoid the GFZs anyway because he knew they come with security checkpoints.

          Look dude, I don’t like gun control and you won’t catch me arguing for it but this is what I’m talking about when I speak of the “high road”. We’re right. We don’t need to make shit up or repeat internet myths. The idea that he attacked a GFZ and did so because it was a GFZ simply isn’t true. The idea that he traveled significantly farther than necessary is also simply untrue.

          We’re right. We don’t need to muddy our own waters with bullshit and doing so is actually counterproductive if we get caught at it. I don’t know where these myths came from but I know damn right well that they’re not true.

          If you want to check my work on the distances and stuff with a map program go ahead. The addresses that matter as starting points are Holmes apartment and, due to my claims above, my former residence which I will list below.

          Holmes apartment was, and still is though it’s not “his” anymore, located at 1690 Paris Street Unit 10, Aurora, CO 80010

          At the time I lived at 1036 Racine Street, Aurora, CO 80011. In fact, to this day if you Google Street View it the black truck in the driveway, Rhonda, belonged to my buddy and the boat, a 14′ Sea Nymph Deep V named Khepri, was mine. Those images were captured in 2011 and might be the one time the flag wasn’t hung up on that damn cheap gutter.

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

          “At the time I lived at 1036 Racine Street, Aurora, CO 80011.”

          Holy crap. Zillo estimates that at over 300,000 bucks. That goes for the very low end of 100,000 down here…

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Yeah, and that house was and still is a POS with little insulation and a fucked up slab.

          That’s actually pretty nice for $300K around here too. It’s not balls deep in gang territory and it has a yard.

          The Colorado market is very skewed by the Cali folks that come here and think everything is cheap. During our house search we looked at 14 properties in a weekend. By Monday morning nine of them were under contract. In fact, three of them were “available” Sunday morning and under contract by the time we arrived to take a look at 11am.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          strych9,

          Thank you for the detailed reply.

          Here is a source which explains the idea that I shared above. This is from John Lott on a Fox News website article:

          … out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

          Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

          A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing “The Dark Knight Rises” on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn’t the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

          There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the “home of Colorado’s largest auditorium,” according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.


          Is there any evidence that the Aurora spree killer considered those details? I don’t know. If he went to as much trouble as he did to plan his attack, it is certainly plausible.

          For reference I know that a business which posts a “no firearms” sign has no force of law in Colorado and there were no metal detectors at that theater to ensure that people left their self-defense firearms in the vehicles. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of people who are armed for self-defense voluntarily comply with “no firearms” signage, even when such signage carries no force of law. And further evidence of that fact comes from the theater itself: no one returned fire at the spree killer which strongly indicates that no one was armed in that theater. That would certainly be a desirable feature for a spree-killer who wants to maximize their body count. (Having said that, do we even know if that spree-killer wanted maximum body count? I have no idea. That may be an assumption and an incorrect assumption at that.)

        6. avatar Ralph says:

          It doesn’t matter why Holmes picked that theater. What matters is that the theater was a GFZ, and when he cut loose all the bullets were flying in one direction.

          And it’s clear that Holmes was interested in response times. When theater patrons carry, the response time is zero.

        7. avatar Anymouse says:

          The Chuck E. Cheese shooting wasn’t at the Aurora Mall, as it was then known. It was over at a strip mall at the NE corner of Illiff and Peoria. That’s 3-4 miles away from the now Town Center at Aurora. I remember the place as a Showbiz Pizza, which was the less famous sister company to CEC with different animatronics. It was later rebranded as a CEC, and then shut down after the shooting. They split the building up, and last I knew, had a restaurant and dry cleaner.

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        uncommon:

        I have much respect for Mr. Lott however on this one he makes a number of flat-out factual errors, probably because he’s reviewing all of this at arms length. To me personally I find this disturbing not for the errors that he makes per se but the fact that if someone as honest and thorough as Mr. Lott can make such errors what does that say about people who are traveling and trying to look up/comply with gun laws as they move around the country?

