SCOTUS Will Hear NYC Gun Case

**marco.g** · 12-02-19, 14:03

Bringing this back up. Oral arguments kicked off today and it’s sounding like those that predicted Roberts folding will be proven correct.

**FromMyColdDeadHand** · 12-02-19, 14:36

I didn’t see it but I’ve heard the same analysis come back. Roberts is going to buddy fudge us. My dream is that these anti-civil rights states get slapped with the same kind of court oversight that the southern states did when it came to voting rights. Their old laws get struck down, and They can’t change their laws and any new laws have to get passed directly by the Supreme Court.

I can dream.

Just another variation on the lefts use of courts saying that people don’t have standing.

I hope somebody can pull Roberts aside and explain to him that he needs to cut the crap out now and get the freedoms restored, before things go ugly.

Otherwise governments will just use the same trick of rescinding laws just enough to pass muster to get cases they are going to lose thrown out. That’s protecting all the other laws and then they’ll just go back and change them anyways. This BS that they passed a law saying that you can’t change the law is sophomoric legal sophistry.

**jpmuscle** · 12-02-19, 14:43

All civil rights are equal, but some civil rights are more equal than others.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**BoringGuy45** · 12-02-19, 15:43

Originally Posted by marco.g

Bringing this back up. Oral arguments kicked off today and it’s sounding like those that predicted Roberts folding will be proven correct.

Probably, but then again, the same thing was said in the DC v. Heller case. This entire site was almost unanimous in the prediction that the 2nd Amendment would be ruled to only protect states having militias. So, we'll see what happens.

**marco.g** · 12-02-19, 15:55

Originally Posted by BoringGuy45

Probably, but then again, the same thing was said in the DC v. Heller case. This entire site was almost unanimous in the prediction that the 2nd Amendment would be ruled to only protect states having militias. So, we'll see what happens.

I don’t remember the run up to heller as much. It would seem odd that they let it go all the way to oral arguments just to call it moot when they had that opportunity up to this point (which NY state pushed for). Makes sense that the media is going to hang on any negatives in this case.

So now we wait another half year for their decision - wonderful.

**SeriousStudent** · 12-02-19, 17:26

I swear, Roberts just baffles me.

Keeping my fingers crossed on this one, it could be very good for us.

**Firefly** · 12-02-19, 18:22

Quote the Zen Master, “We’ll see”

**marco.g** · 12-02-19, 19:05

Some quotes from the link

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/78422...se-may-be-moot

[/QUOTE]
But suppose that, in addition to stopping for a cup of coffee, the gun owner stops to visit his mother for a couple of hours, posited Justice Samuel Alito. "Would there be any law that would violated?"

Dearing replied that those kinds of questions were never at issue when the old law was challenged.

"So then why is this case moot?" wondered Alito. "Because [the plaintiffs] didn't get all that they wanted," he insisted. "They wanted a declaration that the old law was unconstitutional, period."

Only once on Monday did any justice directly address the question posed by the original New York case: whether the city's justification for its regulations were constitutional. Alita asked, "Are the people of New York City and state less safe now" under the new law than they were under the previous law that was challenged?

"No, I don't think so," replied Dearing. "We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule."

Alito pounced. "So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?[/QUOTE]

Some good, some bad. Don’t like how much is being framed by the mootness argument. But like they said above. We’ll see.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk