Just think. A nation of people who cannot responsibly handle gunpowder... has 6,550 nuclear bombs.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
This will be the first of many salvos to eliminate any kind of guns laws from the land. I guess the supreme court will someday allow any person to have machine guns and the ability to shoot darn near anywhere they want. Freedom! except for the ones that get killed.
this is the dumbest "law" I have heard about... ok, maybe one of several. this is the single issue that infuriates me about democrats and liberals.... this isn't about safety at all, but absolute restrictions on owning guns. please tell me how this law makes any sense whatsoever. criminals, who by nature of their intent to break the law, don't find this to be problematic in the least.
if only the left would stop their incessant war on the 2nd amendment, they may win some more elections and stop the true madness going on in this country.
as far as the police finding "rampant abuse"... well, just look at pedestrian traffic in NYC and tell me if there isn't "rampant abuse" of jaywalking laws (another stupid law on the books)... and what exactly is "rampant abuse"? is this causing gun crimes to soar?
the only point of this law is to make it even more difficult to own and practice using your own firearm. and when one is out of practice, one is a lesser threat.
3
The New York City regulation requires that the transportation of a licensed firearm outside of the home be: (1) unloaded, (2) locked in a case, (3) that the ammunition be in a separate container from the locked case with the firearm and (4) be transported to only the 7 approved gun ranges within New York City. The transportation of the unloaded, locked firearm outside of New York City - even to a summer home, gun range or shooting competition - is illegal and subject to a $1,000 fine. The instant case has absolutely nothing to with the right to carry a loaded revolver in your pocket in public.The general proposition is that when regulating a protected right the government must use the least restrictive means to achieve the legitimate governmental interest. New York City's lawyers are going to have a very hard time justifying banning the transportation of a locked, unloaded firearm by the licensed owner to a summer house in the Adirondacks, a public gun range on Long Island or a shooting competition in Vermont. I can just imagine a Justice asking NYC's attorney "Counsellor, of the XX,000 people shot in NYC over the last decade, how many have been shot by a licensed gun owner transporting an unloaded gun in a locked case who had to first unlock the case and then load the gun with ammunition from a separate container before then shooting the victim?" On these grounds, even as a non-gun owner and a believer in "reasonable gun control", the New York City regulation falls.
1
Does New York State law prohibit a biathlon athlete who lives in New York City from taking their rifle to and from Lake Placid to train and compete?
This ordinance is simply another attempt to subvert the Constitution. This is what America has come to. When Democrats, liberals and progressives don;t get their way, they count on inane laws implemented in liberal enclaves to be supported by far left judges. This law will not stand. It is in direct contradiction of the Second Amendment.
1
Repubs are always yammering about "states rights" and alleged "overreach" by the federal government. But I guess "states rights" only applies to Red states and complaints about alleged "overreach" only apply to regulations that big Repub donors like the NRA do not like.
Just a general observation: A society where everyone is armed (or feels a need to be), is a sick society. Count me out!
Maybe I need to hear the defense argument and the reasons for the law and why the other courts upheld it. I wish this article had presented some of that info. But on the surface of it, it sounds like a losing case to me. And I am an avid proponent of sensible gun laws, have worked for that effort and on a personal level would totally applaud and wish for them all to be outlawed!
I suspect that SCOTUS took it on for PR sake. As trivial as it is, any SCOTUS decision against gun laws flexes their muscles and goes a long way in the media to intimidate against sensible gun laws, and will demonstrate support for the NRA and gun advocacy.
11
@child of babe You are so terribly misinformed about the 2nd Amendment and why we have it, the false flags done for an excuse for gun laws to restrict with the idea of confiscation it is sad. Stop being a fool to the propaganda about guns being bad. They want us disarmed so they can have FULL power over the people. Just go read what our forefathers has to say about guns and what happens without them. We don't have a gun problem. We have false flags and press designed to have the people turn against their own survival and you took it in lock stock and barrel.
4
I have a New York State pistol permit issued in a western NY county. If I want to drive to Long Island, it means I have to pass through NYC. In order to do that legally, my pistol must be located in a place that's inaccessible, like the trunk. The law says nothing about my final destination or my purpose for having the pistol with me.
Conclusion: I have different rights than residents of NYC. The patchwork of gun laws is ridiculous.
37
@Ancient I agree. Limit them all. Or is that not what you meant? Because it would be pretty sad if your frustration at inconvenience was more important than our nation’s children’s right to be safe in schools, church, movie theatres. . . The list goes on.
10
@Ancient, i agree, a nationwide ban on all guns kept without a yearly permit would sort this buffoonery out pronto
2
@Bob Tonnor Actually, your suggestion is in no way connected with the ideas mentioned in my comment or in the NYT article.
4
I frequently rant against people who think the Second is the only amendment that can't be regulated even though the word "regulated" appears in it. But even I think this law sounds like an infringement.
At the same time, Russia has been working through the NRA to destabilize the US through the gun cult. We need to stop and think about why the NRA was chosen. Putin wants to arm those on the right who through their oligarchic longings have become perverse allies. Putin wants our society to be disrupted and terrorized through gun violence. We have to curb the gun lust that destroying our trust in each other.
So it's concerning to see judicial erosion of efforts to impose civility and sanity on that gun lust. The bad thing for those of us who choose civilization is that this law is well chosen as one to chip away at.
8
Maybe I'm just an optimist but I think some of y'all are getting a little ahead of yourselves on this one. Just because a ridiculous overreach is being resolved does not spell out the beginning of the end for firearm regulation. The NRA isn't even involved in this case so I don't really see the tangent on Putins interests. As an anti NRA gun owner I am grateful for the private citizens bringing this case forward and hope the courts can steer the country to more sensible laws for the licensing and sale of firearms.
6
@C Wolfe
First off, the people's right to bear arms isn't that which is regulated, but the militia. The people's right shall not be infringed.
Secondly, "regulated" in the 18th century lexicon meant "capable, equipped". The most accurate timepieces were called "regulators", and this is also the root etymology of "regular army".
5
@Rich7553
And it the 18th century, arms meant muzzle-loading muskets, bayonets, swords, etc. So if we are to use the 18th century meaning of the 2nd amendment, it would not apply to the types of fire arms used today.
1
I would like to see the New York City gun law become a national law, but at least a New York State law. Those who own second homes should be able afford to purchase a second gun to keep there for protection. And the law could be amended to allow owners to restrict transportation of their guns to a shooting range for lessons, practice or testing for license renewal (another requirement that should be in place) but to nowhere else -- but in transporting the gun, it should be empty of bullets/clips. This is no longer the wild, wild and lawless west. We live in a civilized society with law enforcement agents sworn to serve and protect. According to reports, the majority of Americans do not own guns, so why make it easier for a minority of Americans to have broad license to be gun slingers and make it easier for criminals, the misguided and the mentally unstable to acquire and use them freely?
12
@Jeanne,
I'm a gun owner and I agree with you. If NYC's law hadn't been in place when I lived there I'm certain I wouldn't be alive right now. The current law is definitely responsible for making many violent crimes survivable and I hope it's upheld and replicated beyond the city.
7
@Jeanne More guns in circulation, stored in homes that are unoccupied most of the time. This is a recipe for getting guns into the hands of criminals.
5
@Jeanne
Gun rights for the rich but not the poor is what you are advocating. That is NYC's current policy, but it is not a liberal one, it is a racist and statist one.
6
Legally owned guns in NYC are a minor problem compared to illegally owned guns in NYC. Better to use NYC's resources to confiscate the latter
10
Seems as though no one remembered reading this passage in the article that sited widespread abuse of a prior license allowing the transportation of guns:
"Lawyers for the city responded that the law was justified by public safety considerations. Before 2001, their brief said, the city offered a license that allowed owners to take their guns to shooting ranges outside the city.
The Police Department, the brief said, “observed widespread abuses.” Firing ranges in the city must keep detailed records, the brief said, but people with the old licenses who were found with guns outside their homes could claim to be headed to a range outside the city that did not keep such records."
@Kent If you read the Brief of the City filed in opposition to the petition for cert. you would find that the complaint is that they transported them to non-NYPD approved ranges. If the range is in NJ why does it have to be NYPD approved?
There is also a commerce clause problem here. The City is forcing licensees to use only ranges in the city thus discriminating against ranges in CT, NJ and other areas not in the City. Thus they are effectively the city ranges a monopoly on city licensees. US Supreme Court threw out that logic in Gibbons v. Ogden (One of the ferry boat captains was Vanderbilt).
So the Supreme Court may not have to make a second amendment ruling but rather a commerce clause ruling.
Guns used for personal activities must be banned forever in the USA. The Second Amendment rationalization must go back to having the states simply be prepared to defend themselves against the Federal Government and in today’s world this does not mean you need guns. When it comes down to the real world of today nobody needs a gun 24 hours a day, forever. Hence, to start we must give those who bear arms up to 2 years to return all their weapons which will include bullets, empty shells, etc. to the FBI. In the future hunters should be able to rent a gun for no more than 2 weeks at a time. No more than one gun can be rented at any one time. Also, only hunting guns will be allowed to be rented. Guns ranges will have to be held responsible for all guns to be used solely on their premises. Bullet and shells will be treated as unauthorized and will bear the same fines and incarceration penalties as illegal gun ownership/usage. The approach taken by Australia where the guns are turned over to their federal government is working. Also, once the Canadians read this, the majority there will also most likely want to make this the law there asap for they today are experiencing far more gun crimes than ever before. The human animal is not smart enough to handle this easy to use killing tool, a killing tool no longer necessary in our country.