        Piece by piece here, just for completeness sake:

        “Century Theater wasn’t the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

        This is the Sonora Cinemas I mentioned (though I’d put it at 1.1 miles). It wasn’t showing the movie, it wasn’t open at midnight, and even if it was that theater has three screens that, in total, maybe add up to one screen at the theater Holmes did choose. So yes, technically true that it’s closer. That fact is also not germane to the argument. The place that served food and beer was also closer, in fact right down the road and toward Holmes apartment, however the same caveats apply. Not showing the right movie and not open at the time of the shooting. Remember, this was a midnight release of a film, not just a regular Saturday night 9pm showing.

        “…out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned.”

        False. Century 16 didn’t “ban” guns because they couldn’t do so under the law. But if we were to argue that a sign that carries no weight of law does in fact “ban” the carrying of firearms then no other theater in the area “allowed” them either. I don’t know where Lott gets this information but they call have “no weapons” signs and did at the time. It’s just that the signs mean nothing. As a CCW permit holder who carries constantly I saw and ignored these exact signs that he says were not there. Shit dude, every chain sporting-good store that sells guns has the same signs but usually with a note that “legal CCW and law enforcement” are excepted. If you call any business in Colorado and ask them if they have a “no guns policy” they will, generally, tell you “no” because they know damn right well that they cannot and if they lie to you they can get sued. Fucking Red Rocks doesn’t even have the security to get away with declaring a GFZ, I know I’ve carried to multiple concerts there.

        Here’s how this works in Colorado: The sign means exactly fuck-all legally speaking and the businesses know it. As such it’s a bluff but it’s a common one (see link below). Such signs are EVERYWHERE in Colorado but they’re ignored because if you are caught carrying on premises, by an employee that gives a fuck, then you can be asked to leave or go put your gun in your car or whatever. If you refuse they can call the cops and have you charged with misdemeanor trespass which, in reality, has nothing legally to do with the gun but with the fact that you were asked to leave private property and refused once you were made aware that you were not welcome. That’s no different than me just asking you to get off my property and you refusing to do so, armed or not isn’t the point, it’s that you refused to leave private property when asked.

        On top of that his ideas on travel times are laughable. Yeah, maybe they’re possible on paper but in reality there’s no fucking way. Two days after this shooting a friend of mine and I decided we were not going to be cowed by this asshole and we went to see the movie at AMC Arapahoe Crossing 16. It’s the only time I’ve ever been that alone in a theater (it was just the two of us). It took well over half an hour to get there. Colorado traffic, accidents and the constant construction mean that those estimates online are always wrong. Take whatever that says and add 50%. Especially back in 2012. The idea you could get down 225 that fast, even at that time of night, in 2012 when the highway was in the full swing of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” is a joke and a bad one. Also note that this is the theater that Holmes cased. Why would he spend the time to case this theater, put together a plan, map out the cops, figure in their response time and then go shoot up another theater he hasn’t cased? He was crazy, not stupid.

        Further, anyone who’s taken a decent CCW class here in Colorado should know the law on this. Therefore all the theaters “allowed” CCW and none banned it. Sorry, fact is here that Mr. Lott. Phone calls from Florida are not a substitute for boots on the ground.

        It’s also true that if you’ve been to the other theaters you find that they’re all built into larger buildings while the theater he picked is freestanding. This means a few things. First, it makes Holmes’ plan to leave, prop open an exit, and get stuff from his car literally 20 feet from the door, impossible if he takes another target. The parking lots just don’t allow that kind of access to the buildings. You’d be a couple hundred feet across open ground in a busy area that’s under camera surveillance if you tried this at any of the other theaters. You’d be detected long before you made it back to the building. On top of that the other theaters are in shopping areas that are heavily patrolled by the police on both food and in vehicles as well as by private security. The theater he picked wasn’t really patrolled like this because it’s right down the street from the cop shop.

        This sounds like a psycho thing to say but I actually think Holmes picked exactly the right target in this regard. Knowing the area I’d have picked the same one for numerous logistical reasons that Lott’s points, even if they were correct, gloss over. You want a target where you can get in and shoot the fish in the barrel? This was that spot on this side of town. I also think that if he really wanted to raise hell he’d have combined the shooting with an incendiary attack but… that’s just my read of that building.

        “But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.”

