Why do you people need guns? You do not have a right to bear arms, a militia does. TheNRA suckered you all.
Stems from this American idea that what’s yours is mine! Because freedom. Asinine.
Toxic manhood stuff from an America better suited to a Walking Dead episode.
1
I’m not talking gun politics. Just common sense. The NYC law lacked common sense. Every bit as much as laws banning abortion. It was a red flag waved in front of a bull. It was sure to end up right where it is.
The City figured things out much too late. And it has harmed everyone who opposes the NRA. So I have to ask. Are there NRA double agents running the show in your great city?
The way I see it is that the NYT. the Washington Post. CNN, NBC and, all the news media who agree with you should develop a campaign in your front pages and prime time. Ask the parents of the assassinated children to give you pictures and give those victims a voice until the Trumps and the Kavanaughs get that the second amendment is not about killing the innocents.
The momentum is here and, many organizations of real people can prevail over greed and political gain. Not only Fox has the power of the press. This should be considered now while we still have the freedom of the press in this country.
1
I'll bet that the NYT editorial board would quickly take the opposing viewpoint if someone were to say that "Alabamians had made their voices clear through their elected representatives" concerning the issue of abortion.... Constitutional right or not.
3
The Left continues to bray to disarm citizens so it can terrorize the citizens with the criminals it want to release from prisons by abolishing prisons and police departments.
2
It will be a good day for the USA when Neil Gorsuch is removed from the ‘Supreme’ Court.
1
Let’s stop all the inane commentary and meaningless chit-chat. What’s going on vis-a-vis gun rights in New York (and many other states) is the same thing going on vis-a-vis abortion in Louisiana (and many other states): it is legal and constitutional but some states are denying their citizens their rights under the law and the Constitution. You can’t have it both ways, liberals.
2
Democrats sure are shifty, knowing full well the law would be deemed unconstitutional they put it on the back burner.
2
Oopsies!
Having created an ordinance having virtually no effect on crime, but constituting a big, horny thumb in the eye of the NRA, You People have just handed the Supreme Court an invitation to cut off that thumb and feed it to the wolves.
Ah, the joys of unintended consequences.
2
The two biggest lies in today's America...1) Republicans are "conservative," 2) Republicans follow the teachings of Jesus.
1
“Nor did the court take on any other Second Amendment cases in the decade after deciding the Heller case.”
Well, not quite. As the editorial’s own link points out, the McDonald case was decided in 2010, two years after Heller. Its expansion of the logic in Heller was significant and substantial.
1
It appears the focus of NYC is to prevent law abiding citizens from owning legal weapons.
1
This a poorly written opinion and reflects a generally poor understanding of the issues presented. It’s also more broadly reflective of the cheapening of editorial board opinions that have seemingly been issued with readiness on a variety of issues that reflect a political flavor of the day rather than any true bedrock opinion.
It is clear that the law was revoked to try and render the case moot, which is an abuse of the mootness doctrine and should be scrutinized.
As to the political issue, the NYT presents a poor balance on the issue. I don’t know about you, but as a left wing person of Jewish decent I’d prefer that Trump owners weren’t the only gun owners in this country.
5
SCOTUS should decide this case, to destroy the abusive government tactic of passing questionably constitutional laws, and then terminate the law if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, leaving the option of passing a similar questionably constitutional law after SCOTUS drops the case calling it moot.
SCOTUS should discourage governments from trying to play “wack-a-mole” with unconstitutional laws.
4
Very poor reasoning. A litigant should not be able to sabotage review by strategically re-legislating etc. It's not about guns but adjudication. Of course letting these clowns adjudicate begs the question. But pronciple is principle and you need to face it squarelly. Not obfuscate the bigger issue. In NY law a moot question can be reviewed if it meets some conditions. Rare repeatable etc. Straregically mooted? Bad precedent. You shouldn't betray principle just because you don't like where it leads. But if you do be honest! You're the Times!!
1
Hopefully the Chief will have the good sense to let this one drop.
1
Gun sales are way down since Trump took office.
A newly reconfigured Supreme Court agrees to hear it's first gun case in ten years since District of Columbia v. Heller. A case clearly moot at this point however sparking much debate on another Times article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/guns-supreme-court.html
Apologies for sounding so cynical.
1
How I’d the Secomd Amendment ever get interpreted as “The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person.”
Is NYT taking a stand against judicial activism?
Spoiler: no. Only their brand of activism is warranted.
2
The chief justice needs to know that what goes around, comes around. If he shows the SCOTUS to be nothing more than yet another arm of the NRA/GOP, it will be dismembered the next time the Dems can do so.
1
Kavanaugh loves beer, guns and Trump in reverse order. He will do whatever he is told.
1
I am all for more gun control as soon as its advocates such as Cuomo, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Warren and others lead by example. Let them disarm their security details.
3
"The rookie justice may simply be laying low." Lying low (present tense)?
"The New York gun law now before the Supreme Court has already been rendered moot. "
Nah. You'll just be at it again soon enough. You wouldn't think it moot if a city or state restricted blacks from traveling, and then hastily repealed the law in the hope that the courts wouldn't see your duplicity.
3
If you find yourself gloaimg about the early deaths of those in the other party, it's time for a vacation.
It will come down to Roberts. We know how the four cranks (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and thenewbie) will vote
1
Sounds like the NY Editorial Board is scared of what SCOTUS is gonna rule, more than that they will be reviewing a "moot law."
Only the host of a reality-game-show would seek to have the SCOTUS render opinions on MOOT cases. Oh wait, there is such a buffoon in the White House now . . . The NRA and the gun manufacturers' lobbyists are probably renting a floor of rooms at Trump International, Washington DC.
When the New York Times wants a gun case like this dismissed, we can be certain it's because the underlying challenge of unconstitutionality is valid, and that the progressive left's war on the right to bear arms will take another hit.
And the justices won't be fooled by this. The radical leftists like Ginsburg and Breyer will hate losing this one.
1
Every gun owner is law-abiding, until they're not.....
1
This country is headed for disaster. Despite clear evidence of wrongdoing, Trump supporters in swing states are still calling it a witch hunt, and may well re-elect him. Despite clear evidence that gun control works in every other advanced democracy, and that the right to life must clearly override every other right, we are headed towards even weaker gun laws and perhaps more carnage on our streets. And despite clear evidence that the planet is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, we have destroyed the Paris Agreement, which may doom mankind to horrors unseen since WW2. A Trumpian world feels like the last ruinous days of excess of the Roman Empire. Far from making America Great Again, we are in a temporary market sugar high.
31
@PT
Methinks you might be a bit perplexed because with a highest elevation of just 435 feet, as the waters rise Florida will disappear into the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. We'll miss Disney World.
As for Trump, impeachment is a torch too far. Censure might have snatched bipartisan support.
@PT The so called "right to life" people have exposed their true agenda. They champion the rights of the unborn, because they would love to eliminate a large percentage of their fellow, really alive citizens.
2
Let me be just as absurd as everyone should be allowed to open carry whatever weapon they like with, lets abolish the second amendment and start over negotiating a new second amendment that everyone can live with!
Kavanaugh court — as we should now think of the not-so-honest but still “Supreme” Court — will enforce all possible gun laws. Part of their obeisance to Trump base, regardless of how much danger in which this puts the rest of us!
Remember: Trump believes he can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. The “Supreme” court would certainly enshrine that view, and those of us who disagree are at that much greater risk of dying in some idiotic gun violence that actually has nothing to do with us!
Welcome to the gun lovers on the Court and in the Trump base!!
1
The case wasn’t taken so it could fizzle out; the new rightwing Supreme Court wants it to go out with a bang.
2
Democrats who call themselves socialists aren't socialists, but someone who follows the constitution is a "maximalist.” Interesting.
Kavanaugh & gorsuch wer put there for this very reason -- iedological fanatics hired by other ideological fanatics to do as much damage as possible to a reasonable civil society and favor the alreaday-wealthy and corporations -- they are hit-men and will now use guns to appease their employers.
3
I fully expect the activist GOP justices will try to move it forward, so they can try to use it as pretext for reversing some earlier court decisions surrounding gun laws.
I also fully expect the Chief Justice will force the issue during a vote... to toss it out of the court.... since it is in fact moot.
Nothing here to see except the ususal GOP drama.. now with extra sprinkles of activism... courtesy of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh
2
Our Republican picked Supreme Court is really a fake one sided decision arm of the GOP government. By not having any Democratic minded people on is an injustice to the free world and Democracy. The NRA will win this case and there will be more massacres because they won’t stop the sale of bullets to the crazed GOP population.
1
“It’s a good thing and not a cause for concern when the government responds to litigation by resolving matters through the democratic process.”
It is, however, not a good thing when legislatures pass unconstitutional laws and burden the people with those laws for years only to, AFTER cert is granted, to back down while still, remarkably, claiming the laws are constitutional. If this is dismissed due to mootness, it will become a template for legislators to follow - pass a law that is likely unconstitutional, wait until someone with enough means actually fights back, drag the case through the courts for years, and hope SCOTUS doesn't grant cert -- but if they do, just change the law enough to claim the case is now moot. Oh, and then reenact the questionable parts of the law the day after SCOTUS dismisses it so plaintiffs must then start all over.
If this is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) due to it now being moot, future plaintiffs will of course assume this tactic will be used again and add yet more boilerplate to every filing to cover this situation.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
1
It seems rather ironic that the same editorial board that applauded Adam Schiff when he rejected in his hearing the notion that Donald Trump should be allowed the defense that he released Ukranian aide once a whistleblower complaint became public, would now argue New York validly rescinded it's gun control law after years of defending it... once SCOTUS took the case. And the same editorial board that cheered Schiff's argument that allowing the President to get away with his actions just because he released the aide, would essentially embolden him to do it again, would have us trust that NY or other municipalities or states would learn their lesson and not turn around next July and pass similar laws requiring years and years more of expensive challenges to determine their constitutionality. New Yorkers didn't make "their voices clear about the gun transportation ban through their elected representatives." Their elected representatives bailed on the verge of having the Supreme Court tell them, and the appeals court, that they can't now nor in the future, restrict legal gun owners rights to keep and bear arms, even as they travel around reasonably. The only way to make that point stick is to rule on this case. Otherwise liberal governments will simply play a legislative shell game, passing restrictive laws, keeping them on the books while defending them with tax money for years right up to the point that the Court takes the case, then temporarily drop the law.
3
Why do Democrats want to operate in the realm of uncertainty, when clarity on the scope of 2nd Amendment rights is possible? Maybe because their partisan political aims are divorced from Constitutional rights, and they'd prefer to operate for as long possible without acknowledging civil rights. The new liberal playbook seems to be to overturn laws that run against the Constitution once they come before the court, so they cases can be dismissed, before bringing the laws back, dodging any Constitutional reckoning. This Liberal court rope-a-dope might impress Muhammad Ali, but it would make our Founders groan.
16
@TL : Whatever happened to the founders only justification for the general populace having and bearing arms being the need for "a well regulated militia". It seems they were just kidding.
3
The second amendment is not a right to bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia. The rightist line that says the militia thing isn’t important is a lie. The right wing justices claim to be textualists, but the fail to read the militia clause, so they’re hypocrites.
6
I’m torn on this one. While I am for gun control, including universal background checks and an assault weapons ban, I also know that in New York that this law was targeted at African Americans and Hispanics, and enforced against them.
It’s always the black guy with a gun who is assumed to be a criminal, while possession by whites is ignored. I’ll bet few arrests under this law were on Staten Island, for instance.
11
I just wonder why the right to bear arms is not allowed in the halls and rooms of Congress ... and at athletic events ... etcetera etcetera ... it's either a right ... or it's not a right ... why such wide-spread limitations ...
It’s shocking to see how few commenting readers understand how the Anglo-American legal system works.
1
2020 could be a disastrous year for Democrats.
2A and Obamacare, Dreamers all in SCOTUS.
States restricting abortions.
Impeachment failure.
Supreme Court vacancy likely.
Trump wins re-election.
SCOTUS goes 7-2 conservative by the end of his 8 years.
Why does the Supreme Court waste it's time on cases that are non existent.
NRA has bought off the Supreme Court too?
2
You’re right, but you only care about the Constitution when it is on your side. On other issues (gay marriage, DACA, abortion), you ignore the Constitution. Be consistent.
2
Never forget that the last republican convention forbade guns in their venue.
2
In Texas we have a fairly reasonable view of gun ownership. If you can afford it, you can buy it. If you can secure it, you can keep it. Any business can prevent you from open carry on their property.
We have License To Carry, that replaced Concealed Carry. You can strap on your shootin' irons and go to the bakery, if they don't prohibit open carry. Otherwise, you can't take your guns to town or you need a concealed rig.
No guns in bars. Most, if not all, government offices prohibit concealed or open carry.
How silly does this sound to us. "You need or have a law, that permits you to take your gun to a range." In Texas, that is a punch line to a joke.
Since the NYT Ed. Bd. thinks the whole issue should be moot, I immediately suspect a nefarious under current of common sense gun control. Might the board fear the SCOTUS will decide any legal gun owner can transport his weapon, within the state, to a legal gun range? How many guns deaths per year will be the result? If gun ownership is made easier, how many more will want guns? Based on Black Friday numbers, everybody.
This Black Friday background checks were second only to last Black Friday gun background checks. Thanks to Trumps economy, everybody has a job and the free market has cut average gun costs by at least 30% since the happy years of Barack Obama.
I say, let the US Constitution prevail.
3
@Mike It's funny because so many not knowing firearm laws automatically think of Texas as being an "anything goes" kind of place. In fact, while about a third of the country's states allow for "concealed carry" without a license, Texas is not among them. Likewise, while over 60% of the nation's states allow for "open carry" (handgun) without a license, that also does not include Texas. To get licensed, a person must attend a half-day course with a written exam at the end. On top of this, a supervised proficiency test at a range is conducted, along with a background check for any criminal activity. This is done by electronically fingerprinting each finger separately and both whole hands, which is sent off to DPS for analyzing. We're a lot more regulated than people think. As far as gun laws go, I'd put us somewhere in the middle of the pack.
2
Lifelong Democrat here. I’m going to become a very focused, two issue Voter. Gun Control and Pro-Choice.
Join me, Women. Do it for yourself, your Daughters and Granddaughters.
3
Kavanaugh probably wants a chance to opine that he wants to make public schools "safer" by issuing a hand gun to every entering kindergartner.
3
You’ve not addressed the Court’s likely concern that NY is trying to manipulate the Court’s intervention by resolving the case before the Court could issue a likely far reaching precedent. For example, if the Court were to drop the case and NY immediately passed new identical legislation, then what? It’s those types of games that the Court has a right to address by keeping a case and issuing a ruling.
65
@JP -- If New York actually did that (i.e., re-enacted a law it had repealed immediately after a court decision), plaintiffs could apply for, and almost certainly be granted, a stay of that law. You are suggesting that the Court should rule on something New York could theoretically do, but with no evidence showing that it either intends or is likely to do so.
33
@Mark Kessinger: Seems to me that JP’s concern is exceedingly valid. I recommend you check out today’s WSJ op-ed editorial on the same subject. I believe you’ll see that they present a cogent argument as to why SCOTUS should indeed take up this case.
12
@JP “You’ve not addressed the Court’s likely concern that NY is trying to manipulate the Court’s intervention by resolving the case before the Court could issue a likely far reaching precedent.”
I believe: (1) You are absolutely correct. (2) This was done by intent. (3) This is by no means the first occurrence in this paper of such a dodgy approach.
9
When all-too-clever liberals try to game the system it is only fitting that they be hoist by their own petard just as all-too-clever conservatives should be.
2
The NYT Editorial Board is basically begging SCOTUS not to tell us what we all, including the defendant, already know, which is that the second amendment does not permit states or local governments to impose the kinds of restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms as those imposed in NYC and in other jurisdictions throughout the country. The dispute is obviously not moot; if it were, the NYT and others wouldn’t care. This is clearly a live controversy as to the application of the constitution in multiple US jurisdictions, concerns a matter of significant national concern, and is capable of being repeated in NYC where the instant dispute lies absent a SCOTUS holding to the contrary (i.e., a well recognized exception to mootness doctrine). If this were about a restriction to abortion rights where the local government pulled a restrictive law before SCOTUS or another court could review, you’d safely bet your bottom dollar the NYT would be making the same arguments I just made (assuming of course that the NYT thought the court would rule how the NYT thought it should).
3
Well said and I agree.
I also understand the real point of this editorial - you are very concerned that the Court is veering to the right and looking for cases to use for that purpose.
You're not wrong to be worried.
Yes they should drop that case--the SCOTUS is extra busy wading through all Trump's lawsuits and appeals.
1
The criminals surely follow this law about not carrying weapons?
1
New York is playing a game that, if successful, could stymie SCOTUS ever ruling against a state law. The state whose law is challenged could wait until it reaches SCOTUS, then repeal it, knowing SCOTUS will, perforce, stop considering the challenge -- and then pass a new law identical but for minor detail to the first.
No, SCOTUS must rule on any constitutional challenge represented by state -- or local -- laws that are brought to it, and not respond to such gamesmanship.
7
Agreed. The case is moot. The court should dismiss the petition and immediately agree to hear the Rogers v Grewal case that has been held in abeyance. That case challenges NJ's draconian carry law that effectively prohibits possession of a firearm outside the home other than pursuant to several narrow exceptions.
Somehow only connected politicians and off duty and retired law enforcement can get carry permits. Doesn't matter how many background checks one goes through or how much training one has.
That is a clear violation of the 2A right to bear arms. There is a split in the circuits on the issue and it needs to be resolved.
3
So the logic of this article is that after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (likely striking down the rule), the city abandoned the rule, and thus the Supreme Court shouldn't pursue it further.
This is the same logic that people on the right are using about Trump's frozen foreign aid. They say, "well he eventually released it, so we should drop the impeachment inquiry," and that completely misses the point that if his actions hadn't come to light, he would have continued with the freeze. He only released it because he learned about the whistleblower complaint, so he doesn't get off the hook for releasing it. Likewise, NYC only abandoned this rule once it was clear it would likely be struck down anyways. If it weren't coming before the court, the rule would still be in place. They shouldn't get to escape having the Supreme Court rule on it so easily.
It's a brazen attempt to not have the Supreme Court establish a precedent that people on the left wouldn't like. The Supreme Court should absolutely press on, as should the impeachment inquiry.
4
@Chris I think that the real reason that the NYT Editorial Board wants the Supreme Court to just "drop this case" is because they are afraid that they will not like hearing what they may hear when a final decision is published. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, and reasoned judicial interpretations of them, have frequently been inconvenient to many. The very title of this NYT article is pretty silly.
2
A weapon of any sort, but especially one which can kill at a distance, should not be allowed on the streets of any city.
1
@Ian MacFarlane I agree. Guns shouldn't be on the streets. That's why I carry mine concealed on my person. :-)
4
I am a moderate, politically independent attorney, and law-abiding firearms owner.
I invite everyone who has not done so to actually read the Heller opinion--it is very well reasoned and researched. Heller is now Supreme Court precedent just like Brown v. Board of Education is Supreme Court precedent.
I grew up in Texas, hunting, fishing, and target shooting with many family members and friends. None of these people, and no one I have ever known personally, has ever used a firearm in a crime, or harmed anyone with it. My friends have the same stories. Research shows that very likely, a majority of homes in the South, Southwest, and West legally own firearms. That is a lot of American citizens, in just these regions.
The vast majority of lawful firearms owners are very anti-crime, and highly protective of individual safety and individual rights and freedoms. Many are veterans who actually fought for our country's ideals, including its Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Significant research, and their own words, indicates that Constitutional founders specifically intended to leave real power (lethal power) in the hands of the people, as a check on tyrants, oppressive government, and to protect individual freedom, liberty, and safety.
Meaningfully prevent crime, deal responsibly and effectively with mental illness, which are very real problems. But don't insult the majority of law abiding gun owners protecting the rights that our country's founders carved out for us.
3
You mean like Roe v Wade is a precedent?
A "supreme" waste of time, and our money. It's the opportunity cost here that really grates. Why is SCOTUS wasting ANY time, words or breath on this case, INSTEAD of taking up actual cases impacting our country?
3
I am not a gun right advocate, but the Supreme Court should hear this case. The States should not pass poor legislation only to repeal a law when it is. If the Court does not weigh in, who can say that New York will not go back and pass a comparable law 6 months from now, resulting in yet another challenge? Those who challenge legislation are usually much less well funded than the government entities passing the laws. It is unfair to ask the challenger to go back to Court repeatedly.
4
Sanity and justice are in short supply now. It went out the window when Citizens United was decided by the Roberts Supreme Court.
3
It is obvious that the city only changed the law because they were worried they would lose at SCOTUS and set a national precedent that the right to bear arms extends outside of the home. There is nothing preventing the city from simply re-implementing the law if/when they feel the court is more likely to rule in their favor. If the SCOTUS allows NYC to play this game, then changing unconstitutional laws at the last minute, when it looks like SCOTUS will rule against you, will become the blue print to avoid setting national legal precedent.
4
Let's just be honest here: this editorial, and the readers supporting the viewpoint expressed, are not really concerned with judicial economy, procedure, or issues of mootness. Just be honest about it. You're scared of the possible ruling. Were the shoe on the other foot --- like a restrictive, racist voting law amended at the last second to avoid judicial scrutiny --- you wouldn't feel this way. I'm not taking sides on this issue. I'm simply pointing out the cognitive dissonance.
10
They should drop all cases given a legally conducted trial in the lower courts, including and especially Republican/NRA/Trump cases that literally amount to kicking the can far enough down the road in hopes chasers will lose sight and give up the fight. The only time the politically charged Supreme Court should weigh in is when there’s reason to believe Constitutional rights have been breached, not merely because the lower court loser wants another bite at the Apple.
ERA was declared moot. One would think it was the end. Decades later there are people arguing for its passage. If any wisdom can be found in this: it is not dead until you nailed the coffin. I certainly do not blame court for taking it up. There are always people playing with the system like rearranging furniture. But court's self-restraint is not encouragement. I bet few of those protesters will read court opinion of this case when it comes out. So there, you can protest full-time, or you can spend time eradicating your own ignorance, and that of others. That's the root cause for a lot of things.
I STRONGLY URGE THE SUPREME COURT To miss this chance to add to the raging civil war in the US over guns. The fact is that after the Fort Arthur massacre in Australia, the gun laws were changed swiftly, with the result that the gun homicide rate was cut about 57% the first year. New Zealand, after the massacre there, had a new gun law in the works the very next week. WHY ARE US LIVES SO CHEAP? Are our lives here in the US not worth at least as much as those of Austalians and New Zealanders? Domestic violence is US Enemy #1! Foreign threats are minuscule by comparison. Perhaps the justices will have the good sense to bypass this case.
2
In the meantime, the gun-toting criminals and murderers laugh at our laws and their victims they know are helpless.
6
Part 2. But wait! I was just kidding about agreeing the 2nd Amendment case should be continued...this case and the potential impeachment articles are apples to oranges.
The SCOTUS is there to adjudicate constitutionality of laws created by elected officials. Since the law at issue has been negated, they have nothing to adjudicate. If they decide to set out precedents for things that are not presently law, they would not have time to adjudicate existing laws. It "might" even appear that they are being "activists" and be creating laws...
Whereas, with the impeachment process, if found to be true, the actions of the president are high crimes and misdemeanors whether he succeeded in achieving his goals or not. Incompetence does not absolve the actions of which he has been accused.
"More important, New Yorkers have made their voices clear about the gun transportation ban through their elected representatives. The justices would be wise to let them have the last word."
You expect us to believe that you are in favor of New Yorkers having the last word? No such thing - you are simply hiding behind democracy this time, when most of the time you applaud courts getting involved and effectively legislating. But in this case it suits you to pretend that voters matter. Because you know that unless SCOTUS rules, this will not be the last word.
You are simply afraid of what additional fundamental protections of the 2nd Amendment may come out of the process, and what other avenues to the same restrictions through other laws, or laws by other entities, will be foreclosed.
The requests to SCOTUS not to hear this case for mootness were well analyzed by a competing publication, and the "mootness" argument and its proponents were unmasked. It's not about mootness, it's about fear.
7
Would you be so certain that the case is moot if there were a majority of Ginsbergs on the court?
3
On the one hand, we have the right arguing that discrimination "because of sex" didn't contemplate the modern concept of gender fluidity. We should stick to the contemporary meaning of the terms.
On the other, we are told "the right to bear arms" is not constrained by the historical meaning of the language, but now includes semi-automatic rifles.
The law is not supposed to work in different ways because of politics.
The Roberts court is making it a habit to instruct ultra right wingers how to being cases to them so they can "rule" on the things they want to rule on, in the way they want to rule. The poster child is the Citizens United case which was initially refused because it did not have all the attributes for the ruling Roberts wanted to make, but Roberts instructed the lawyers on how to bring the case back.
The corrupt right wing justices continually go back to their Alma Mater, the Federalist Society, and give seminars to the ultra right wing lawyers there on the laws they want to demolish and how to bring cases to them to allow them to be demolished. The very idea of these justices methodical machinations to get the results they want has made the court a farce.
1
The Court should rule. What stops the city from reinstating the law, or the same lower courts from ruling it constitutional again? Nothing. A year from now another city authors a similar law, and guess what? Two lower courts ruled the law was constitutional, so why shouldn’t they. Winning in the Supreme Court proves the law WAS unconstitutional, and the lower court rulings were WRONG. That is what an efficient ruling would do. It would stop cities from passing laws that are unconstitutional. That’s a very good reason to have the Court rule. For years, the people in New York were illegally limited the transportation of a firearm. I bet the editors would like to sweep it under the rug. The Courts reversal would make it so no other city or state could ever do the same. It’s time the Supreme Court makes clear what gun laws pass constitutional muster. 3:55 (5 to 4)
9
What other constitutional right forces you to have a permit, a background check, a fingerprint, a waiting period, etc., to exercise it? None. THe 2nd amendment is constantly under regulation after regulation. Enough is enough. Onward with the supreme court case for once and for all.
11
Repeal is not necessary; just follow what's written. "Militia" is in the Constitution 6x, what does it mean? "Keep and Bear arms" Why?
The Constitution says:
Congress will organize, ARM, and discipline, the Militia.
1. You get your weapons FROM the U.S. Government.
2. You're trained and paid with federal money.
3. The militia is a job and you can't form your own.
It also says that the president is the commander in chief of the militia so it's in the chain of command.
IF YOU'RE IN the militia you can keep congressional supplied arms and you can bear them WHEN training or activated.
The 5th amendment separates active militia from civil law, deferring to military law.
Back to the 2d...
We need a militia. If you join you will be paid and trained and arms will be supplied. While you're in the militia, you can keep your arms at home...
The right to "keep and bear" is directly attached to the militia service. There's no ambiguity. There is no individual right. There's no prohibition against local gun control.
We can pretend otherwise while first graders are slaughtered and ignore what's really going on ... It's Cash for Corpses. As long as gun and ammo makers make their money they'll use administrative Constitutional language to their advantage.
3
@Mike B Please read the Heller Supreme Court opinion if you have not, and respond to its very well-researched arguments, which almost totally contravene yours. Wikipedia has a nice summary of Heller also. I cannot tell where your arguments are coming from, or what they are actually based on.
What percentage of law abiding gun owners actually support crime and murder? It is irresponsible to paint millions of honest citizens with that broad brush. Do you ever travel in airplanes? Does that make you a 9/11 terrorist sympathizer?
If you listen well, you might find that crime and domestic terrorism are not supported by the millions of responsible gun owners who live in this country.
@Vance Parker
Your 2d paragraph does not help.
I read Heller, and listened to the oral arguments, and read all the lower courts opinions as well.
I also took Scalia's advice when he's asked in other oral arguments: "Where in the Constitution does it specifically say there's is an individual right?"
Well, Nino, you're correct, it does not, "...the right of the people..." cannot be severed from where the right lay, with those in the Militia. They're both in the same sentence!
I read the U.S. Constitution and everything you need to know is right there. I don't need the history, I don't need the insight or the analogy, all that matters is what's on the page.
The militia facts hold because that's the original intent. That is why the militia is mentioned so many times and that is why it's attached to the people. The people of the militia.
If you really like pistols, rifles, and guns ... join the armed forces ... they have plenty and they could use the help. They're always hiring.
I find it cute that the NYT Editorial Board apparently thinks (or hopes) that the SCOTUS should consult editorials or public opinion of the day when deciding what poses a serious constitutional question or what the constitution means.
If you want to know what’s wrong with the court look no further: we’ve asked 9 lawyers to decide cases the way we feel they should be decided and are pressuring our representatives to only nominate those who fit our mold, and reject anyone who doesn’t.
3
The court should rule that any restriction on carry in NYC to be unconstitutional. The city made a stupid law just to be a pain in the rear end for gun owners, NYC needs to learn a lesson. Don't make dumb laws just to hassel people. NYC should serve as an example for other cities and states who might be thinking to curtail people's civil rights.
8
Calling Seinfeld. This is a case about nothing.
1
"Maximalist" my foot. What you hear from those conservative justices is pure Republican partisanship.
Eventually we're going to have to talk about the police unions' support for the NRA, which only creates the problems they ostensibly seek to solve.
1
Nah, they need to clearly show themselves as the witless political hacks that they are.
The 5-4 ruling will probably hinge on the will of the gun lobby.
1
Presumably this reactionary activist Court wants to make a strong statement about... something. I will not take bets on what that is.
SCOTUS may rule on a “moot” issue when the issue is capable of repetition without reaching a resolution. This is such a case. NYC will no doubt keep passing dopey laws only to “throw in the towel” if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. Time for the Court to end this nonsense now.
5
Conservatives are all for ‘states’ rights’ except when it comes to gun regulations or marijuana legalization, in which cases they sing a different tune...
1
The SC justices can now write erudite abstract opinions which they will pretend reflect objective, settled legal principles instead of their ultra cultural and political preferences which got them nominated and confirmed.
Either “law abiding”or “non law abiding” firearm possessors will be the beneficiaries of any future regulations.
Why do libs keep messing with our society and system of laws?
They start this case that has rolled up to the Supreme Court. They assumed they would win.
Now the SC could use this as a pretext to expand gun rights even further, ridiculous as it is already.
The editorial would have been more balanced, if it had included a comment from Justice Ginsburg, which appeared in a Times news article yesterday.
Directly from the article:
"“One problem with the prior regulation,” Justice Ginsburg said, was that “if you wanted to have a gun in your second home, you had to buy a second gun.”
“And what public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one — and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that, therefore, more vulnerable to theft?” she continued."
4
Thousands of hunters that live in NYC are no longer breaking the law by storing their antique over and under...under the bed. Common sense prevails and will again through progressive gun licensing laws. Grandpas shotgun that holds 2 rounds is a level 1 license. An assault rifle, level 4. The difference is years of testing and training. An unlimited 2nd amendment is not a God given right, you should have to personally earn your place within it.
Thanks.
I wonder how much better off Americans would be today if over the past 50 years, the NY Times had adopted the policy that all judicial decisions were followed by the name of the Judges and Justices were named followed by an (R*) or (D*) with the asterisk indicating the party that nominated them to public office.
Readers need and deserve this information.
2
You don't seriously think this ultra-political, activist, right-wing Supreme Court won't take this opportunity to do the bidding of the NRA, one of the biggest supporters of Trump and the Republican Party, do you?
3
"New Yorkers have made their voices clear about the gun transportation ban through their elected representatives."
Quite a sophisticated argument. Said representatives, spooked by the certainty of having a ruling more adverse than they'd like, attempted to moot the case only after it was selected for hearing. The replacement legislation has more loopholes for abuse, as the oral argument showed clearly.
4
Litigating issues that have been satisfactorily resolved through the legislative process creates a wasteful precedent.
We should not be spending our precious tax dollars on duplication.
1
The law is unconstitutional. We must keep at it until it is removed.
3
The editorial observes: “a quirky case the justices heard on Monday that could soon fizzle out if sanity and common sense prevail.”
So there is the point in all clarity. The Supreme Court already has demonstrated that several of its members are out to make this sow’s ear into a silk purse for their peculiar extremist views. Roberts might prevent asininity, but there is no disguising the injudicious nature of some members of the Court.
2
The Supreme Court should bury this NY law and bulldoze a path through the attempts by the states to curtail one of our constitutional rights. There is nothing moot here. NY is just waiting for the heat to cool before they try something similarly and patently in violation of the 2d Amendment.
4
There’s some bold dishonesty at work in this editorial—especially at the very beginning and the very end.
Up top we have the mischaracterization that the Heller decision was about keeping arms “in the home.” It was about individual versus collective rights, not location.
New York’s recent repeal of the law in question was purely tactical. To characterize it as “New Yorkers hav[ing] made their voices clear… through their elected representatives” suggests an actual change of heart that no one actually believes took place.
New York’s legislators are merely playing “keep-away” with their unconstitutional law. The moment the Supreme Court denies certiorari, look for their rapid action in reinstating it. No one believes New York has done anything more noble than to try to game the system. But some find advantage in pretending to believe.
The Times would see this for what it was, if we were addressing some other topic on which it sees clearly at all.
4
Clearly the NYT editors are worried that the Court might expand gun rights with this case. But if they do decide it is moot, they have opened a strategy for anyone who fears an unfavorable ruling by the Court - repeal the law in question, and then reinstate it after the Court dismisses the case.
1
Originalism has as much right to a place in American jurisprudence as dunking witches or astrology. A Conservative jurist who got a C is Constitutional Law purports to be able to channel the thoughts of a person dead two hundred years. Forget the language of the 2nd Amendment itself or the historical context. The Colonies, facing invasion from England, had no standing army and were only defended by "well-regulated militias". Of course people needed guns in those days. Things have changed. The Founding Fathers understood change. They supported revolution in fact. Anyway originalism is not a thing. A better word for it is reactionary. Or gobbledygook. Pretext. Disingenuous? An excuse to ram horrendous, system-destroying laws on the helpless public. It's not a legal argument. And look at the results of laws predicated on these 2nd Amendment ravings. There are states down south where it seems murder is legal. There's no duty to avoid conflict even if possible and it's ok to assume everyone including Grandma is carrying a concealed weapon. Can't you just follow me out of a bar there, say "hey" and when I turn around, gimme two in the chest and one in the head. It's ok b/c when I turned around, you could reasonably assume I had a gun. Even if I didn't. Shooting first makes sense, right? You bet, Cowboy.
3
Wrong again, Editorial Board. The case is not moot. On a broad level, this case is about answering the question, what does the 2nd Amendment really mean in practical terms? Since this is a question of the meaning of the Constitution, only SCOTUS can settle this question. SCOTUS has been trying to avoid the question like the plague for as long as I can remember. It needs to summon the backbone to give the nation a clear and definitive interpretation. It doesn't matter which side of the gun control issue you're on either. SCOTUS owes us an answer.
4
By no means is the case moot. The rescission of the law was done strategically, solely to try to avoid a SCOTUS hearing on it, and there is every reason to think some version of the onerous law will be brought back. The new laws that replaced the rescinded one still impose unreasonable (2A-violating) restrictions - they could be read to preclude stops to refuel a vehicle or use a toilet. There are live controversies remaining, and NYC moved to moot the case AFTER review was granted. That's cynical and dishonest.
The issues are not moot. The New York Times editorial board is endorsing a cynical attempt the sole purpose of which is to be able to restore a law that almost certainly would be held unconstitutional if the case proceeds. The case ought to proceed.
4
The Justices should not drop this case. Without intervention by SCOTUS, the state could simply reinstate some version of the law at a later date, such as requiring an expensive license to transport firearms outside one's home or some other inane law. SCOTUS must state specifically what the parameters of the Second Amendment are so state and local governments are not left to their own interpretations which are frequently unconstitutional, as displayed in New York's original firearms transportation law.
4
I agree that the case is now moot. The Court should accept that the issue has been resolved through the political process, which is preferable. However, one has to wonder whether the Times and liberals are willing to be consistent on this point. After all, Roe v. Wade was moot when it was decided. The plaintiff in Roe had already given birth when the Court made its decision. The Court in that case carved out an exception to the issue of mootness. The City of New York changed their gun law because they suspected they would lose--and losing would create a precedent, which could guide a more fulsome development of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. The Court needs to provide better guidance and clearer tests on how to resolve the tension between the state's interest in regulating dangerous goods and the individual's right to self-protection, just like it has done for all of our other fundamental rights. Yet, the one has the suspicion that every time a regulation is challenged in the courts as unreasonable, the government responsible for enacting the regulation will alter the law to prevent the development of jurisprudence in the area. Perhaps the time will come when the Court will need to create an exception to mootness standards in order to remedy attempts to "evade review," as it did in Roe.
4
@Charles ...
There is something to be said about the Supreme Court taking an opportunity to clarify its stand on second amendment cases particularly when doing so will render unnecessary countless hours and significant dollar costs for the lower courts having to hear successive cases on similar subjects.
There are times when past practice and precedent needs to be subservient to the orderly and consistent application of law. This is one of those times.
1
It needs to be heard. First to send a message to the lower courts to abide by the Heller decision. Secondly, the DC city council never acted in good faith to accept the Heller v DC ruling and I expect the anti-gun politicians in NYC would use the same tactics.
3
If something is "capable of repetition and evading review" courts can hear the case. Knowing NYC, it'll change the law the day after this decision comes down.....
3
Our founding fathers were fools. They failed to abolish slavery, and the 2nd amendment is idiotic. It was meant to arm a militia with smooth bore muskets that shot one bullet at a time, not to turn people into arms collectors, one-man arsenals with assault rifles that are portable machine guns. This country has always been a killing machine. First, we turned on the native people, which was genocide, Then we turned on the British, which was treason. Then, we started our endless foreign wars: Jefferson started the Tripolitan War because the Americans would rather kill people than pay tribute money to protect our fleets (sailing where we didn't belong anyway), Both wars were to support rich people who were basically tax evaders - that was the point of the American Revolution - get the poor to fight your war for "liberty" when it was to defend the wealth of the rich traders, merchants and slaveholders. So began our centuries of invasions, mostly for selfish economic reasons. Our whole gun culture has been turned against our own people and turned against the entire planet. It is sickening, and every day I wish the British had won the war against the Americans, because we have turned out to be even worse than the British.
3
@gerard.c.tromp
I agree. If open carry is allowed then make it a true right, open carry everywhere without restriction- government buildings, schools, churches, etc. If anyone disagrees, then shoot ‘em in defense of a Constitutional right.
Absurd? Of course. But the NRA and evidently the Supreme Court believe in the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment. Put it to a real test and see how well that works.
Let’s ignore the simple fact that all of our rights come with safeguards against abuse.
2
"a quirky case the justices heard on Monday that could soon fizzle out if sanity and common sense prevail"
Your appealing to a Court made up of people like Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas for "sanity and common sense?" They have already proven that they are not interested in the Constitution, our democracy or what is right, it is foolish to think they would be persuaded by reason or common sense.
4
NYC invited this rotten situation by enacting an overreaching law that had little purpose but to bully lawful gun owners. NYC has done the right thing by repealing the law and I hope the Supreme Court will exercise its discretion not to rule on the case. Next up-- NY's draconian new rent control laws, which stand a strong chance of being struck down as an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. Extreme laws invite extreme judicial responses.
21
@Cato It's not discretionary... the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to decide the case under the Constitution.
3
@Korla That's not true: there are multiple doctrines under which the court can still review and decide the case, including "voluntary cessation", "capable of repetition to evade review", etc. The Court availed itself of the latter when it decided to hear Roe, despite the fact that case had become moot when it reached the Court.
8
@Cato We need responsible gun control legislation...emphasis on responsible. Obviously people with mental issues or children shouldn't own an AK-47. But the NY law wasn't responsible and the Supreme Court needs to make a statement. The issue here is that the gun control zealots have shown they will happily cross the line to further their agenda. They will only pull back unconstitutional laws such as the one NY tried to put in place when challenged by a SCOTUS review. SCOTUS may as well rule on the case now or face the endless cycle of bad laws, the threat of SCOTUS review, law rescinded. The NY law was enacted in bad faith, as evidenced by the pull-back once SCOTUS review was a possibility. Repealing the law to prevent the Court from finding it un-Constitutional is an evasion strategy. If the Court finds the case moot, there is nothing to stop New York from re-instating the restrictions. So if I steal your wallet and give it back to you before the police show up then I'm home free? There is no case because I reversed my illegal action before any consequences could be imposed? New York did indeed pass the law and then went to court to enforce it. They shouldn't be able to just go "my bad" after likely infringing on the rights of thousands of law-abiding citizens. New York forcefully oppressed their citizen's Constitutional rights under threat of severe criminal sanctions. They need to be sent a strong message that such unconstitutional behavior will not be tolerated.
10
It's difficult to discern what is actually being debated constructively in this case. There is an unfortunate stew of mixed issues, that, taken separately, call on different aspects of law. For example, why is transportation per se a contention but for civil law boundaries (possibly encroachments) on 2nd amendment latitude that are otherwise fully in conformity with constitutional law? There is also an interesting property case, and the degree to which personal freedom including intra-state (and inter-state) mobility captures personal belongings. As for the Supreme Court, this issue only underscores why that institution is simply not qualified to opine let alone judge or adjudicate most issues we assume it is fit to do so, especially calling into question the underlying design of the Court, its appointment mechanics and its case jurisdiction.
1
Actually, the justices should take the case.
Here is a priceless judicial opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment for what it clearly states. Organized militia, such as state and local police, and the national guard, cannot be denied the right to keep and bear arms for our protection.
3
@AynRant Of course you are correct. But the bought and paid for justices like Kavanaugh will not see it that way. They want to make weapons of mass destruction available to all, becasue that's what the gun manufacturers and the NRA want. Never mind what 70% of us sho don't own guns know to be best.
1
Gun controls are necessary.
The city law was stupid and unnecessary.
The law was rescinded only because the city knew the SCOTUS would rule against the city.
When politicians over reach, on either side of the aisle, bad things happen. This is one of them.
19
American policies like the laughable gun laws represent a form of slow moving suicide for the country.
Other forms of lobbyist congressional corruption erode the very semblance of a democracy and reveal the true nature of the wealthy capitalist oligarchy that runs America.
Only a well educated public will ever be able to reclaim its right to a truly democratic citizenship.
2
I think the question might be is it good governance that if your law on the books is questioned severely enough do you say oh heck we really didn’t mean it, drop it, and ask “are we cool now?”
From my vantage point the original law was very bizarre. I will wager not one licensed permit holder has ever been convicted and suffered a penalty with respect to this law. While at the same time NYC and NY to some extent is again descending into a cycle of lawlessness.
On this issue I believe some clarity is in order.
"The New York gun law now before the Supreme Court has already been rendered moot. "
Nah. You'll just do it again at the first opportunity, where "it" means some idiotic restriction that has nothing to do with safety, only with inconveniencing people who pose no threat. What possible other purpose could have been served by restricting people to travel within the city?
No, you wouldn't think it moot if some city or state restricted blacks to travel within a prescribed area, then hastily repealed the law hoping the courts wouldn't notice the permanent animus. You haven't learned the lesson; take the case and decide.
It is clear that NY passed a law they knew would not pass constitutional muster, and only repealed when they got "busted."
That is reason enough for the Supreme Court to step in. NY would simply wait, until the Court was more "favorable" to its law, and then pass the same law.
In an armory. Period. The way the professionals do. Then and now.
1
It is rather ironic, I think, that were Justice Scalia alive he would most likely agree that the case was mooted. But I also rather suspect that were there some likelihood the case would result in a limitation of Second Amendment rights, the Editorial Board of the Times would scrounge up some good reason for needfully, settling, a long festering issue.... blah blah blah.
Of course, no one expects a mere paper to be anything than polemically outcome driven. We had expected, however, a little more restraint and circumspection from the high court. This is not to expect outcomes be banished from the judicial mind; it is to expect something other than running rough shod over whatever is in the way to get there.
By its own hand, the Court has lost credibility. It cites dicta as holdings, plays strategic games in footnotes, exalts restraint in one breath and conjures up jumbo like "a non tax tax" in the other. The excoriated Scalia was the one to call time out on this political gaming.
I'm coming around to the view that unless the Court can rule unanimously, it ought not to rule at all.
1
Finally, the New York Times proves it has a sense of humor. This same editorial page has urged courts to repeatedly intervene and write new law. But when it comes to law abiding adults' Constitutional rights as per the Second Amendment, the editorial page implores SCOTUS to stand down. Hahahaha
2
Exactly what relief is sought by the case? If the only request is for the law to be declared unconstitutional, with the revocation of the statute there is no job left for the court. The case is moot.
It does seem illogical to ban people from transporting arms from the confines of NYC to go hunting in the Catskills. This seems like a small problem, in spite of the gun zealots who want to court to conjure up a sweeping decision.
Ordinarily, this case would not be adjudicated due to its being rendered moot, but these are not normal times. If the conservative Republican majority wants to flex its muscles, they may do so, but at the expense of longstanding precedent. It would be nice to have something in the Federal government that citizens can count on, for a change.
3
The case is not mute unless both parties agree. Obviously, the parties don't agree. If anything, a party has suffered damages and significant legal expense that hasn't been compensated.
2
This is the beginning of the end.. we may as well start teaching gun safety and emergency first aid in our elementary schools. If guns are going to be allowed everywhere, the least we can do is educate our children.
3
@Aaron ...
You know, that's not a bad idea.
Youth in Colonial times were well versed in how to handle arms at an early age.
It is interesting and disturbing how the advocates for continuing this moot case are eager to have the Court Legislate From the Bench. Isn’t that something they have railed against in the past?
3
This is not a 2nd amendment issue, it really is a 1st amendment issue. Guns are not the problem. Our media is the problem. The level of violence we are all exposed to via video games, movies, TV and social media has poisoned our culture. Our children are growing up in a society where violence has little or no consequences, you just replay the game.
2
Could you please elaborate on the ways "video games, movies, TV and social media" has contributed to the "level of violence" in any of the wars humanity has ever fought?
2
@BC
So what was the cause of gun violence BEFORE the advent of video games?
1
@Nick ...
Is a war being fought on the streets of Atlanta or Chicago...
Or at a football game in New Jersey?
Levels of gratuitous violence in our nation are likely just about the same as they have always been, but the publicity attending that violence has become manifold.
It's a problem that needs addressing.
1
"The justices would be wise to let...."
Therein lies the problem. Some of those justices are short on wise, and long on unwise. Hopefully though, we have a majority in this case that's already moot at the State level.
28
It seems likely that the Court will dismiss the case as moot if Roberts' questioning is any indication. Thankfully for Second Amendment advocates, there is another case right behind it. Rogers v. Grewal, which the Court could hear as early as Friday. This case addresses, among other issues, “whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.”
The law at issue in Grewal requires New Jersey residents to show a "justifiable need" or "good reason" when applying for a firearm permit. Considering that the Court has previously ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to possess a firearm, this statute and others like it may be eviscerated if the Court hears the case. Hopefully the Heller act in NY falls right along with it.
1
Now they should drop it? NY renders unconstitutional laws and as soon as challenged by the Supremes then say "only kidding". Now they face the court outright stating NY was unconstitutional in its lawmaking. And potentially widening the gap that NY was trying to close. Little to little and late NY, now suffer the consequences.
1
As we will see this Supreme Court will do what the right has decried as long as their was a slim liberal majority, that is it will create laws.
This case, which some of the Justices have been waiting for, and are itching to address, will be followed by a slate of cases, Roe, campaign finance restrictions, redistricting, the imperial presidency, that will cement a right wing ideology on the country for decades to come.
1
@Marc
Conservatives have embraced "Hope and Change".
New York, with its massive restrictions and excessive fees, still treats gun ownership as a privilege of the well off rather than as an enumerated right. I hope the Court goes ahead with this case. The Court needs to make clear that absurdly irrational and overbearing laws have no right to exist too curtail any enumerated right.
54
@Khal Spencer Another way of understanding "absurdly irrational and overbearing laws" is as safeguards for the majority of people who don't own guns.
5
@Khal Spencer
The case is moot as NYC completely rescinded the law. Why are my taxes being spent by SCOTUS on a law that doesn't even exist? There are a limited number of cases reviewed each year. This one is frivolous and needs to be dropped.
4
@ExPatMX I'd love for the Supreme Court to clarify the law to prevent this from happening again in another city.
5
There's a reason for the supreme court to hear this case. As a gun owner living in Long Island, one of my fears is getting stopped on the way to New Jersey or Pennsylvania and having my car searched and then getting arrested for "illegal possession".
The laws in New York also have made it hard for people to open gun ranges or rent out firearms at existing gun ranges. It's definitely not as fun as gun ranges in say, Virginia or Nevada where you can go and rent machine guns and bazookas.
Another thing is, it is way too hard to get a pistol carry permit in NYC. You have to be extremely wealthy or a celebrity to get one. Why should just the rich and famous be allowed to carry a gun to protect themselves?
And finally, the SAFE Act needs to be abolished. Why shouldn't New Yorkers be able to purchase the more tactical rifles/carbines to protect themselves or to take to the range for fun?
40
@Ali
One reason is my right to feel safe. Your fun shouldn't be a threat to my life. No matter how careful you believe you are, adding more tactical rifles to a crowded state where they are unnecessary for self-protection (or having more people carry pistols in a very crowded city) only adds more threat to public safety.
139
@Barbara
Your right to "feel safe" does not trump my right to "be safe".
Do you believe that police carry tactical rifles for fun? The police carry tactical rifles, as well as handguns, for self-defense. The very same self-defense each of us have a constitutional right to.
14
@Barbara I dont recall that being an enumerated right. On the other hand, bearing arms is.
14
I recommend open carry everywhere, no exceptions, i.e., both houses of congress as well as the supreme court included.
Only once lawmakers and judges are deprived of the security checks that now insulate them from the consequences of their decisions, will the attitudes change.
153
@gerard.c.tromp I recommend laws against carrying firearms in public, no exceptions. No politician or public figure will be allowed to have an armed personal protection detail.
Only once lawmakers and judges are deprived of their security will they realize that the right to self-protection is a fundamental right to which all Americans should be entitled.
7
@gerard.c.tromp Also, why should the taxpayers be stuck with providing armed security details to Supreme Court justices and their families outside of the courtroom? Let them deal with the same realities and fears that the rest of American families do when going to school, the movies, or the grocery store.
12
@gerard.c.tromp When I was in line to tour the (OUR!) house of congress, the authoritarian security guard made me throw away a banana I sorely needed as a snack later in the day. He told me it looked like a weapon and that he would have me arrested unless I threw it in a trash can, not even allowing me to leave it on a bench so a hungry person might enjoy it. Guess he was looking out for our representatives "general welfare" in a manner that the rest of us don't get to enjoy.
12
I am appalled by the number of comments here urging the court to intervene in a clearly moot case. The supposed rationale (“what if the city re-enacts the law after the litigation is dropped”) is preposterous. Adjudicating theoretical cases over imaginary harm is the very definition of judicial overreach and unwarranted activism.
204
So do you object to Citizens United? Much more important case which has done more to threaten us than restricting the transport of firearms.
9
@Juvenal There are 100 avenues to get to this point. Just because NYC has attempted to moot this one doesnt mean the issue isn't one that the Court is ripe to correct. IF mootness is so important, perhaps they should go back and throw away Roe v. Wade as well? You realize she wasn't pregnant by the time that case appeared before the Supreme Court. This isn't a novel avenue for important topics.
10
Furthermore, since when does a SCOTUS decision put an end to controversial legislation? How many times since Roe v Wade have Red State legislatures passed laws outlawing abortion? All of you urging the SCOTUS to put an end to NY 2A shenanigans—are you also calling for an end to anti-abortion legislation out of respect for Roe v Wade?
3
Republican commitment to the widest possible interpretation of the Second Amendment is fundamentally about encouraging paranoia in their chosen portion of the electorate. The appeal is not to hunters, whose rifles, shotguns and bows have never been threatened, but to troubled males who fantasize about killing the “others” whom they imagine creeping around in the dark beyond their property lines or in the large cities full of immigrants and minorities. The fact that actual judges will go along with their fantasies is very discouraging for those of us who grew up with respect for our legal system.
6
Not quite. Unfortunately NY attorneys couldn't define how the changes to the NYC law would prevent the state from randomness in how the changes would be enforced, saying those cases would be handled on an individual basis. I.e., every gun owner would have to go to court to prove he was simply transporting the weapon to a range. Didn't sell the Court.
3
@Kent Kraus do they? Per this article, gun owners no longer have limitations on their travel with their guns.
We have a cultural, national gun sickness in this country that results in 100k+ gun deaths/injuries in this country every yr., an aberration re other peer countries.
Our founding fathers, especial Madison turning over in their graves. This is exactly the opposite of what they intended when they passed the 2nd amendment.
Having said the above, knee jerk ban the gun, over regulate it as the sole panacea by liberal states to solve the problem is not the way to go and will only end up with meaningless, useless decisions by the court no matter which direction they go.
Only a policy of legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun like we did with tremendous success with cig. smoking and drunk driving and working with responsible people on both sides will cure the problem.
Ok I will save repliers to this post some ink. Liberal replies saying there are no responsible people on the other side or any conservatives reading this who say all liberals want to take away our guns are not going to cut it and ignores the problem.
3
It might not be the perfect case, but if the allegedly moot issues are likely to arise in the future, that is a ground to adjudicate.
Many persons believe that states and municipalities (including NY and NYC) have for years materially abridged gun rights with a plethora of arbitrary and capricious feel-good, look-good laws. Perhaps the Court will set some bright lines.
Clearly, the Times knows this is coming and is afraid. We gun owners are encouraged by your fear.
4
The Supreme Court need to clarify its position on the matter before it. How far can states and cities go in regulation under the Second Amendment? Those in favor of "gun control" are concerned about how the Court might rule. Let's find out!!
1
The justcies do not have to drop this case. They can find it moot. There is a difference. To drop this case would require the justices to find that certiorari had been improvidently granted. In other words the Court would have to admit it made a mistake in taking the case. No one likes to admit publicly it made a mistake. Finding it moot would provide the same result by an easier route for th Court. Justices are human beings, too.
1
It seems both unlikely and unwise for the SCOTUS to rule on a dispute in which there is no case or controversy, as required by the Constitution, thus creating a damaging legal error from which there is no appeal.
The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, but that does not mean that the Supreme Court is the supreme governmental authority over any and all questions that may arise. One can only wish that more States would do as NY did, and openly correct their own unconstitutional experiments -- (and more Presidents too) -- rather than funnelling the business of day-to-day governance into the hands of the most undemocratic and unrepublican body within government.
2
The truly outrageous action here was that taken by the City and the State of New York -- to abridge a fundamental, individual right under the Bill of Rights.
The belated repeals in the face of SCOTUS review speaks volumes. It is the political equivalent of a attempted murderer fleeing the scene of the crime when she notices a police car drive up. The flight doesn't mean a crime didn't happen. Quite the opposite.
Imagine a law that prohibited the possession of a book (or any device on which a book could be read) outside the home, unless it was in the possession of a person licensed to have the book / reading device and was being directly transported without any stop between the home of that licensed person and a local "reading room" licensed and monitored by the government.
Would the Time support such a law? Would the Times say that a belated repeal of such a law to avoid judicial review made the case moot?
I doubt the Times would see it that way.
9
@Frank
I suspect both the City and the State would have been willing to test their laws before an independent and truly open minded court. The current supreme court is neither. A reading of the second amendment and its history--not the histrionics of the NRA--would convince anyone that the amendment did not intend to convey to the individual citizen a right to own a gun. (See "The Second Amendment: A Biography"by Michael Waldman). Justice Scalia, as he did many times. intellectualized his conservative opinion and went out of his way to find an individual right, but even he wrote the right to own a gun was subject to reasonable regulation, something it appears Alito and others are willing to forget. Neither the City nor the State was willing to let the court decide the fate of their laws. Smart decision.
5
@Frank
You are comparing guns to books? Did you get hit by one from a teacher? Or did the courts "throw the book at you"? Personally, I do not get the comparison. Books don't kill people, people do.
@Frank What a non sequitur comparison. Books versus guns? Yes, dictators are far more scared of books than guns.
I'm not sure this would apply but the court could rule that transportation of a firearm is a part of the right to own one. I suspect they need a specific case where someone was arrested for illegal transportation, say while moving and traveled thru New York or, as I've read regarding a couple of cases, New Jersey and was arrested for having an unregistered firearm. While I support tougher gun laws I do not support laws that unduly harass those who may just be in a state with draconian laws while trying to get somewhere else, say moving or perhaps travelling to go hunting.
4
How do you feel about trafficking guns from low-regulation southern states to high-regulation northern states?
Somehow I think that if you substitute the gun law passed and then hastily repealed with an abortion law that provided a similar chilling effect on a fundamental right that was passed then hastily repealed, the Supreme Court Justices on the left might of been keen to give this a more serious look. The left would demand laws like this to not be passed again by asking the Supreme Court to step in, just like the 2nd Amendment activists are doing now. If the case had not been heard by the Court, here's nothing that would have prevented the State of New York from going back and having a do-over afterwards.
5
It should now be harder for New York to defend reintroducing this legislation. If a law is repealed to avoid judicial oversight then that weakens the argument of its legality if the bill is ever reintroduced.
3
Former CJSCOTUS Warren Burger said so eloquently on the individuals right to bear arms, the second amendment and the NRA. "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
Fact is there is no individual right to bear arms enshrined in the second amendment. The backdrop clearly frames that view. In the late 18c, early 19c. the population of the colonies were mostly intoxicated illiterates. Ale, Whiskey, Rum along with coffee, tea were staples as potable water was a scarcity. In fact water as a consumable was suspect.
The Framers of those hallowed documents would in no way, shape or form countenance the masses access to firearms. A mob rule of raucous roustabouts and riffraff with guns?
A strict constructionist, federalist society approach that Antonin Scalia would surely endorse.
14
I thought the point, inter alia, of a constitution in a democracy is to provide a necessary constraint on the fads, fashions, peccadillos & prejudices of the majority at any point in time. Accordingly the exhortation at the end of this opinion piece - leave it to the voters - is a call to the tyranny of the majority. Untempored majority rule can lead to some pretty bad outcomes as history has shown. On this occasion maybe the issue is moot but that does not diminish the need to ensure laws are consistent with constitutional constraints and safeguards
5
To say that New York repealed the law is half the story. New York repealed the law because, and after, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case. The city sought to block the Court from reviewing its law. And it waited until the Court had decided that the law had to be reviewed. The city's repeal was transparent and obstructive. When you take action and the Supreme Court decides that your actions, out of thousands of others, merit review, it's too late for takesy backsies.
23
The current Supreme Court is packed with “originalists” who conjure up what they think the original intent of the Constitution was. If one does look to the original intent of the Second Amendment, it was drafted in the era of muskets and muzzle loaded rifles. It could not possibly have contemplated automatic weapons with oversized magazines with enough firepower to single-handedly wipe out an entire Revolutionary War regiment.
Even Justice Scalia acknowledged as much before his death.
I support the right to bear arms, and I believe that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to government overreach.
But the arms that we bear should have no guarantee of being capable of wiping out a peaceful school, crowd, movie theater, or church. Such gatherings enjoy their own protections under our Constitution, and those rights need protection in balance with the Second Amendment.
11
@Michael McLemore
RE: If one does look to the original intent of the Second Amendment, it was drafted in the era of muskets and muzzle loaded rifles. It could not possibly have contemplated automatic weapons with oversized magazines with enough firepower to single-handedly wipe out an entire Revolutionary War regiment
The constitiuiton was created to address human nature not current technology. Human nature is the same today as it was 200 years ago and 2000 years ago and what it will be in 2000 years.
2
@Michael McLemore
These muskets were the military weapons of their time. Nothing in the Constitution says these laws and amendments only applied for the then current time.
There is a process to alter the Constitution. However there are likely at least 15 and perhaps as many as 20 states that would not permit any alteration or elimination to the 2nd Amendment.
Of course the Supreme Court needs to make a definitive ruling on this matter.
If the Supreme Court were to state that the matter is moot, there is nothing to prevent New York City or other jurisdictions from passing similar or identical laws.
11
@Mon Ray Besides that your argument is as moot as this case, since no other community has passed a law as restrictive as NYC's, what prevents other cities from doing so if the voting public and the potential political backlash to such laws -- as it did with NYC. SCOTUS is not empowered to make law, which it would be doing to rule on a moot case in order to establish a precedent. Once NYC's elected leaders changed the law, the case should have been dismissed.
2
The Supreme Court from the beginning of it's existence has refused to render rulings on moot issues as it is the court's role only to address active controversies. For them to take this case would upend 2 centuries of jurisprudence and serve as an abdication of it's role as a case decider in favor of setting national policies.
1
If you know the story of Heller, how it turned the Second Amendment upside down, you may know that Scalia grounded his opinion in historical interpretation of the Second Amendment's language. You may not be aware of the subsequent case where Alito decided for the conservative majority that the Second Amendment is fundamental to our rights and therefore applies to the states as well as the federal government.
Scalia's opinion was masterful, frankly, and many argued that the historical record indeed supported his opinion. The Alito opinion, by contrast, was ordinary and, as much as any other, his decision convinced only those who believed in gun rights. The Alito opinion strongly suggests that future Second Amendment cases will be decided on political lines.
The case discussed here will likely prove the point. You can argue that the repeal of the New York law should end everything. You can argue until the cows come home.
but when it comes to the Second Amendment, legal niceties bend to bedrock beliefs about guns. Nobody cares that the law was repealed.
3
For those who find it hard to believe the case was even argued, consider that among the at least four unidentified justices needed to agree to hear the case are likely one or two trying to establish or embellish their standing among the Anything Goes Gun Lobby.
On the other hand the length of time since Heller (2008) without another major gun case before the Court hints that some justices are attuned to the tension between Heller's tortured misreading of the 2nd Amendment and the large super majority of the public favoring tighter regulation of firearms.
I doubt in the current environment there are five justices eager to enlarge the list of Roberts Court decisions ripe for harsh reversals, among them Citizens United and Shelby County.
4
@John
Who cares about the"large super majority of the public favoring tighter regulations of firearms"
The only people that should have a voice in the matter are Republican men who are members in good
standing of the NRA.
After all, they are the Presidenr's men, and as such should be entitled, just as he is "to shoot anyone they please on Fifth Avenue!
“Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch seemed to be itching to intervene.” If their trigger fingers are itching to further expand the 2nd Amendment, they should find another target.
For the umpteenth time: The 2nd Amendment was never intended to establish a right to be armed for personal protection. Period. Any other intepretation, including overturning this moot New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case, is misguided judicial activism.
The amendment exists solely to ensure the availability of an organized, armed citizen militia. Art. II Sec. 2 of the Constitution makes the president the commander-in-chief of the militia.
At the constitutional convention, when Anti-Federalists tried to attach self defense and hunting language to the 2nd Amendment, they were overwhelmingly defeated. The 2nd Amendment says nothing at all about private ownership or use of arms!
For more than 218 years, until the travesty Heller decision, courts consistently interpreted the 2nd Amendment as protecting only a right to have weapons for militia service – and that otherwise the government was free to restrict and regulate weapons possession and use. (The NRA itself had no problem with this correct interpretation, and was in favor of gun control, for more than a century until it got taken over by the gun manufacturers in the early 1970s.)
The Court should not intervene in this or any other civilian gun control case.
32
@Critical Rationalist If it’s not an individual right then why is it part of the bill of rights?
4
Could there be a political motive to the Court taking this case? We know Donald Trump will seek to politicize anything that will make him 'look good' in the eyes of his base and perhaps draw in a few (million) independent voters, who could decide whether he is re-elected or not.
3
The law was repealed.
I find it hard to believe it was even argued before the Court.
Our world is upside down.
6
@Dave T.
The Roe of Roe v. Wade had the baby.
I find it hard to believe it was even argued before the Court.
Our world is upside down.
@michjas
Like most conservatives, you're completely incapable of constructing an analogy.
Here, the law was repealed.
In Roe, the law still remained on the books.
Get it?
I doubt it.
According to the Board, Heller held that "Americans have the fundamental right to keep a handgun for self-defense in the home." That is false and misleading. Go to the opinion. Heller held that Americans have the right "to possess a firearm and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The Board pretends that we're dealing only with handguns and only self-defense. The opinion is open-ended. And an open-ended opinion can be expanded to the end of the world. There is a huge problem here. And the Board suggests that there isn't. I simply don't understand what is to be gained by pretending that a tornado, just around the corner, isn't there.
8
The requirement that a case present an actual controversy is in the Constitution, and has been further written into the laws establishing the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. An advisory opinion cannot be given, based on hypothetical facts.
However, there is also a good faith requirement. The controversy cannot be faked, it must be an actual controversy. Two people on the same side cannot fake a contest, and throw it, to create a precedent to the benefit of both. It must be real.
In the same way, one cannot just avoid losing by giving up, only to come right back again as soon as the case is dismissed. This is why cases are often settled with a consent decree, establishing rules that will be followed, not just dismissed.
There is a real controversy in the US over gun control laws, and specifically over reasonable regulation. It got all the way to the Supreme Court as an undoubted real case.
Can one side avoid losing, and retain the right to do it all again, but momentarily making it moot? Or is that not really moot?
We need a consent decree. The City of New York must sign off on a decree that prevents it from in the future enacting any laws that are an unconstitutional burden on this right. Otherwise, it isn't really settled, just subject of a tactical ploy to defeat the Court.
That must be spelled out in a decree, or the Court must spell it out in an opinion.
7
@Mark Thomason
I think your reasoning is legally incorrect. The idea that New York City would "only ... come right back again as soon as the case is dismissed" is no more than a distant theoretical possibility. There is no factual basis in previous cases to think the city would do that; the city is not a repetitive litigator. You are asking the Supreme Court to rule on a case that is purely speculative. This is not how our courts work.
Besides that, as a practical matter, if the courts were supposed to rule on purely hypothetical cases, we should expect their caseload quickly to become even more burdensome than it is now.
7
Imagine if the Supreme Court took this case and came to a decision. How would it be worded? 'We know this law does not exist, but we don't like it anyway'
Imagine how ridiculous that would sound compared to the thousands of Supreme Court decisions made in the past.
12
The right to self-defense goes back deep into both English and Roman law. So likewise does the right of government to control militias. Militias, armed men, were called into service by presidents and governors, and before that by kings and local nobles. Militias were counted, arms inventoried, disciplined, etc, as needed. Yet today NRA types would claim a 'right' to unregulatable, unregisterable weaponry even there has been no trace of a general call-out of militias since the draft ended. National guard and reserves, but not the militia.
If we have that 'necessary' 'well-regulated militia', then who is in charge, what are the rules, what is the training protocol, and what records are kept? The current free-for-all of gun ownership is not that. The Court must decide such cases based an all of the 2nd Amendment, not just the dependent clause.
13
@Speakin4Myself
You mean the independent clause. The first clause of the Second Amendment -- the one that has oddly disappeared from jurisprudence -- is the dependent clause.
1
The Editorial Board's article is bias. This case is very much alive. Only out of fear of loss did the NYC lawyers try to drop this case. The other side deserve a Supreme Court ruling that says laws like this are unconstitutional. They deserve it. The case is not moot. How is it that RGB has missed the underlying reason for this case. It is not about damages. They have not gotten every thing they want. They want to be left alone and the moment this court changes, the NYC laws will return if not ruled on now.
10
@Richard S.
You are creating "alternative facts" when you say the case is not moot. It is moot. That is a simple fact of law, not for you to decide based on speculations about New York City (which I think you don't know very well).
7
@Richard S. If you're so confident in the righteousness of your cause, why don't you sue to strike down some other gun regulations that you think a SC ruling would also affect? Maybe then you could have a case, you know, suing to stop a law that actually exists. Who knows, maybe that state will drop the law too out of fear of an overreaching ruling by a packed court.
5
It’s an editorial; by its very nature it’s biased—that’s kind of the point!
No, they should hear this case. This is an important message to send to conservatives and liberals, that gaming the court system like what was done here will not result in success. If the Supreme Court wants to retain its integrity, then it should remind the participants to this case that this kind of unsportsmanlike conduct, so to speak, will not be tolerated.
9
The Suckpreme Court, for the most part, has no integrity; a few members, like Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, have been the exceptions. The Dred Scott and Citizens United decisions show us how low the court can go. We can't depend on them to protect us or our liberty - they are just as likely to defend the bad guys.
5
@Sam Lubje
Haha, how dare they give them what they asked for when they realized they would have to argue in front of a packed court that has lost its appearance of propriety.
A Supreme Court that rules gerrymandering by the states is political issue and outside its purview obviously has no business telling the State of New York how best to moderate the behaviour of its gun owners.
23
@Leigh When’s the State and city of NY infringes on the second amendment rights of their citizens, SCOTUS has every right to correct the abuse of power by corrupt NY politicians who want their citizens disarmed, while they walk around with armed body guards and live in gated communities. D.C and Chicago also threw a temper tantrum when oppressing law abiding gun owners, it didn’t work out very well for them.
@Leigh You're not looking for consistency from the activist Roberts Court, are you? That would be naive.
People who call themselves conservatives prove once again they simply want to preserve their power. They want the federal government to leave them alone when it comes to “free speech” campaign contributions, environmental restrictions and banking regulations. But they want the federal government to step in and stop states or cities from passing gun control laws or from allowing abortions or from banning vaping for teens or from allow same sex marriage. Any group that chooses to blindly follow a leader whose only principle is self preservation has an issue with branding.
14
@DO5
And yet many liberals who were previous partisans for virtually unlimited federal executive authority have suddenly rediscovered "states rights" and their inner John C. Calhoun, especially when it comes to immigration and climate.
Hypocrisy knows no political boundaries.
1
The NRA has so much blood on their hands, what is the difference between them and other terrorist organizations? Add to that, like the president, they are now under coercive manipulation by Putin, we can only conclude that the US is under direct attack from abroad by Russia, with strong support from the American gun lobby. Several of who have posted comments on this thread. The argument in this article truly is of little use, all just an unfortunate smokescreen. Most Americans know what needs to be done, the reinstitution of the Gun Control Act, immediately! Along with that, strict regulations on the interstate transportation of firearms and federal firearm background checks.
7
@MAC
"blood on their hands"
Just curious - do you feel the same way about automobile manufacturers who don't fit all of their cars with speed governors that would make speeding impossible?
Or how about the alcoholic beverage industry?
Speeding and drunk driving causes endless death and injury on our roads.
The NRA is actually the industry association of the gun manufacturing industry. Like the automobile industry, and the distillers, they are trying to make money - that's all there is to it. They are far more closely related to the banking industry, than to Satan.
A lot of the doctrines around the Article III case/controversy requirement are complicated and fraught—standing doctrine, for example, is nuanced and highly politicized. Mootness, however, is pretty simple and uncontroversial—the idea that a lawsuit involves an ongoing case/controversy that the parties can’t solve on their own far predates the constitution and is harder to politicize. That the conservatives on the court are even flirting with this shows just how activist we can expect them to be.
Activist conservatives judges created the doctrine that made Roe v Wade and other victories possible in order to strike down municipal labor regulations in the 1920’s, in the reviled Lochner case. The case/controversy requirements (of which mootness is one) keep a lot of environmental and civil rights lawsuits out of court, so it’s possible that, similarly to the Lochner court, the real legacy of this court will be open door for huge liberal victories in the future by a loosening of the rules for which issues judges can decide.
But at the moment it’s looking more likely that we’ll all be climate refugees in an Ayn Randian police-state hellscape before these partisan justices get done with us. At least we’ll have our 2A rights.
8
Although that was one of the more egregiously irrational and meaningless gun control laws, it was typical of the sort of nonsensical restrictions that urban progressives will attempt to push through as soon as they see a chance, as they have in NY and California. If there are to be any Second Amendment rights left in the US the next time we have a Democratic administration, the Supreme Court must hear this case now to cement the basic importance of our Constitution. First they came for the Second Amendment, and I did not object. Then they came for the First, and then the Fourth......
13
@Someone else
Oh please don't play the victim card on this. The US is armed to the teeth, with more loose gun ownership than is reasonably sane, and far more than most countries. You're hardly about to lose any 2A rights.
Same issue, different facts.
If a law is passed and then repealed, the Board wants the case declared moot. Suppose this Senate passes a crazy law declaring impeachment illegal. Then, suppose the next Senate repeals the crazy law. Should the Court defer or should it proclaim that impeachment is indeed illegal because it's right there in Article II.
And if that doesn't do it for you, think of all those laws banning abortion.
5
This, like the other hypotheticals that posit the possibility that New York could just reenact its rule, doesn’t account for political reality. If the Senate went that crazy and enacted a statute that so clearly contradicts the text of the constitution, they would be more worried about being literally thrown headlong out of their offices than about what some judge would do. For Congress or a state legislature to play such games would be a political disaster for those legislators. Legislatures wouldn’t act in such brazen defiance of the courts, because they would instantly be smacked down by the courts and their constituents. Non-compliance with court decisions happens in much more underhanded ways, through delay, foot-dragging, procedural hurdles, etc.
The exception to mootness doctrine that addresses the possibility for such games was created for individuals and corporations, who are more likely to engage in this kind of misbehavior because they’re less salient. It’s a big reach to argue that Congress/the states would be such blatant bad actors.
3
I'm a liberal and a progressive and a fan of EVERY right under the BoR, the rights in the 13A-15A, 19A, 23A, 24A, 26A, 27A, and the rights in the main body, but NYC's law is simply ridiculous. A person in Connecticut cannot travel to NJ to shoot in a range here with his legally owned firearms because he has to go through NY. It's virtually illegal to drive through NJ (and not going to a range or gunsmith), with firearms properly stored DESPITE a Federal Law guaranteeing that right. The Court can simply clarify what transport laws are Constitutional, and what are not. It can clarify whether one can stop for coffee, to use a restroom, or to gas up--or not.
20
@Dadof2 Firearms are not a toy.
Are you asking us to believe you travel hundreds of miles across state lines to "practice"?
I continue to be stunned that it is supposed to be a god-given right to own a high powered machine that can kill (or maim) a lot of people in a hurry, regardless of any consideration for the lives of the people killed. I don't recognize that god. Nor should anyone who calls themself a Christian (try the Gospels).
I thought life came first in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
In addition, a few people are acquiring armories in a hurry, planning to use militia-style tactics to overthrow people they think are wrong, or hate, or dislike, or for some reason feel are worthy of being killed or need to be overcome.
Trump is busy inciting these people.
Hate crimes are up.
And the US has off the charts deaths by gun violence compared to all but the most violent and uncivilized countries in the world.
What is the matter with some regulation? What is the matter with maintaining the peace? Why is it necessary to provide military grade weapons without limit to anyone who wants them?
123
@Joseph
And it is OVER. DONE WITH. So, accept victory. That's what good citizens do.
2
I am aware that I am not addressing the legal specifics here. If some locations prefer to make their areas safer, I'm for it. If some others feel that impinges on their right to be able to kill and maim, that, to me, is dangerously blind and unfair to those of us who want sensible gun laws.
We don't want to take away your guns. We just don't want to be caught in violence, hatred, or shooting wars that don't need to happen. And that goes double for children, not to mention accidents.
4
@Joseph
I didn't say machine guns. I wrote
"a high powered machine that can kill (or maim) a lot of people in a hurry, regardless of any consideration for the lives of the people killed."
I also complained about the refusal to accept sensible gun regulations. Guns are a tool for violence, and people with anger management issues should not be able to own them without any regulation.
[comment mods, don't know why you refused to post this earlier]
4
Where is SCOTUS in clarifying exactly what is meant by "a well regulated militia"? This language surely suggests some restrictions?
8
@scott Please use Google. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment does not read that you can own firearms for the purpose of maintaining a well armed militia, but rather that you have the right to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" AND "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." This is a common misunderstanding. Penn and Teller have a great bit on it that you could also find on Google with your newfound skill.
7
@Henry
Slick, Harry.
Except your "AND" is not in the amendment, which is why you don't quote it. You sly dog.
That changes everything.
The amendment says, and rather clearly, that for the purpose of maintaining a militia people may keep arms.
It says nothing at all about laws requiring arms to be kept safely locked away in a safe, or transported in the trunk of a car, or anything else.
It certainly doesn't say anything about gun registration, micro-stamping ammunition, training, or insurance requirements. Those options remain open.
All this hoo-hah about restricting someone's rights if you require them to know what they are doing with a gun, or that they are mentally stable enough to do it responsibly, or that they don't have a record of blasting people away with shotguns is puffery.
You may as well claim its illegal to require people to pay for weapons and ammunition because then only rich guys would have guns, and we all know what that would mean.
8
@oogada
He quoted the amendment in full as the second sentence in his comment.
English has changed over the years, and the constitution itself is intentionally ambiguous in a number of ways. So it's quite important to understand the typical legal interpretation of it.
And as for the 2nd amendment, his 'and' would be that. The first section is considered the prefatory clause. It's given effectively as an introduction to the second section which is considered the operative clause, or what is effectively protected by the amendment.
7
I agree with some folks here. New York State and City legislatures pass arbitrary gun laws at their discretion, which are then upheld by NY State Police and the NYPD. Law abiding gun owners in NY need a supreme court ruling on this.
18
@Tony
So you believe states should have no legislative power and everything should be run by a central government in Washington?
Interesting...
3
Law abiding gun owners use their weapons to commit suicide. So that’s something to think about.
The plain fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment establishes the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, without abridgment, period. Quite a few states, New York included, have been restricting those rights for years. It’s time people were able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights. I know that many people do not agree but it is the law nonetheless.
16
@Larry
The right to kill trumps the right to live?
I don't want your high-powered killing machine anywhere near me. I like walking down the street without bullet-proof armor, and without fearing that somebody in a rage has a gun capable of killing a lot of people in seconds.
1
@Larry
Again with the word games. What do you mean "abridgement"?
That there can be no regulations whatsoever regarding gun ownership?
Because even your new pet, The Supreme Court, doesn't agree with that. It was one of your uber-conservative justices who went out of his way to make that point.
Those were bad times full of ignorant and evil people; slavery was also legal at that time. And people in the 18th c. did not have arsenals of assault rifles. And if you have a gun, the Constitution says that you have an obligation to defend the country and its laws; that's what the militia is for. Are our gun owners doing that? It seems like all they want to do is break laws and turn their "right to bear arms" into a free-for-all massacre of other Americans.
The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights applies to all Americans, regardless of which state they live in. States and cities should stop pretending the 2nd Amendment does not say what it says. It says “the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t not permit “all manner of gun-control measures, including bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.”
Instead of denying the right to keep and bears arms does not exist or pretending that the amendment’s sentence structure is confusing, gun control advocates should focus on crafting a new amendment that would modify or repeal the 2nd Amendment.
An amendment that permitted the federal government to ban to restrict gun ownership probably wouldn’t be ratified. But an amendment that permits states to ban or restrict gun owner ownership stands a chance at ratification. Why should Texans care if New Yorkers and Californians want to disarm themselves?
4
@William Case Two words, "Jim Crow". And, states can amend their constitutions to prohibit specific, identifiable groups from voting. States could temper free speech, so others won't be distressed. Some states might find, speedy trials and a jury of peers too bothersome.
If the Second Amendment goes first, the First Amendment will be second.
9
@Mike
I don’t think we should pretend the 2nd Amendment does not say what it says. If we can do that, we can pretend the entire Bill of Rights doesn’t mean what it says. I am not oppose to an amendment that would modify or repeal the 2nd Amendment.
2
The 1st amendment DOES have limits. That's why there are libel laws and defamation cases. There are also restrictions on cyber bullying, and you can't criticize white people on Facebook. No one seems to object to these restrictions on free speech, but everyone gets hysterical if we want to restrict people from having assault rifles. If you want a smooth bore musket, fine; that's what the 2nd amendment allows you to carry.
Let the Justices rule on this case.
It could stop other jurisdictions from infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners. Americans rights have been trampled over the years by left leaning judges and justices. It is time to restore those rights to the people.
15
@John Gilday
The right to life of hundreds of thousands of Americans has been trampled over and over, over the years, by gun-bearers who were law abiding until they weren't. Life once taken cannot be restored, but the right to live in this country in domestic tranquillity needs to be restored.
10
@Paul
The right to life of millions of Americans has been trampled over and over, over the years, by abortion
1
I find it difficult to follow the logic, as mentioned in the article, of having gun owners not have the freedom and right to transport their legal gun to out of state, to another location where it may also be legal, etc.
To then offer the somewhat strained declaration that the gun owner therefore isn't really inconvenienced is about as asinine of a conclusion as I've heard in some time.
