Sup Court Dismisses NYC Gun Case as Moot

I thought this case was discussed earlier on this forum, but I can’t seem to find the thread. Anyway, this is the case the Supreme Court originally agreed to hear in which NYC was sued for a very restrictive gun control law. That law prohibited a NYC resident from transporting a gun outside city limits, even if it were to be taken to a second home or to a gun range outside the city. Once the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, the NY legislature amended its gun laws and NYC nullified its own restrictive gun transportation law. Despite that, the Supreme Court decided to hear it anyway and even held oral argument. Nonetheless, the Court recently dismissed the case as moot, citing the repeal of the former, restrictive NYC law.

What I find most interesting is that recently appointed Kavanaugh appears to have been the deciding vote, in an otherwise supposedly conservative court, to dismiss the case.

11 Likes

Here’s a more concise summary of the case and ruling:

11 Likes

So is this a lather rinse repeat system?

Is it moot as they changed their stance once a suit is filed, then when dropped they go back at it?

9 Likes

I don’t think this is bad. I also don’t know why some wrongly say this is a right leaning court, when it clearly is not.

Alito went on to say that the New York City law violated the Second Amendment because it interfered with the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense, as established by two cases— . Taking a gun to a gun range to maintain skill is part of that right, he said.

He is right and wrong at the same time. Two cases did not establish the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment does.

5 Likes

That’s what some have argued. Despite any change or amendments by the state legislature or city officials, I don’t believe there’s anything preventing either governmental body from changing it back.

2 Likes

I hear ya. I think what he was trying to say is that the two cases confirmed the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep arms at home. Others would argue the two cases serve to further interpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

I think the commencing language of the 2nd Amendment, “well regulated militia,” has been erroneously interpreted by gun control advocates to mean two things: 1) guns must be “well regulated” (gun control restrictions), and; 2) that guns are only for an outdated militia, which has now been replaced by the various states’ national guard units. I disagree with that interpretation, but it’s a reality that gun control advocates subscribe to it. Hence, Alito’s explanation that the two cases have “established” the Court’s interpretation of this important civil right.

As for the Court being a conservative or a liberal one, I admit that’s also a matter of subjective interpretation. I’m disappointed, though, that it dismissed this case, and also disappointed it declined to hear the Maryland “assault weapon” ban. To me, it seems the Court has historically been very reluctant to take on 2nd Amendment cases for some reason.

2 Likes

I think they avoid the militia part, including the worthless NRA because it invalidates all their bullshit claims. A militia is a citizen army. The Army and Navy are covered elsewhere in the document. The Congress regulates them, the President commands them. The people command and regulate their militia. And arm the militia.

4 Likes

Since they’re actively and intentionally bankrupting the states I’d guess they have a bigger plan in play

3 Likes

Kavanaugh ended his short concurring opinion with

“And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

Could be that he saw a situation where this particular case wasn’t the best option for establishing parameters on what the lower courts allow in regards to applying the Heller and McDonald rulings, while some of the newer cases may be better options for doing that.

Something along the lines of holding a used pistol in your hands at the gun store, about to make a decision on buying it, then noticing that a similar (but nicer) new model is on sale for $20 more.

3 Likes

A while after the left started weeping and gnashing their teeth (while pulling their hair out) over the release of the Heller ruling, they latched onto the statement that Heller said that second amendment rights are not unlimited (hard to argue against that, since no right is completely unlimited). They went on to say that since it is not unlimited, their bills to impose “reasonable restrictions” (in their minds) were completely Constitutional, even though those bills openly conflicted with other parts of the Heller ruling.

It’s like lecturing little children. They hear one statement in the lecture that they like, and ignore the context of that statement, along with the rest of the lecture (“but you said…”). Liberal lower courts will do the same thing, latching onto a statement taken out of context, to make a ruling that contradicts the intent of a Supreme Court ruling. This makes any second amendment rulings a bit of a double edged sword, and justifies caution in waiting for the case that allows the clearest ruling on the matter.

4 Likes

And it looks like we might not have to wait long for further second amendment action from the Supreme Court.

Looks like five cases that deal with carry restrictions, one dealing with a requirement for guns to ‘microstamp’ shell casings (banning guns by requiring them to have science-fiction capabilities), a couple cases dealing with ‘assault weapon’ restrictions, and a challenge to the federal restrictions on interstate sales of firearms.

4 Likes

I read that, too, and was heartened that he wrote it. There’s a saying in the law that bad facts make bad law. The mootness factor in this case was hard to overcome for them. I think the justices sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment are still waiting for a better case to come along.

4 Likes

Great National Review article!

4 Likes

What good is a firearm if it is in your home and you are out and about. In the 1700s you went NOWHERE without a firearm.
The National Guard act was in 1906. Over 100 years after the second amendment was written.
The militia today is not regulated as per the the constitution.
WE THE PEOPLE are entitled to every SMALL ARM, that the gobermint has. The Firearms act of 1898, 1934, 1968, and 1986 ALL are violation of the 2nd amendment.

5 Likes