        True to an extent. Again, it applies only if your weapon is detected/reported. If it’s properly concealed then, without a manned security checkpoint employing metal detectors the business has no legal right to say anything about your concealed gun. At all. Because I cannot emphasize this enough: Without the presence of 1) a manned security checkpoint that 2) employs magnetometers the law says very clearly that the business has no right to tell you that you must disarm as a condition of entering the premises.

        You will find these checkpoints at certain places. Bars that have had real issues with violence. Major sporting events like the Broncos, Avalanche or Nuggets games and courthouses. I’ve run into these checkpoints exactly three times in the time I’ve lived here. Once for a playoff game at Mile High Stadium (Broncos), once at a bar that had a rough clientele and once at a courthouse when I had jury duty.

        The information Lott has here is just wrong. I’m sorry it is. Again, mad respect for Mr. Lott but this is what happens when you do your research from afar, you just don’t get the same picture that you get from actually being there.

        So, a final note on signage here. Here’s a link to the most professional “no guns” sign I’ve ever seen in Colorado. It’s actually well done enough that I noted it and stopped to take a picture. Note what is very explicitly missing: Any reference to the CRS statute that gives them the authority to make this a GFZ. That reference is missing for a reason, namely that there is no statute that gives this sign any legal weight. It’s a policy of the business and NOTHING MORE. It’s their 1A right to post an opinion but that’s what this is.

        https://ibb.co/QrnpQzF

        Ralph:

        Well, as I’ve now pointed out repeatedly there was no GFZ so this argument is irrelevant.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    The type of parent who has offspring that have illicitly procured a gun for the express purpose of furthering yet other criminal activity are exactly the type of parents who won’t search their kid’s room and wouldn’t care if the kid did have a gun.

    In the unlikely event that the parents do care, search for and find said illicitly procured firearm, the type of kid to have such a thing isn’t wont to listen to mom and dad anyway.

  9. avatar FB says:

    Its all about how you educate your children. Taught my kids gun safety rules and how to build their 1022’s.
    Their gun handling skills surpass most adults.
    If SCOTUS does conclude this case, NY and other states will continue to decapitate the second amendment. We need the 2nd amendment sanctuary movement to build momentum. This is our only hope. Do not comply.

  10. avatar Jim from LI says:

    Way to go, Kroger. As a side note, my LGS has “stopped” selling ground round.

    1. avatar klaus Von Schmitto says:

      For the vegan children.

    2. avatar 61north says:

      Kroger owns the Fred Meyer chain of department stores in the western part of the USA. They sold guns and ammo for many years. They stopped selling guns and ammo about a year ago. They still sell some gun accessories and supplies in my local stores.

  11. avatar klaus Von Schmitto says:

    BMA* has my full and unconditional support.

    *Bite My Ass.

  12. avatar Joseph says:

    I do not like this “common use” argument. If that is the standard then ANY new model could be banned since it is not in common use.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      I don’t think common use is connected to any particular brand or time in the market. I think it has to do with the general design of the firearm.

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

        Correct, a semi-auto with a detachable magazine design is like 100 year’s old, by this time…

  13. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Has there been a date announced yet when SCOTUS will state if case has been mooted?

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Around June is when the decision will be released.

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Nothing we can do now but watch and see. Even if this case fails on mootness, there are more solid cases in the pipeline the Court could just as easily take up…”

    Don’t kid yourself. If there aren’t enough votes on the court to disregard this obvious strategic ‘mooting’ then there won’t be enough to do anything pro-2nd at all. Remember, they didn’t have to grant cert on this case.

  15. avatar grumpster says:

    The Supreme Court only added one new case to the spring schedule and it is not a Second Amendment case. So if the NYC case is decided to be moot there will not be another Second Amendment case heard anytime soon and that IMO shows that the Supreme Court does not want to take up any Second Amendment case with the current court line up and would be really disappointing to say the least.

  16. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Mootness … so, once they stop hitting you, they didn’t hurt you with the whacks before?

    Can I use that argument? There are plenty of things I’d be happy to stop doing, once I got caught.

  17. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    I, myself, think it would be redundant for The Supremes to rule themselves moot, when there are so many so willing to do that for them.

  18. avatar Sam Hill says:

    They will find a way to duck out and look good while doing it. I hate to say it but Trump seems to be the only one with enough balls or ignorance to rock the boat. Problem is he does it standing up.

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