The Supreme Court will definitely provide a final resolution on this matter: that it is not their call to settle matters that government cannot. Of course, they could have refused the case on those grounds, so accepting it probably means they intend to exacerbate the problem.
1
Clearly if you buy a gun you have to transport it and the shooting range also is valid. But then how do you know people aren't just driving around with it in their vehicles? For some purposes the vehicle is considered an extension of the home but I don't think so in this case. Having a firearm in a car makes it much more vulnerable to theft and misuse. It also means that you are likely crossing state lines with it and different states and cities have different firearm laws. I think that might be what this ordinance was trying to get at and oppose but it does sound they have done it in a sloppy manner which is unlikely to go far.
@Erin Barnes: People are driving with guns stashed in their cars. In some parts of the US, there are guns in a third of the vehicles.
@Steve Bolger: In some places in the US, most of the road signs are punctured with bullet holes.
It is not the guns, it is that some people, mostly criminals, misuse them. Why punish law abiding citizens for the actions of those who are breaking the law?
5
This law is archaic and needs to be changed. This is why it is difficult to have any discussion on compromising to change gun laws to more reasonable statutes that make sense.
Transporting an unloaded firearm in a lock box should not be illegal anywhere in the United States as long as the person doing the transporting is not a convicted felon or a minor.
This type of law provides political cover for the extreme right, people who believe the government is going to take their firearms away.
Time to apply some common sense New York!
5
I believe this NYC ordinance is (discretely, and at law enforcements' urging) just a blanket stop-gap to deter the transport of any firearms through the east coast metropolitan corridor. New York has many ordinances that trample on the rights of the responsible individual for no other reason than to facilitate law enforcement's ability to catch those with criminal intent, or in this case, those that may be transporting large quantities of firearms. Say it's a simple ordinance whose real purpose has a broader scope.
1
For possessing or transporting a handgun, NYC has a penalty of up to a $1000 fine, and a year in jail. Whoa. It is a draconian way to curtail legal activity, and make it illegal. In Ohio, transporting a handgun requires it be unloaded, and the ammunition to be in a separate location not accessible to the occupants. It’s also illegal if loaded, and in a non-accessible location. If loaded and accessible, it’s a felony. Tell me why that law is not enough to satisfy the safety concerns of NYC?
3
Finally the Supreme Court will rule on one of the most ridiculously restrictive gun ordinances in the country. New York has some of the most restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws. And yet all it has done is kept guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Or worse yet, make otherwise law abiding citizens break the law to own a gun thus making them criminals. In the meantime the criminals can get all the guns they want. I understand the concern with so many people living in one place but NY has pushed the limits on not allowing gun ownership. My business was robbed once - the robbers had guns, I didn’t. When I looked into getting a permit for a gun, I was astonished at the mountain of paperwork that I was dissuaded to do so. Which I’m sure is the point.
4
@Mike L
The only thing Gun Control does is disarm law abiding Citizens...
2
"Exactly what the Second Amendment protects has been in dispute ever since."
Not really; it was written to protect "the security of a free State", at a time when there was no standing army.
As such, the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, except in the eyes of a Supreme Court which considers corporations to be people.
8
@CW Even if it is no longer relevant, it is still a part of the Constitution and can only be removed by another amendment. I suggest that you start organizing a movement to repeal it, if that is what you want to occur.
1
@CW When other writings of the era dealing with the possession of firearms are analyzed, you will find that you are mistaken about the "standing army" aspect you are promoting.
1
"the Supreme Court will start exploring and perhaps expanding the scope of the Second Amendment"
The Supreme Court said there can be reasonable regulation, but did not say what that means. So there can be regulation, of some unknown kind, with no definition and few hints. (Hints: no sawed off shotguns or machine guns.)
This is not expansion or contraction of a right. It is the first definition of it.
Until Heller, the Court had always avoided the entire question of whether it even was an individual right. Lower courts had said it was not, but the Supreme Court had never really said either way.
This is new territory, not expansion or contraction.
@Mark Thomason: The real question at stake is the rights of the unarmed and the effects of arms distribution on the liberties of free states. The second amendment can be interpreted to put the rights of the unarmed over those of the armed.
1
Isn't it obvious by now that the problem isn't guns. The problem is that we're not mature or rational enough to own them. If we would only concede that, then we could move on to the related question of whether we are mature or rational enough to govern ourselves. The answer is increasingly that we are not.
4
@John Milton Coffer
I conclude that you are speaking of yourself as being too.immature to possess a gun.
My nation provided me with a gun numerous times in the U.S. and elsewhere. Never a problem.
1
@John Milton Coffer: Religion has taken a very revanchist turn in the US. It arrests intellectual development.
@John Milton Coffer Please, speak for yourself. There are millions of "mature and rational" citizens of this country, which includes me.
1
Hopefully the Court will strike down this ordinance.
For those unwilling to understand the ordinance's restriction or what reversing it will actually do, and who insist on dragging out the same tired argument that any Court decision that doesn't limit gun rights will mean murder and mayhem in the streets, understand this: a gun owner will still have to transport their unloaded gun separated from any ammunition and in a safe compartment.
How does transporting a firearm from one place to another endanger our population?
As it stands, the ordinance is ridiculous.
23
@RamSter: What kind of guns are we discussing? Rifles for hunting, or handguns?
1
@Steve Bolger
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I dont see where in the 2nd Amendment it makes a distinction between a rifle or a handgun
4
If you trust someone to own a gun in the first place, why wouldn't you trust them enough to allow them to carry it outside their home?
However this may not be the question that the court will look at and if not what is New York trying to prove?
3
@BTO: How do we vet people who want to go about with pistols like private eyes on TV?
Looks like that infusion of Russian money is going to pay off for the NRA. The coup appears to be complete: We now have a president and, by extension, a Supreme Court bought by foreign oligarchs in general collusion with the Mitch McConnells and others who are destroying democracy for the sake of a buck. Nathan Hale is spinning in his grave.
5
@vsr and even better, the total money spent on the enterprise by our enemies is less than a few fighter jets...a bargain.
1
@vsr You do understand that the NRA is not involved in this right? Its the NYSRA that is challenging this law.
@Casey Yes, Putin et al are chess masters, and we are represented by crass, moronic trust fund babies from Queens and grubby little hustlers from the likes of Kentucky and other provincial outposts who serve their rich overlords like their predecessors served the aristocrats of the pre-Civil War South. The struggle for civil rights, the desperate need to rise to the existential crisis of WWII and the Great Depression facilitated our evolution. The Mitch McConnells are not chess masters. Trump, McConnell et al play simple checkers with an America that is easily duped. The Putins watch and laugh, and wait their growing opportunity for checkmate. The regression in this country, the abandonment of its founding values, is not due to greed alone. It owes to the stupidity that permits hustling intellectual midgets like Trump and McConnell to look like great leaders to those they fleece.
It appears the $30 million the NRA invested in trump will soon prove to be money well spent. Meanwhile, people will continue to endure gun violence at rates far beyond those of other western democracies.
7
@RickyDick: The Mueller investigation seems to have expanded to the NRA's donor list. Why would it do that?
1
@RickyDick Have you read the article? If you did you would know that the NRA is not involved in this case. The NYSPRA brought this case to the SC.
1
Republicans have won the popular vote exactly once in the last 36 years, and yet they control the Supreme Court. Somewhere, unfortunately not in my lifetime, I hope that true justice will eventually finally prevail.
4
@Paul in NJ,
You think we're gonna' get justice from john roberts' kangaroo court?
Not if john roberts' pimps, the koch brothers, have anything to say about it.
Don't you think that gun 'rights' has a coin's reverse 'obligation', to be a responsible citizen? That owning and using a weapon specifically design to kill people, is a privilege, not too dissimilar to the even stricter rules we have for driving a car? America is the only country where the 'Wild West' (i.e. the need for self- defense for lack of a security force in place) seems the driving impulse to intimidate others for no good reason. Just because the NRA remains immature and eager to sell guns for profit does not make it right to brandish a weapon, a sort of second amendment abuse on the first amendment. This may be akin to the wildly exaggerated incarceration of people (especially blacks, a racist connotation) for offenses like drug abuse, easily handled elsewhere by rehabilitation and treatment, more effective and cheaper anyway. We shall see what the conservative judges have to say; it would be hypocritical of them to allow the 'free' circulation of weapons...while forbidden in their own Court.
4
Armed police officers are assigned to precincts and beats because that level of contact is necessary to make quick decisions wiser. Everybody else who thinks they should carry outside their own precinct hasn’t got a clue.
1
@Steve Bolger So should police officers be required to turn in their guns for storage at the precinct house when they go outside of the precinct? That is the equivalent of the current law.
3
I think this case is a litmus test of the “left.” Do we support the absurd (like this city ordinance) because we like the idea of gun control in principle?
Count me out—let’s have logical laws.
8
SCOTUS’ only role is to rule on the law’s constitionality, not on the law’s logic or effectiveness.
I don't understand how this law is even enforceable unless cities outside NYC are cooperating to enforce it. Can't a person just hide their gun in their trunk under the spare tire? If you are caught within the NYC city limits, you still haven't broken the law. I wouldn't be arrested for any reason.
-This is a serious comment, but I did add some grammar humor by changing the subject in the last three sentences of my argument.
The ordinance is silly. It makes no sense at all. Perhaps the Supreme Court decided to take it up to defend logic and reason, not the Second Amendment.
9
@Anne
Perhaps the Supreme Court sees the logic and reasons for the Bill of Rights being protected!
2
From a common sense standpoint I do not understand this law. New York City is not a state unto itself within New York. I fail to see how this law protects anyone from anything. Are NYC gun owners supposed to own two guns and keep one for outside the city by registering it in a friend's town and keeping it there? This is not a Supreme Court worthy problem. It's one that could be easily fixed.
The Supreme Court worthy problem is the issue of interpreting the Second Amendment in a way that allows people who want to own guns to have them and keeping all of us safe. So far the NRA and the GOP have stifled that discussion.
4
Gosh, I wonder how the 5 Republican Justices will rule on this. I guess we’ll just have to wait and find out, since there’s no way to guess ahead of time how the 5 conservative Republican ideologue justices on the court will go.
10
@Randall I am equally curious as to how the four Democratic-appointed Justices will rule - they are generally unpredictable when it comes to Second Amendment cases.
3
@Randall or turn this around... I wonder how the 4 Democratic Justices will rule on this. I guess we’ll just have to wait and find out, since there’s no way to guess ahead of time how the 4 liberal Democratic ideologue justices on the court will go.
This is why we need a Supreme Court Justices with no political affliction. They need to base their decision/decisions on the law without their ideology impeding their decision/decisions.
2
This ought to be quite straight forward. Any law that a majority of the court thinks is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms will be struck down. One case at a time.
7
@CBH Every constitutional right is balanced against the constitutional rights of every other citizen, including the First Amendment right to be free from government-compelled association with armed, untrained, civilians carrying concealed weapons. The Second Amendment does not confer unlimited rights.
16
@Jennifer Hoult, J.D. I agree completely, but that balance will in fact be determined by a majority of the Supreme Court. These decisions will be very narrow and will refer to the particulars of the case. At the moment the ability, not the right, to keep and bear arms has been granted by the state legislatures not the second amendment.
1
"We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would notapply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
2
Living in New York is far different from living in a place like Tennessee (how's that for an observation...?) We are a city with over 8 and a half million denizens who are densely packed together. I looked up how many of us have permits to own guns: 50,000. I also looked up the number of times over the past decade that New York City gun-owners have used a gun to protect themselves from a home invader. Not a lot of to find there.
We don't need to wait until 2020 to know the majority will strike down this New York City law. And what will they argue? They'll argue that our "precious freedom," putatively enshrined in our revered 18th-Century Constitution, is violated by this New York City law.
Ah, yes, almost forgot about our precious freedom. But seriously, were this citizen permitted to address the Court directly, I'd ask this: Would you kindly consider weighing the precious freedom of the 50,000 New York City gun owners against the precious freedom of the 8-and-a-half million New Yorkers (minus those 50,000, of course) who do not own guns?
Just asking, Your Honors.
12
@Emile. Perhaps we should restrict driving licenses to those over the age of 18 since young drivers are killing themselves (and others) every day in this country. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it should be banned or infringed. This NYC law is designed to inconvenience gun owners and is part of their plan to incrementally restrict and eventually ban firearms.
6
The 50,000 are actually the "free" ones. How many of them have done harm to the other 8 1/2 million? In your words, "not a lot to find there."
No matter where you live, bad people can and do exist. Fighting fire with fire is one of the precious gifts our constitution has given us. Those that would take it away, don't honestly deserve the other freedoms awarded to them.
If you look at the stats, you will find that responsible gun owners account for less problems than expected.
8
Your first paragraph may simply indicate that there aren't a lot of home invasions in NYC. And even if those incidents occurred every day, it would be unlikely that the perpetrators would stumble upon the home of a gun owner. After all, your numbers say that only .00625% of NYC residents are permit holders.
4
Hmmm....subjecting use of a gun to rules usually limited to only those seeking abortions...brilliant NY, brilliant.
4
Abortion is not spelled our in the constitution but the rights you bear arms is. There is a far better chance that the second amendment is abolished than abortion being enshrined in the constitution.
1
A truly ridiculous law that is nothing but an attempt by a local government to interfere with
and limit a Constitutional right.
19
On both gun rights and affirmative action in higher education, the left is doing what segregatists did in going as far as they can in obstructing and resisting implemention of major civil rights rulings.
7
New York City is the most un-American city in the whole United States and, indeed, a tail of two cities. Rich, white pseudo-liberals of Manhattan peer down on the impoverished minorities and immigrants of the outer boroughs and take pleasure curtailing their basic human and Constitutional rights as Americans. America was founded on individual liberties and chief among them is the right to defend one's own life against the State and foreign invasion. New York tramples on an American's "right to bear arms" by not only restricting the ability of a citizen to carry a weapon within the city but to transport it outside of the city into cities that choose not to violate the Constitution.
To further evidence the tyrannical, overstepping nature of NYC's official position on the Second Amendment, notice how NYC reserves the right for the State itself (and those who protect public officials) to own guns. In other words, what is seen as legally allowable for New York City is legally restricted from an American citizen. How dare New York City violate the Constitution of the United States. Meanwhile, the geniuses who run the NYPD have had to settle $629.5 Million in lawsuits for alleged police misconduct and mistakes. This fact does not reassure a private citizen that he or she should sit on their laurels and trust the good-will and altruism of the State. Give me my guns. I don't trust the State for reasons of: All Written Human History.
19
@Joshua. Hi fellow traveler!!
Being as patient and gracious as I can possible muster up to being, I recognize our neighbors who seek govt solutions for all of their fears ((perhaps waking up from their own nightmares might help)) . . . as modern day messianics who are sure they have seen lions lying down with lambs.
I’m guessing that you and I and others, who revere our realism based U.S. Constitution, steeped in recognition of the corruptability of humans who are granted power, we must patiently await the coming ((return?)) of the messiah.
@Joshua
Your right to editorialize and the existence of media in which to do so is a protected state right. Be careful what you wish for.
Our Supreme Court is a co branch of the right wing Republican Party. Now Trump added two more extreme right wing judges. So the result is expected to be pro NRA.
2
I have never personally owned a gun and never will, but I don’t like the idea of petty local officials interfering with my Constitutional right to own a gun if I wanted to. So my advice to these petty local politicians would be to stick to matters where they are most qualified like parking and trash removal.
23
Is any one else find irony in the fact that DiBlasio is spending a fortune so that gun rights people can get a victory in the Supreme Court?
Last time I checked, the city didn’t have extra cash.
If he were smart, he would moot the appeal by rescinding the ordinance.
7
@Sagi Genger
It's not his money and might interfere with future election opportunities.
Heller did not establish an individual right to posses arms, that has always been a right in this country, and in the time before it.
Heller protected that right from unconstitutional infringement.
That is one of several biased and emotionally loaded phrases in this news, not opinion, article.
For perspective, it is worth keeping in mind that concealed carriers are among the safest and most law abiding groups in America, safer and more law abiding than police who can often break laws with impunity and so who are probably less law abiding even than the statistics portray.
Criminals obtain guns illegally already, and just as prohibition failed in alcohol and drugs, all the illegal gun prohibition achieves is disarming the law abiding.
We are a country of citizens, including the police. We are not subjects, and we should be careful of wishing for some citizens to have more rights than others.
20
@Wake
“Heller did not establish an individual right to posses arms, that has always been a right in this country, and in the time before it. ”
This was also stated in the Cruikshank opinion in the 1870’s which was cited in the Heller ruling. It is an individual natural right, not a right conferred by government.
5
@Wake. except for your non-fact based smear of the cops, I totally agree with the rest of your post.
2
@Wake
I guess you missed the part about a “well-regulated militia”. Don’t feel bad: the (conservative majority of the) Supreme Court missed it too.
1
The Supreme Court will now allow this madness to uproot the sensible gun laws that NY promotes.
Adding more guns into an urban area crammed to the rafters with millions of people.
Makes as much sense as allowing the hoi polloi access to military assault weapons.
To date NY has avoided school shooting massacres and is enjoying the lowest homicide rates for decades in NY City.
What is the fascination with weapons manifested by our Supreme Court Conservatives ?
How in the world can they countenance and tacitly condone the mass shootings that have infested this country over the past couple of decades ?
The Civil War laid to rest the 2nd Amendment. There is no chance that any state could secede from the Union without Congressional and executive approval.
There is also no chance that an armed uprising against the most powerful military on the planet would succeed.
Handing military weapons to all and sundry is nothing short of sheer madness.
How does any court even consider the further promotion of the mayhem that has enveloped this nation because of the idiotic and lax attitudes of a conservative court majority ?
Heller states that a gun may be kept in the home. That is reasonable.
How did that decision ever bloom into citizens walking the streets with AR-15 weaponry and side arms ?
What rational excuse can be given to explain judicial decisions that promote such horrors as Sandy Hook , Las Vegas , and countless other instances of gun violence ?
2
There is a chance that an armed uprising can defend itself against the mightiest military force history has ever known. Proof: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea. I can guarantee you that if the Afghans had no weapons, the US military would have won the war a long time ago. Guerrilla warfare has been very effective against standard armies. Urban guerrilla warfare is extremely difficult to combat. By the numbers, over 300 million weapons. The US military has 1.5 million service individuals, some of them will not fight against their own citizens, and not all of them are combat personnel. A total citizen uprise would be difficult to stop if the citizens are armed. Sure, the US military can decide to nuke the cities, if that is what you mean by not standing a chance, but then nobody wins.
4
@Laurence Voss. And yet in most instances of murders, mass or other wise one of several conditions existed: (1) the gun used was obtained illegally by outlaws, (2) the perps, in mass murders, had been known in the community as being away off . . . but the perps either stole their parents guns, used guns stupidly given vito them despite their mental condition, or walked into a gun store and bought same without the proper back ground checks . . , (3) law is strict on protection of crazy people’s rights to privacy, (4) even when govt has all the authority it needs, like the US re the veteran who massacred folks in that Tex’s church, no guarantees that the govt employees will competantly do their jobs re back ground checks e.g.
2
@Steve B
Nonsense. Most of the guns used in massacres have been obtained legally or through subterfuge.
There is no rational reason to allow this infestation of military weapons that have no other purpose than to kill other human beings.
Allowing folks to possess weapons when they are incompetent to handle their own Social Security is another legislative boondoggle that ignores common sense.
Your reasoning , i.e. that government employees will fudge the back ground checks , is a juvenile pipe dream. According to that concept , a lawless society is preferable to reasonable and sane regulation.
Are you serious ?
Wouldn't it be super if the Supremes would review the 2nd amendment case law from day one? If they did, they would have to acknowledge that for the first 100 years, the courts did not acknowledge a right to gun ownership by individuals. Rather, courts acknowledged a 'collective ' right, and that right was vested in a militia. The militia in the modern era is the National Guard. Of course, fat chance of that happening.
4
@fgros -- That is not true of the Supreme Court. Lower courts said that. The Supreme Court was silent on the issue.
2
@fgros
Wrong. See Title 10 USC §311(2)(b).
1
What a nightmare. I am more angry at the people who didn't vote during the last Presidential election for Hillary and now we have two Supreme Court Justices that will greatly damage the country for the worse.
2
@reader123 -- I'm angry at those who insisted on forcing down the choice of Hillary. That did not work out so well, did it?
No, we won't vote for a war hawk corporate sell out -- again -- just because you won't offer anything else.
6
@reader123
Some at the time considered the federally forced segregation of 1963 Birmingham schools a nightmare. Yet that too was enforcement of a fundamental enumerated right. You don't get to selectively choose another's rights.
4
Of course the Republican-jiggered SCOTUS will now begin expanding gun rights in America. It’s not as if the increasing number of gun deaths and mass murders committed against us has any impact on those corrupt, cynical Republican politicians or the narrow-minded, bought-and-sold judges they’ve inserted on our Highest Court. Why do we put up with any of them? AOC: I’m with you in taking on SCOTUS, as are millions and millions of other Americans, so let’s do it.
4
@Pietro Allar
Generally when one declares war, one is sufficiently armed. Good luck with that.
2
Yeah, let’s face it - this is gone, 5-4. The direct consequences of Bernie Sanders supporters electing Trump. Congratulations, here’s your prize.
3
@Mike -- Our prize if any is pulling out of Syria, not going all in on Libya, not pushing troops into Ukraine.
That is not much, but it is important. As for selling out to money, She'd already done that too. As for health care, She'd already failed once and openly said better could not be done. So no change there.
3
Gee, an overwrought needlessly restrictive local ordinance of already permitted, law-abiding citizens is unlikely to survive SCOTUS review, and this is because of Bernie supporters? Of all the larger issues facing our country, this one ruling is small potatoes.
Had the Clinton Campaign and the DNC apparatchiks had done *some* homework and got a ground game going in the upper Midwest, instead of thinking the entire election was in the bag, it would’ve been Obama’s third term. Just look at what they lost to. How lousy does one have to be to loose to that?
@Mark Thomason Comments like this are exactly why the left deserves every second of 8 years of Trump.
3
Gun rights? Guns don't have rights. People do. They're called civil rights. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment as a civil right. See the landmark SCOTUS decision; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Don't let the DNC media outlets dictate what your rights are. This is why we have a Supreme Court.
19
Amendments aren't infallible...why are so many obvious things so opaque to certain people? One can deduce it's either stupidity or selfishness
1
@David Friederichs
Then call for the repeal of the Second Amendment. All you need is 2/3 of Congress to concur and 3/4 of the states to ratify. But ignoring or usurping it is unacceptable.
6
The case reported today of four young men, apparently two of whom are Eagle Scouts, who acquired 23 weapons legally tells us a great deal about where we are today.
These lost souls are accused of planning to attack a rural community, Islamberg NY, largely populated by American born muslims. A community stated as being a significant distance from their homes.
And our top court is worried about a local law that currently affects maybe a few hundred people's rights to transport a handgun !
3
This ordinance makes absolutely no sense to me. What if you hunt? What if you need to have your gun serviced? What if you move? Are you supposed to leave the gun behind in your apartment for the next tenant? I must be missing something.
26
@Steve
you are correct in all your points; it is not legal to take your gun with you when you leave the city permanently. I suppose you could arrange to sell it at one of the legal ranges, but only to a police officer, since any one else needs pre-approval
5
@Steve I had the same question. Kind of makes me think that this is really about shooting ranges located in the city who probably charge a lot of money to gun owners who come and use their ranges for practice. Also very curious about the issue mentioned in article about other ranges not keeping detailed records. Why do they need to keep such records?
1
@Steve handguns are not legal for hunting in NY.
2
"The NYC ordinance... allows residents... to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city... But... forbids them to take their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city... Firing ranges in the city must keep detailed records, the brief said, but people with the old licenses who were found with guns outside their homes could claim to be headed to a range outside the city that did not keep such records."
This really shouldn't even be a second amendment case. It should be about the government collecting data on citizens engaged in a legal activity.
For what other constitutionally protected right does the government need to keep "detailed records" on citizens who exercise those rights?
And the article should have addressed the issue of citizens being "found with guns outside their homes."
Who is finding citizens with guns outside their homes? What are the circumstances? Where has this happened?
When did it happen and how often? Why would the government/police be searching people outside of their homes?
Forget the 2nd amendment. What about the 4th? (That's the one that protects us for illegal search).
While they are at it, why not force bars and restaurants to keep "detailed records" of anyone with a driver's license who consumes alcohol? You know... to stop drunk driving.
33
Unfortunately this country has weighed the right of someone to carry a deadly weapon (even if it’s a weapon that’s used on the battlefield ) heavier than the right of an individual to be safe from gun death just walking down the street . Is it any coincidence that those states that have the most lax gun regulations have the highest percentage per capita of gun related deaths and injuries? Those are facts .
It’s common sense . Everyone refers to Australia and their “ extreme” gun laws after their one and only mass shooting . But their federal law is very similar to NJ law — ban on assault and semi assault weapons , background checks on all purchases , no conceal or open carry permits , and a waiting period to buy a gun. All reasonable and
I’m happy to say we’ve never had a mass shooting in NJ. And any proliferation of guns we do have in our inner cities is a result from guns bought in OTHER states at gun shows with NO BACKGROUND CHECK or limit on how many guns you can buy against NJ law.
The 2nd Amendment is a farce and has absolutely nothing to do with today. It was an outshoot from the country’s push and pull between the federal government and States’ rights continuing the tradition of state militias which served as a bulwark against any fear that this new government would become too powerful . A bit outmoded today don’t you think ?
2
@Johannes de Silentio
Or why allow transnational warrantless NSA information searches to support a vague, broad and unending 'war on terror?'
2
This is a non-issue. Like everything else lately, the real problems are not being addressed or even acknowledged.
To be specific, the most urgent gun law related problem in NYC is the influx of weapons from surrounding states with loose or totally dysfunctional laws. Re: gun shows in Pa., Va., etc..
3
Please explain something: why is it that every single one of those loosely-regulated guns goes out of state? Why don't any leak into the Wild West state,to increase crime there?
4
I feel strongly that gun possession should be strictly regulated since its use particularly in congested urban areas is often violent and deadly. In New York City violent crime is way down in part due to restrictive gun laws and to most citizens it is well worth it. It is possible in NYC to feel that you can walk down the street and be free and alive.
I feel that human life and the rights of humans to feel safe are much more important than gun owners’ rights. In America they have too many and frankly
I doubt that any other supposed civilized country has as many gun violence casualties.
It is time to place the sanctity of human life over the supposed freedom to own guns. Times change and a truly civilized and caring society that cares about health should restrict and regulate gun ownership.
It is truly a health care crisis that demands a solution and regulations.
6
@IN
Unfortunately the first act of a tyrant is usually to restrict and then eliminate gun ownership. We can't let that happen here.
11
@IN I've read lots of articles about the decrease in violent crime in NY. None of them connect the decrease to stricter gun laws. It's a bit of a mystery. Aside from the SAFE Act, New York's gun laws haven't changed much in decades. And, that legislation had little effect on your typical gun toting convenience store robber. Those people do their thing with handguns, not rifles.
6
That must be what's happening in Australia then
I have changed my mind on gun control since leaving the GOP and am allowing my 40+ year membership in the once great, now shamed, NRA to expire ( all because both organizations embarrassed themselves and the nation by supporting trump) but its hard to see how anyone is actually safer with this restrictive law. Is it unconstitutional? The courts job is to decide although I think stacking the court with questionable selections like Kavanaugh pretty much ensure whatever gun law is in front of the court, regardless of how minor or, like this one, restrictive, is doomed.
21
@jeff
I agreed with you when I first read the basics of the law, until I read this article and saw NYC's complaint: that without this law, anyone could always claim that they were on their way to a firing range outside of the city (one that does not keep records that prove the person went there). That, in effect, nullifies any law and lets anyone carry a gun in NYC, which I think you'll agree, is an excessively dangerous thing. That works in the middle of Montana, but not in a city of 8.6 million people.
I think the law could use some refinement, but like all 2nd Amendment laws, several things must be balanced, and primary among them (IMO) is the safety of the citizens in a densely populated society.
I'm curious. Did the gun rights advocates in this case take their complaints to the city, to try to get the law simply and adequately revised, with basic common sense arguments? Or was it used as a political tool to chip away at gun control laws?
1
@Bob Lacatena
"Did the gun rights advocates in this case take their complaints to the city"
That's the funniest thing I've read all week...
You should take a video camera with you to Boston City Hall and ask to see someone to complain about Boston's gun laws...
That would be must see TV.
Heck Boston or NYC or any other communist enclave would likely call the SWAT team out on you just for asking...
2
I specifically voted for Trump knowing he would appoint conservative judges who will uphold the Constitution and our right, Thank God Hillary lost, Trump saved The United States
16
@Jimd
That last sentence is wrong in so many ways to be surreal.
11
Ever hear of issues like climate change. Save the us and destroy the world. In thinking about it because of disruption that will occur resulting from climate change in the near future people will need guns to protect themselves. So maybe a method to the madness.
2
@Jimd I voted for trump for the very same reason.
My reasoning was, if he appointed one or maybe two conservatives to the high court to preserve the second amendment for at least another generation or so, that would be a good thing.
At the same time, with Trump being who and what he is, I knew that voting Donald Trump into the White House could possbly come with its own set of problems!
However, I figured Congress would never allow him to get us into trouble.
Oh my ... WAS I WRONG!!!
2
It seems pretty clear that this Court will overturn that law - and many others. The 2nd Amendment might as well have been written without its 1st clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
9
@Anne-Marie Hislop...It would be helpful if you understood the dependent clause of the first line of the Second Amendment. Clearly, the Founders and Framers did not intend for the State itself to be the arbiter of "well regulated" seeing as the Second Amendment itself was seen as necessary as a means of defense against a tyrannical State. Here's a last line of defense against YOU, the States. But you get to decide if I'm allowed to use it. "That makes all kinds of sense", said no one ever.
9
You're forgetting the whole "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" part. The People is used the same way in the other amendments such as free speech.
8
@Joshua
There really are no solid originalist arguments for the above-- obviously the Founders had strong suspicions of rule by 'The People'-- hence the Electoral College.
It reflects Trump vs. The United States of America. That simple.
4
The Second Amendment=the self-destruct button of a nation.
12
@Harry Sihan...The Second Amendment = the only thing that backs up the First Amendment. I have free speech. And, in case you forgot, I HAVE FREE SPEECH. Notice the rifle in my right hand. You, the State, are not to be trust. Mr. Harry Sihan needs to read and study history. Because, apparently, he has some very un-American and uninformed views. Oh... yes. That's because he's not American. Makes sense. Go wrestle with the anti-free speech human rights violations of the EU. You have no actual rights to defend. So what use is a gun?
7
The city will lose big time, I won't be surprised if it becomes an 8-1 or 9-0 ruling. Even the "gun control" supporters admit this rule makes no sense. So NYC will argue that a Bronx resident is forbidden from taking his legally owned pistol to Westchester county for the purpose of target practice.....because "public safety and crime prevention"
17
@b d'amico “But the ordinance forbids them to take their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they are unloaded and locked in a container separate from ammunition.”
8
@b d'amicoThat is not what the article said. read more yes and carefully.
3
@b d'amico no. You should reread the article. How can you transport a gun to Westchester without going through the city limits. That is indeed the issue. Think before you write
3
I am all for sane gun laws, but this law seems absurd. If you want to ban all gun ownership, that's one thing, but to say that a person can own a gun, but only take it to 7 ranges in the city and not outside the city? Perhaps NY City should focus on decreasing inequality, improving education, reducing housing costs, requiring corporations to return more to the community, reigning in Wall Street, fixing the subway... So much more could be done to address the issues that lead to violence in the first place.
10
@Todd Johnson
Other countries have "issues" (housing cost, transportation, income disparity) but they do not all have the absurd amount of gun deaths that we have in the US.
Logic would tell you then that the surreal amount of gun deaths in the US are not about "the issues that lead to violence" but the fact that we have something like 300 million guns.
After Kavanagh is removed for perjury aren't his votes nullified?
11
Uh...no. Decisions once made are final.
2
This is just another case of state/local law attempting to usurp the rights of Americans. Here in Nevada, there is a law that states a person must get a driver’s license within 30 days of being in the state. Papers please?
http://www.dmvnv.com/newresident.htm#
4
@Mark Nevada is Nevada. NYC has an ordinance recommended by its local police who put their lives on the line to protect the citizens - and visitors of that city. If the city thinks that's best, then that's what they should do.
7
@Brian The police also advocated stop and frisk so I assume you think that should be law as well.
5
I am a staunch advocate of gun control and restrictions on where they can be carried but this law is ridiculous. It was poorly thought out and NYC deserves to lose this case. There are so many other important gun restrictions that need to be instituted and this is where they chose to take a stand!? Dumb.
10
I love this city, they don’t fight any cases where people sue the city to get money for free and lose millions of dollars but , will fight tooth and nail to deny people their constitutional rights, got to love those NYC liberals, they are a class on their own
17
And so it begins. A Supreme Court out of touch with the majority of the country— who believes in sensible gun safety laws like background checks— put in place by a President enthroned by Russians and power-mad Republicans willing to overlook the President’s crimes and the NRAs coziness with Putin’s protégées. All I can think of is my son’s history test he was studying for last night— on the fall of the Roman Empire.
11
@Allison How about we restrict your 1st amendment rights only to your home state? Once you leave your state's borders you don't have freedom of speech.
14
@Allison NY & CA are not the majority of the country...
10
@Juan Poor comparison. If she speaks or misspeaks, no one dies.
3
"Keep and bear arms…"
In the time of our founders, to "keep" arms meant to keep the in a safe place for use by a militia. Like in an armory.
To "bear" arms meant to bear them in battle. Period.
Does anyone in their right mind think the founders wanted such unregulated ownership and use of firearms?
The Second Ammendment is gimmick.
It's a marketing tool that the gun industry decided to promote in the 1970s so they could make lots of money peddling their death products.
Before the Heller v. DC case in 2008, no court in the land had affirmed a definite individual right to own a gun. Three prior Supreme Court rulings going back to the 1800s did not.
The Second Ammendment.
A marketing slogan.
A phony story told to Americans to promote a new hobby and support the gun producers. And, as more guns got into more unqualified hands, the more dangerous our society became - causing more people to think they need a gun.
On and on and on.
But, surprise!
This Liberal is not against gun ownership!
I have friends who collect and shoot them.
I'm not interested but no problem if you are.
How about you have to show the local police in that you are sane. Take safety and shooting classes. Prove you are responsible to own a gun.
And, registration of all guns.
Not to penalize "good guys with guns" but rather to crush anyone with an unregistered, unregulated gun. Separate wheat from chaff!
"Well regulated" as the founders said.
If you're normal - a gun is OK.
If not…
15
@Paul King - The operant part of the Second Amendment gun nuts never quote is "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary...." The Amendment is a conditional one designed for a country that was not supposed to have a standing army. If you read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, it defines Congress's rights & responsibilities in defining the militias (now called the states' National Guards) & instructions that they can only be called to war against a foreign invader or an internal insurrection. the people who think that guns should be owned to defend them from their government are deluded. The purpose of these Well Regulated militias is to defend the government from radical uprisings.
BTW, the Constitution is specific in its wording, using "person" when talking about an individual right and "people" when talking about a communal right. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that permits open or concealed carrying of firearms in the public areas. Armories are where the "people" in the National Guard units are to store their weapons until needed.
Disclaimer: I am 70 & though I'm in favor of strict gun laws, have been a competitive semi-automatic pistol shooter almost all my life. In combat shooting, I can double-tap 5 moving targets in center mass in under 3 seconds (.25 seconds a shot). Plinking at a bullseye at 30 meters, I can put 50 shots through one big hole in the X ring. But, I've never found a reason to carry my weapons anywhere but to ranges & gunsmiths.
8
@Paul King If something is a "right' the burden should be on those who would seek to deny you that right to show why you shouldn't be able to exercise it.
In Michigan we changed the law that allowed police to veto CCW for any reason or no reason. People opposed claimed there would be increased carnage. There wasn't.
And no there is not going to be any national gun registry. New York couldn't get gun owners to comply with the SAFE act. Many are simply ignoring it.
6
In fact it was those "kept" guns for the militia in Concord that the British regulars were marching to get that was the basis of the battles of Lexington and Concord. Shoring up what keep meant at the time.
1
The thought that anyone could carry a gun here, or anywhere is frightening. How do we protect the masses of masses have guns?
3
@M. The problem is that almost any "good guy with a gun" can turn into a "bad guy with a gun" under provocation as small as road rage, suspicion of a cheating spouse, or a minor bar fight. What used to lead to nothing worse than a black eye in a parking lot now ends up in a shooting. The biggest 2 problems with carrying are that it gives the carrier the feeling of great empowerment &, since shooting is so much easier & safer from a distance than a fist fight, greatly lowers the bar of provocation that leads to violence.
4
@Beartooth. The problem with what you are saying is that none of it is true. You're projecting what your "truth" is because you don't like guns. Those with CCW licenses are heavily vetted and are statistically the least likely to commit crimes.
7
The NRA took money from Russians. The NRA gave record contributions to help Trump in the 2016 election. Trump appointed two “Justices” to the Supreme Court creating a majority who are in thrall to the NRA. This is not about constitutional interpretation it’s about a circle of corruption at the highest level of our government.
22
@Robert O. - And the Russians, despite the big NRA building near the Kremlin, have gun ownership laws for ordinary civilians just about as strict as any in the world. Though they love the destabilizing effect of seeing millions of Americans stockpiling guns to use against their governments or other groups of Americans they hate.
5
My prediction: the Supreme Court will find that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" actually compels all Americans to own and carry firearms at all times. The NRA will hail the ruling as bringing about a new era without crime.
9
It will be interesting, to say the least, how this right wing Supreme Court will deal with an expected full and factual, compelling evidentiary record submitted by the City in this case, setting forth in detail those "widespread abuses" that ushered in the need for New York's restrictive gun law to ensure the #1. responsibility to its citizens, ensuring public safety. Will it respect that legal record and uphold the law, or ignore it to arrive at a preconceived ideological result expanding gun rights in this case, even at the societal cost of jeopardizing the safety of men, women, and children?
6
I hope this is not going to be another disaster like Citizen United...
6
@ms
Citizen United would not have happened if the Court were lead by conservatives for the last century.
That decision is a product of the previous error in extending the substantive reach of the 14th amendment to “any person” and not “any citizen.” That error, birthed Citizens United because corporations were considered legal persons when the 14th amendment passed, but not citizens.
Thanks for that little fact.
1
NYC should repeal this law and make the case moot because nothing good will come of SCOTUS's opinion that finds the law unconstitutional.
3
I would suggest that the data from countries who have allowed gun ownership within limits needs to be used to inform and policy. The U.S. is so far behind.
2
Gun control advocates would be wise to pass laws that place restrictions on guns that are likely to fall within Justice Kennedy's stated exceptions. That way such laws would be far more likely to pass muster. Having a gun and not being able to take it outside your home is an extremely broad limitation and is unlikely to be upheld. When the goal is to get approval for gun control laws, the best strategy is moderate regulation, not regulations that push the envelope. Whoever passed the New York law pushed the envelope. That was a disservice to those who favor gun control.
10
I can only hope that the error misinterpreting the context of "well-regulated militia" can be addressed. The nation has suffered enough from this error. Hopefully the widespread cost and suffering caused by the USC's error in "Heller" can be corrected in this proceeding.
6
@Qui Tam That issue was settled in Heller. You can expect the court to expand Heller's reach.
5
Yes, so-called originalists ignore or explain away anything that is inconvenient to their desires.
Apparently people were just driving around with guns in their cars without any intentions of just transporting them to a range. The intention of the law is justified but the manner of addressing the problem is unreasonable. There should be a way to transport the guns locked up and separated from the ammunition to make carrying around the huns all the time useless. Maybe not allow having both guns and ammunition in the vehicles traveling together.
2
Are you saying that having a gun and ammunition in the same vehicle will cause a sane, law abiding person to suddenly behave like a criminal?
2
If one follows the so-called “originalist” interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution, the only “arms” a person is entitled to possess under the Second Amendment are muskets and flintlock pistols.
But because the only thing original about the so-called “originalists” is their fundamental phoniness, I am predicting that, once again, the gun manufactures’ lobby will prevail in a Supreme Court loaded with fundamental phonies.
24
@David Williams
By the same logic, the government can seize your cellphone and search all data on it. No warrant necessary - no cellphones in the 18th century!
And modern methods of contraception and abortion of course can be made illegal.
Need I go on?
23
@David Williams That's actually not how originalism works. The reason your cell phone is covered by the 4th amendment applies to AR15s and the 2nd amendment.
8
Mockery will not solve the problems. Neither will wishing the problems away. The people who make guns a problem are few while those who take guns seriously and keep them carefully are in the great majority. Reason would dictate that the focus be on those who cause problems not on just anybody who keeps guns. But that is complicated and takes effort which people who never use guns have no willingness to support so they just want the guns to disappear.
9
Riddle me this Batman. At the Kavanaugh hearings there was a huge push the he testify that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade. His response some something like respecting precedent as "settled law". So under the same concept shouldn't RBG, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer then affirm gun rights?
8
Maybe John Roberts agreed to hear this case - with the intention of overturning this rather unusual law (which to my mind seems difficult to defend despite my support for gun control measures) - to give himself some cover if/when a case involving the banning of assault rifles comes before the Court and he votes to support such bans.
4
@Tim He's a supreme court justice, he doesn't need cover. It's a lifetime appointment.
2
It's amazing how liberals and their Greek Chorus in the press will vigorously defend a "right to privacy" that is found nowhere in the Constitution, but carr not a wit about a right that is explicitly set forth therein.
16
@John "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This is more explicit than the right to own guns of all kinds anywhere in the US Constitution.
8
The NRA, using Putin's money, bought two seats on the SCOTUS. We can expect a broad decision that removes all limits on the carry of weapons in the United States.
12
The sky is falling on you, chicken little!
8
@Steve, the sky falling isnt the problem, its only air and we are already used the 14lbs per square inch squeeze, one small piece of lead entering your head does a whole heap more damage. Ditch the guns USA, you dont need them, if you have an issue just have a fist fight and a slanging match and we can all go home safely, its not rocket science.
3
The Second Amendment says "the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their homes shall not be infringed."
We need to repel or amend the Second Amendment. An amendment that permits the federal government to infringe significantly on the right to bear arms probably would stand no chance of ratification, but an amendment that permitted states to infringed on the right to bear arms might. Why should Texans care if New Yorkers and Californians want to disarm?
1
@William Case that will take far more political capital than is available.
We couldn't convert to the metric system, and this idea has as much likelihood of coming to pass as eliminating the electoral college.
2
@William Case Most judges (and citizens for that matter) hold that the 14th Amendment requires that the Bill of Rights applies to the states and not just the Federal government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
Given this country's history as well as current battles over voting rights, anti-discrimination law, immigration, etc, it would be a very bad idea indeed if we moved back to the idea that the states weren't bound by the Bill of Rights.
If you are a law abiding gun owner in New York and find the gun laws restricting, there is a very easy workaround: MOVE. Move to a red state. Your only obstacle is dealing with the legal hassles of get your guns to your new home. Good luck. But think of it: better weather, cheaper cost of living and your governor won't sound like a Neanderthal. All worth it!
5
@Ed Straker must be that famous liberal tolerance at work again.
3
This makes little sense to me. One of the most important safety measures a gun owner can take is to practice regularly, and take training courses. Limiting the ability to legally and safely transport an unloaded gun to a range outside city limits so the owner can practice seems counterproductive if safety is the goal.
18
I hope this doesn't open the door for a universal right to carry. I will not travel to states with open carry laws, and I don't want to live anywhere where guns are allowed in public.
32
Every state in NE, but NY, allows open carry.
NY, DC, IL, SC and FL are the only ones that deny open carry.
4
Thank you for not traveling!
7
@George You forgot California.
The phrase "well regulated militia" seems to have lost all meaning.
Since we don't depend on militias anymore now that we have standing armed forces, the whole 2nd amendment should be just as outmoded as slavery.
37
@Gary
The adjective "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment modifies "militia," not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It means a militia that was well drilled and well provisioned. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure Americans are armed so they can, if necessary, form militias to fight against an oppressive or tyrannical government, just as they did in 1776. Many Americans think the need for militia has passed, but others disagree.
10
And since we don’t depend on slaves anymore to pick our cotton now that its harvest has been mechanized, the whole 13th amendment should be just as outmoded as the right to keep and bear arms.
In other words, the logic of your argument is tenuous at best.
5
Your Glock doesn’t stand a chance against a rocket launcher.
1
I’m both a gun owner and believe that reasonable gun laws should be passed to keep guns away from those who are violent. Having said that, I’m not sure how prohibiting a licensed gun owner from transporting an unloaded and secured gun to a range outside the city prevents crime. This ordnance just seems like a vindictive swipe at people who go through the legal steps to own a gun lawfully.
The city should choose its battles carefully. I don’t think they will win this one.
68
@Steven Ling
A person who wanted to murder someone would have to first lure them tp his home or to a target range to shoot them; otherwise he would be breaking the law.
7
Actually, unless the police happened to stop someone and have probable cause to search a vehicle, nobody would know that any gun was being transported in the vehicle. The law is intended to keep people without licenses to carry from driving around with guns and claiming that they are going to or coming from a range.
6
@Steven Ling
The Police Department, the brief said, “observed widespread abuses.” Firing ranges in the city must keep detailed records, the brief said, but people with the old licenses who were found with guns outside their homes could claim to be headed to a range outside the city that did not keep such records.
Given widespread abuse, I think the city's response is justified.
1
But they declined to hear the case involving the waiting period for gun purchases back in Feb 2018, and also declined to hear the case on carrying guns in public back in June 2017.
1
@Jaayemm. Both pre-Kavanaugh
3
This case may actually turn on the privileges or immunities clause in the 14th amendment and not the due process clause through which the second amendment is normally incorporated.
The Court has held that the privilege of travel may not be abridged by the states.
Interestingly, Justice Thomas has argued that generally the right to bear arms, and other rights, should be construed through that clause and not the due process clause. This case intersects the right to travel with the right to bear arms.
If the new Court chooses to switch the clause through which rights are binding on the states, it could profoundly impact which substantive rights are upheld.
For instance, abortion and gay marriage would like not survive under the privileged or immunity clause. Moreover, that clause specifically limits its benefit to citizens only. Corporate free speech (citizens united) would also fail under that interpretation.
Interesting to see if the justices take up the opportunity more consistent with Thomas concurrence.
5
@Sagi Genger
Is that possibly infringement of interstate commerce, by disallowing someone from conducting valid business in another state with his licensed firearm, such as recreational shooting at a range or hunting or transferring the firearm to a new owner?
1
@Boomer
I doubt it. The dormant commerce clause, which is what you appear to be referring to, is used by the court to prevent protectionism. That does not appear to be the case here.
1
@Sagi Genger Good points.
Am I missing something? Does this mean that a legally possessed NYC shotgun cannot go to NJ or CONN for legal upland game bird hunting? Deer hunting? What about the once a year elk or antelope hunt in Colorado or Wyoming? Is that not available to the residents of NYC? Or perhaps they are supposed to fly to Wyoming and attempt to hunt with a firearm that they have not sighted-in, have not practiced with, and are perhaps fairly unfamiliar with? I'm sure I'm missing something. it is a Colorado problem, not a NYC problem, if a firearm is brought here from NYC for hunting, and is misused. It is frankly not any business of NYC. And to the extent that NYC is grossly negligent in limiting pre-hunting season practice, they are sending under-trained un-ready hunters to Colorado. How dare you?
11
@Lenny Frieling
No, the long arms permit that NYC issues is different. Easier to get and does not feature the strange city limits proviso. The ordinance at issue here covers handguns.
12
The law concerns handguns.
3
Unless you are licensed in New Jersey or Connecticut, then you cannot take your gun there anyway. However, this is a handgun specific law.
5
McConnell may strike again as NY likely to lose this one in the Supreme Court.
3
Unconstitutional harassment and discrimination against legal gun owners.
It’s cheaper to be a criminal in NY.
29
This case seems fairly cut and dried. The New York ordinance doesn't allow for an individual right to bear arms at all if the firearms cannot be transported outside the city. The only way for a justice to rule in the city's favor would be to overturn the Heller decision and reject its precedence. The liberal justices may still do that but the conservatives will stick with Heller. Easy 5-4.
5
You have probably not read the Heller decision if that is your premise. However, the court will most likely strike the law down regardless.
1
SCOTUS has let most laws stand since Heller. One has to write a pretty outrageous law to get the Supreme Court's attention. This might be one of those laws. It doesn't seem the city has any data to document the alleged risk imposed on the city for people transporting guns out of the five boroughs and back, especially since they would be using the pretty much the same roads one would use to go to a city range. Plus, given the strictness of NYC permitting, the idea that permit holders are loose cannons is silly.
We could go a lot farther in reducing gun violence by moderating the extremes on both sides, i.e., those who want no restrictions and those who want restrictions that don't pass the laugh test.
20
A priori, this seems like a really silly law that, at best, is only peripherally related to the Second Amendment. The bigger issue is that it appears to directly impinge interstate commerce and should fail constitutionally on that basis. As written, the law would prevent a gun owner from transporting their gun to another state if, for example, the owner moved for a new job.
7
I am a liberal and I think this law is bad.
You should see the look on the faces of conservatives when they discover that us Democrats own guns too !
It does not address any crime problem because it only impacts those with a lawful intent. No one who's intent is to engage in criminal activity will obey this law anyway because the offense, if caught, is likely much less than any crime they intend to commit with said gun.
If you legally own the weapon and wish to go hunting or shooting in the country with a friend or even your own summer cottage, this just stands in the way of enjoying your 2nd amendment right making your ownership of a legal weapon tied to a single physical address in New York.
This is a 2nd Amendment issue that should be ruled in favor of legal gun owners.
57
@Paul
Most Democrats aren't liberals. Pro-war pro-corporation. Just because you aren't an irrational destructive righty doesn't mean you're a liberal.
2
Hi, except in an effort to expand gun rights they already have, with this rise to the level of a constitutional question? New York City, just like any place else, has the right to restrict and control gun usage within its jurisdiction. I don't think that's a constitutional question at all
3
@James Panico
Question: Do you know what the Second Amendment is an amendment to?
4
Hopefully the Court uses this case to strike down the blatantly UN-Constitutional NYC licensing laws
An absolute JOKE that they've been allowed to get away with subverting the Bill of Rights for all these years.
13
I am not fanatically hostile to gun ownership, assuming that we are not talking about high powered semi-automatic weapons and the owners have passed background checks, a gun safety course and have a legit reason for owning a gun. But I am no fan of the NRA and its extremist positions. All of which said, I am having a hard time seeing the reason for this law. I can't figure out how it enhances public safety. To be honest, this really does sound like a law that was enacted for the sole purpose of making life harder for people who are willing to jump through the hoops of New York's already fairly tough gun laws. Unless somebody can come up with a good explanation for this I am thinking it may be an overreach and the Supremes would be right to strike it down. But only this narrow and overly restrictive law. The SCOTUS should not try to use this case as a an opportunity to tell states and cities they cannot impose reasonable gun safety regulations.
14
So, NYC has a law that allows anyone who passes an initial screening to own and transport guns within NYC but prohibits them from safely transporting them to upstate Hinkley, NY? Is that correct? How many guns? 500? 100,000? 2,000,000? Seems like they're more dangerous to City peace in the City than out. Where's the sence in such an ordinance? Only NYC would believe there is any logic in such a situation. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for restricting guns to legal (non-felon), sane citizens. And I believe those citizens have a right to legally protect themselves from the many criminals loose on the streets of NYC. But the ordinance, as it stands, must have been written by the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland.
8
sabrown1
14 minutes ago
When I lived in NYC up tp 1997, I was able to take my handgun to any gun range in the state and City. By the terms of my target permit, the gun had to be in a case and unloaded.
Under Heller, at the core of the Second Amendment, is the right to self defense, but the question the Court will have to answer, is whether or not the right exists outside the home.
It would be great if under the current Court, there would be at least a 6-3 ruling for gun rights. I am not optimistic though, because the four liberals could still be bound by Heller, but argue the right to self defense does not exist outside the home.
2
@Steve Brown NYC stopped issuing "target permits" in 2001 as a way to make life more difficult for legal handgun owners.
3
Weird. The Second died a horrible, ugly death on October 13, 1812. Along with the Militia Acts the Second was designed to support.
1
The real objective is here is that the proponents know they can't win what they really want ... the right repealed ... so they try to saddle it with as many restraints as they can think of. Now substitute the right you're concerned about ... 2nd Amendment ... Abortion ... free speech ... the list goes on and on.
10
I'm curious why the Court took this case. I hate guns, think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, and support very strict controls on weapons of all kinds.
But this ordinance is relatively trivial and neither its existence nor its overturning will have much practical effect.
I suspect the Court took the case because they intend a bit-bit-bit attack on virtually any gun control measures and this will add to the body of settled law.
13
The plaintiffs have a legitimate, practical complaint here, and there's no way NYC will prevail in this case. This is an example of a law gone too far.
83
The Second Amendment is is most important Amendment.
8
@Joaquin F. I have to agree. Maybe I need to hear the defense argument and the reasons for the law and why the other courts upheld it. I wish this article had presented some of that info. But on the surface of it, it sounds like a losing case to me. And I am an avid proponent of sensible gun laws, have worked for that effort and on a personal level would totally applaud and wish for them all to be outlawed!
2
@Johnny
BtW Where is that all important well-regulated militia?
3
The New York City ordinance is an affront to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court should rule against New York City.
58
@cannoneer2
Why? (A genuine question) Reading about the case in just this article, it appears the restrictions are specific to premises-only licenses.
22
The ordinance applies ONLY to premises licenses. If these owners want more freedom, they need to apply for a regular permit.
21
@abj slant
Why?
Because the Constitution says the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Do you have to obtain a license in NYC for "Free Speech?"
Do you have to obtain a license to retain the right to a Jury Trial should you be charged with a crime?
Do you have to obtain a license prevent the Gov't form torturing you?
No!
The Court can't put a stop to NYC's subversion of the Constitution fast enough!
19
Over the top gun regulations such as this example from New York will fall apart in court and do more to hurt gun reform than they ever did to help it
45
@Portland Man
Can you provide any reason to characterize this legislation as “over the top”. Seems to me you are making a claim with nothing to back it up.
1
@Sunshine Target shooting/practice is far more enjoyable/healthy when done at a good outdoor range. They are to be found outside the technical boundaries of NYC.
10
Yeah, with all things going on in this country, this is what the Supreme Court chooses to Hear? Where are we heading?
56
@Yankees Heading?! The gutter! When Trump took office, it became the result of the direction of America since Rap became accepted and ubiquitous on the airwaves!!!
1
@Yankees
Hopefully back to a point in time where the
Bill of Rights was respected by both the LEFT and the Right.
Unlikely that happens but...
The NYC licensing laws are blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it's well past time for them to be struck down...
12
The constitution and its amendments are not a suicide pact. Gun ownership is subject to reasonable restrictions. If certain gun owners abuse the privilege by illegally transporting guns in New York, the balance of public safety requires reasonable restrictions.
There’s very little evidence that gun ownership provides a safety benefit except maybe for drug dealers and gang members. (Better scientific studies are in order but given the firm opposition of the NRA to such research, I think we know how the results would probably come out.)
There’s ample evidence we have a gun violence epidemic.
Life and safety trump the second amendment.
98
More people die from drunk drivers than from murders caused by guns. It’s time to ban cars and alcohol too I suppose? Oh wait it’s only those abusing alcohol and cars that is the problem. But in your scenario we ban cars and alcohol and those aren’t even covered in the constitution. Give me a break and don’t call a gun toting cop when you need one.
@Michael Tyndall
11
@Michael Tyndall:
Are you aware that Americans are not constitutionally entitled to state protection from private violence? Do you remember the LA riots related to Rodney King?
See DeShaney and Castle Rock Supreme Court cases.
6
@Michael Tyndall
So a depraved killer who has illegally obtained a gun will obey the law and not take that gun outside of his residence?
Meanwhile the law abiding citizen can not exercise his/her right to KEEP AN BEAR ARMS because the Lunatic Left Wing Fringe believes they have the right to subvert the Constitution.
Even Mother Jones a far left wing publication admits that firearms are uses 10's of thousands of times per year to project Life Limb and Property
The number is likely far higher but even MOTHER JONES admits it...
Facts are stubborn things my friend...
11
Does anyone have any doubts about the Supreme Court's decision in this case?
14
@jas2200the EARLIEST we will get a decision is probably June 2020! Justice delayed is ....
1
@jas2200 To overturn this law? Not really, it is clearly over restrictive. It is on what grounds they over turn it. If it is overturned on "gun rights", that is bad. On the other hand, if it is overturned on property rights, it doesn't further the dismantling of the first half of the second amendment.
Sounds like a very strange ordinance. I don't see why transporting an unloaded firearm in a locked container would imperil public safety. I don't have a firearm or any stake in this ruling but curious to see how it turns out!
37
@Peter. So let’s assume that 100 “very fine people” all subscribe to a Facebook or Twitter group and that they all get a message to turn up at at a Location where they know there will be a Jewish group protesting discrimination. They all can show up with their locked up guns and then unlock them a do some serious damage, vigilante style. Surely you can see that this adds some logic to the ordinance.
2
@Peter
Not trying to be pedantic but a locked up firearm is locked until it's unlocked. And an unloaded firearm is unloaded until it's loaded. Both processes can take a matter of seconds.
Also, an estimated 200,000 firearms are stolen a year. The gun that killed Karen Steinle was stolen from the car of a government employee. (Btw, the man who fired the weapon was acquitted for lack of evidence - https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016 )
Maybe a GPS encoded lockbox that can verify the firearms presence while locked and bolted to the car frame might work, but the gun industry is notoriously opposed to safety technology.
3
@Sunshine Coaster
So let's assume that when the 100 fine people show up with guns in their trunks, they find that all the Jews are armed and openly carry. RESULT: the 100 re-assess their plan and leave. NET RESULT: PEACE.
8
This matter shouldn't need a Supreme Court ruling.
Common sense should be enough to support the New York gun ordinance.
4
@Ben Luke. So it’s common sense that you can’t use a shooting range outside NYC?
8
@Jackson
Most gun nuts would not be taking their killing machines out of the city to go to a shooting range.
I do. They're closer, cheaper, and have plenty of free parking.
1
I'm no lawyer, but this average joe would think this must fall under the "well regulated" part. Though I'm still looking for "guns" all over the constitution. Since its just "arms" I want to get an Apache helicopter for Christmas!
44
@Scott S.: The "well regulated" part was ignored by the right-wing, activist Supreme Court almost as much as the "militia" part.
5
@Scott S. The phrase "well regulated" as used in that century meant 'in proper working order,' not in reference to regulations.
8
The average Joe would think that this falls under the "well regulated" part and since the Supreme Court has decided that the well regulated militia part of the 2nd is meaningless and invisible so shall the average Joe will think the same of this ordinance.
1
It’s important to point out the Heller decision was the unprecedented product of the Roberts Court, a court itself the product of a presidency awarded to Bush the lesser by the Supremes in 2000. Bush then appointed Roberts and Alito, maintaining a Republican Court majority despite a majority of voters who wanted Gore for president.
McConnell compounded the injustice by robbing Obama of his right to appoint Scalia’s successor. He further delegitimized the Court by allowing a manifestly incompetent president that he knew was elected with Russian help to make further appointments. Then, in a naked power grab, he lowered the confirmation barrier to a simple majority. Since then, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, along with most lower court appointees, have been right wing robots vetted by the extremist Federalist Society.
No five-to-four conservative ruling by the Supremes has had much credibility since 2000. In the age of Trump, all such decisions are abominations.
155
@Michael Tyndall You packed a shocking amount of mendacity into such a brief comment.
"...was the unprecedented product..."
Except for all the precedent the majority opinion cited, right?
"...despite a majority of voters who wanted Gore for president."
And if we ever amend the Constitution to permit elections by simple majority, this might be something approaching a point.
"...robbing Obama of his right to appoint..."
No such right exists. The executive has the power to "nominate . , . judges of the Supreme Court," but cannot "appoint" them without "the advice and consent of the Senate." What McConnell did might be horrible politics or bad leadership, but it didn't deprive Obama of any right to appoint a justice.
"...in a naked power grab, he lowered the confirmation barrier to a simple majority..."
Which was a terrible and predictable result of Harry Reid doing the same for all other nominations.
"...the extremist Federalist Society." I'm unfamiliar with the Extremist Federalist Society. I just know the one that regularly hosts debates on gun rights including representatives from the Brady Center, or whose members advocated for gay marriage rights, or urged voters not to support President Trump. Maybe the Extremist version is a bit different?
Hysterics aren't a good substitute for facts.
32
@Chris
Thanks for your thoughts.
- Heller held for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia.
- There is a strong movement to go to a popular vote for president. State compacts can do this without a repeal. Bush v Gore started things and Trump hyper charged it. The Electoral College clearly failed to stop a man who appears beholden to a foreign power. Stay tuned.
- Obama was too cautious in the Merrick Garland case. Repubs would never have stood for it if the positions were reversed.
- Reid didn't change the SCOTUS threshold. That was McConnell.
- Federalists are brainy but way too conservative for my taste. They also seem very results oriented and, like Scalia, they're good at making up rationales afterwards.
As for hysterics, I do get animated by the thought of 30,000 unnecessary dead Americans EVERY YEAR from gun violence. Do you have any useful suggestions?
13
@Chris Nice rebuttal, sir!
8
What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
1
@William Smith Everything. 2A: "keep and bear arms." The current law lets licensed handgun owners "keep" their arms, but does not let them "bear" their arms. This suit seeks to change that.
5
@Listen for yourself This should simply be decided on property rights. This is a lot more fundamental than the second amendment.
“Three city residents and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association sued...”
Three residents you say? In a city of 8.6m? Seems like a good reason to change the law...
7
You don’t know how the law works, do you?
10
@Jeff In Roe v. Wade, Roe was the lone plaintiff.
13
Another 5/4 vote.
The Supream Court has become just politicians in long robes.
7
@New World
Yes, but that's old news. Warren Court.
3
@New World More like 8-1 or 9-0 even the "gun control" crowd admits this city rule makes no sense.
1