Again, note that these are law abiding folks who, for whatever reason, choose to own a gun. I doubt those doing mayhem will either think about the law, nor raise an eyebrow about having it change.
21
@reid
I agree, and I agree that repealing the law made sense. That is not the issue any more. The issue is that gun lovers want the whole universe in their sights. (Sorry, I'm getting really fed up with people who are not satisfied with winning.)
1
No, I don't want New Yorkers, or Virginians, or Englishmen, bringing their guns to New Jersey. If that restricts the amount of people coming to New Jersey, good riddance.
If New York could make such a law betting it would never reach the Supreme Court, then what's going to stop rest of the states making such laws hoping the Supreme Court would ignore them?
18
@John A.
God, maybe? Intelligence, maybe? Paying attention, maybe? Anyway, there was no such bet.
It is really appalling how demanding the gun people are and how little they care about the rule of law. The Second Amendment is not enough; they want the sky.
1
I couldn't disagree more. The SC needs to put a dagger in the heart of these senseless laws that restrict rights. They should proceed and strike down any provision in this law they deem fit, whether it was repealed or not.
33
@Jerry
The dagger in the heart should be going to the right-wing extremists' "foundations" and "institutes" that refuse to accept the opponent's complete concession, and stir up lawsuits to undermine the rights of workers and other people.
2
@Jerry
Ah, kill them. Great logic!
When hatred is armed, it makes life harder for everyone but the haters.
1
@Jerry
Because a dagger in the heart is as deadly as a bullet.
"The justices would be wise to let [New Yorkers] have the last word."
Alas, I do not think a majority of the justices see wisdom in the same way as The Editorial Board of The NYT. This country's justice system is fighting for its constitutional life. If it does not survive, I don't see how our democracy is restored by the next president who may very well be dealing with civil disorder not seen since President Lincoln.
14
Why do gun lovers and those who profit from gun sales disregard the specifics of Second Amendment with respect to “militias” and the musketry of that day?
We would surely be a much safer country if the Amendment were interpreted in the terms of when it was originally written!
Do the gun lovers really enjoy so much the killing all around the country that this interpretation, like that of the NRA, celebrates and promotes? What really, emotionally or psychologically, do they get from all those deaths?
Mystery to me, but also a considerable threat to me and my family.
6
@Kathy
Should the 1st and 4th amendments also be limited to the technology and understanding of the time in which they were written?
No Miranda warnings. No protection on police warrantless searches of cell phones or computers because cell phones were not part of your "effects" in the 18th century. No problem with government prior restraint on email or online publishing since neither was part of the "press" as understood in the 18th century.
And so on.
2
@Kathy
Scalia's opinion was based on a technicality.
As I recall, the majority opinion said that militias were mentioned only in the second amendment's "preface" and therefore were irrelevant. (The minority opinion pointed out that prefaces are important when a law is ambiguous, as is the second amendment)
Yes. This case is constitutional review upside down. Many (most?) countries with constitutional review of statutes review compliance with their constitutions before or concurrent with the laws going into force. The US does not. No case or controversy, the judges say. Now the Supreme Court would determine whether a repealed statute complied with the Constitution? I haven't heard of that taking place anywhere else in the world. Wow! Weird.
5
@JR Under English law its impossible: a court has no jurisdiction if the matter before it cannot be remedied by court order.
I doubt the court will pursue it but if they do that will be both the executive and the judiciary overthrowing hundreds of years of settled law and practice. And the senate has already committed a gross procedural error by refusing to allow the hearing of Merrick Garland's nomination.
The so-called "conservatives" have morphed into destructive radical nihilists. And I dont hear democratic voices thundering against this. At best the democrats put out a concerned murmur.
13
@Dave So why should we follow English law in not having abstract review? Massachusetts has it, not to speak of many countries around the world, e.g., Germany.
1
It’s obvious why they want the case dropped- the Court hasn’t opined since the Heller decision over a decade ago on the Second Amendment. The Court found an individual right but didn’t expound on its scope. Deciding the case with a 5-4 majority would allow conservative justices to broaden the now-bare right. Liberals would love that right to remain undefined until they have a chance to regain a majority at which time they’d no doubt attempt to limit its scope and mitigate the damage they see Heller as causing.
11
As it’s clear New York is simply bidding its time until the Court would uphold such a regulation, the present Court should take the opportunity to prevent the reinstatement of such a law by issuing a ruling which says emphatically laws which restrict an individual’s right to posses a firearm outside of his or her own home, effectively nullifying such a right, are unconstitional.
11
@Jack
Great idea. That would allow the Supreme Court to preempt states' legislating powers. Pretty soon we could stop electing local officials because the Supreme Court could forbid zoning regulations or parking fines.
3
@Jack
If we follow your logic, then why don't we just simply allow every one in this country to strap a gun on their side like in the old west. Where is this country going? Don't we have enough gun-related violence already?
So I am convinced by the commenters who support continuing the case before the SCOTUS on the grounds that although the various governmental have voided the laws and/or regulations, those same governmental bodies could turn around and reenact those same or similar laws or regs if the Court does not rule.
AND by that same logic, the president should be impeached.
Although he did attempt to bribe a foreign government into interfering in our coming election process, when it was clear that his efforts had been discovered and were about to be made public, he released the funds authorized with bi-partisan support of Congress. Thus, according to the president's apologists, the claim against the president is moot. But just because he did not succeed in completing this "deal", that does not mean that he might not turn around and try to bribe another foreign country into doing his personal biding. In fact we have a documented history of the president - before and after his win in the electoral college - buying off two women to keep them silent about his extra marital affairs (paid but failed), 10 or so instances of obstruction of justice enumerated by the Mueller Report (attempted but once again failed), and the president's own request in front of the press to get China to interfering in our elections. We can reasonably infer that save for impeachment, the president will very likely try yet again to subvert our elections.
But wait! TBC
15
@easchell OK, which Democrat congressman said, "If Trump is not impeached, he will be re-elected."?
A. Al Green Representative (D-TX 9th District)
If you picked A, you are winner.
Nothing before the Court is as likely to have saved the lives of my 15 neighbors massacred at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School more than demanding existing laws be enforced and competence demanded from those entrusted to safeguard our children, schools and communities. It’s fantasy to think the Court will save us through action or inaction.
11
@Seth Eisenberg The shooter, Cruz, at MSD HS, was very well known to local law enforcement. There was no way, he should have been allowed to buy a weapon.
If local law enforcement does not take the lead to enforce and local prosecutors don't prosecute people, that lie on gun purchase applications, what can we expect when all guns are banned for everybody?
Cruz should have and could have been prevented from buying that gun.
4
@Seth Eisenberg
Somehow I imagine many of your "neighbors" would not agree.
You say anything that doesn't solve the whole problem is a waste of time. That's just silly.
The regulations you decry here might have saved one. That would have been something.
@Mike
2nd Amendment enthusiasts in Florida (along with Marion Hammer, the NRA's powerful lobbyist) set up Florida law so that Cruz's past would not prevent his purchasing guns.
1
Every informed person knows that the NY politicians manipulated the law in an attempt to have the Supreme Court dismiss this case. Given the proven history of legal manipulation (unmentioned by the Board's editorial) the Court is completely correct in proceeding with this case.
41
@dhwjj Proceed with what case? There is no law to strike down. This is a case of refusing to take "yes" for an answer. (Of course it's clear that the gun lobby wants to give its right-wing justices the chance to issue some broad ruling prohibiting any and all regulation of firearms. But the Supreme Court isn't supposed to issue rulings on its own, without a case to rule on...)
38
@John Bergstrom The only reason the city and state changed the law was because SCOTUS granted certiorari. They are afraid that their infringements on law abiding gun owners will come to an end. If they had such good intentions why did they defend their unconstitutional law tooth and nail at The circuit And appeals level? There is no justification to defend the old law, which is why NY panicked and changed the old law in a pathetic attempt to make the case go away. They know other laws like the safe act and Sullivan law are unconstitutional, which is why they are afraid that their oppression of the second amendment will slowly come to an end. When tyrants like the corrupt NY politicians are afraid of losing a grip on their power free will and liberty wins.
1
@dhwjj
What fictitious history do you read? There is no such history that bears on this case. If the 0.00000001% chance that New York were to restore the law should take place, then it would be the time to sue again and get a court decision.
Some people amaze me. They will not accept what they claim to want. What they really want is the moon and the stars and they will climb over the law, the people, and the country to get it.
1
NYC is going to feel the effects of its legislative over reach.
For too long racist, classist gun laws restricted even the most law abiding responsible citizen from owning a firearm without hundreds of dollars in expenses, multiple days off work and and travel to 1 Police Plaza.
A lawful premises permit holder could not even lawfully transport their firearm out of the city to take training courses which many gun control advocates want to require. Now NYC is trying to retreat from its draconian laws on their own terms but it may not be that easy.
Just as the NRA crowd will one day rue the day for their intransigence, so too will NYC for theirs. Of course no one will, but wouldn't it all be easier if people just made reasonable compromises instead of staking out the liminal position.
36
@Ted
The lengthy and expensive procedures necessary to own a firearm in New York were applied without regard to race or class. From years past, I remember reading columns written by conservative white males detailing the difficulties they encountered in try to obtain permits for shotgun ownership in New York City.
9
"The lengthy and expensive procedures necessary to own a firearm in New York were applied without regard to race or class."
Quite false. The rich and well-connected never had a problem.
6
The cost and the time themselves are inherently racist and classist. The Fortune Fifty CEO I knew who wanted a full carry permit simply had his chief of security do 99% of the work. The money is peanuts to the Wall Street crowd but not too many of the working class.
Have read enough in this newspaper to know what this case is about. And when I saw the headline, I knew where the Board was going and what their argument would be.
Heller has been decided. The verdict on the Second Amendment is in. And sooner or later, the Court must decide how far Heller goes. The Board's argument is to delay the inevitable. But sooner or later, the inevitable is coming. The reach of Heller must be determined. This Court is not the one we prefer. But it's the one we've got.
The Board is asking for pie in the sky. A decision is coming. They should stand up and face the issue. The Second Amendment does not go beyond the home. In fact, it was never intended to go where Heller took us. Argue the merits. There will be no delay.
4
"The Second Amendment does not go beyond the home."
Curiously, my copy of the amendment does not mention homes.
11
@michjas
Are you suggesting that the universal right to an effective self-defense is limited to the inside of a home ?
4
@Steve M
Right! Just that "well-regulated" militia.
It is not moot, and more than one justice agrees.
13
Gun ownership, like First Amendment rights, are essential to democracy. People have the right to vote and to shoot each other in a democratic society. The gun and the ballot are equivalents. That more people aren't voting or using guns is mind boggling. If Americans want to shoot each other, that's their right. If they want to vote, that's just another way of neutralizing their opponents. The difference is that the gunners can be prosecuted and the voters can kill their opponents in secret. That's all, from a Constitutional stance, anyway.
14
@Max And Max I'm not certain if you're trying to be sarcastic or not, but you are in fact correct. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "The First Amendment sleeps soundly in its bed at night only because the Second stands ready to do violence on its behalf."
10
@Max And Max -- Gun ownership is in no wise "essential to democracy" . . . unless you are suggesting that, say, Australia is not a democracy!
@Max And Max Don't forget the right to block subway doors. Once they confiscate the guns you're never gonna stand there again! It's tyranny!
1
As a lifetime member of the NRA I am strongly opposed to existing gun laws, much less expanding them. They make as much sense and have as much effectiveness as making criminals illegal.
13
@Legendary Economist- Perhaps it's worth reviewing the "economic"(and other) facts: Every year, gun violence costs the American economy $229 billion or 1.4% of GDP. In 2017, for the first time, the rate of firearm deaths exceeded the death rate by motor vehicle accidents. That year, nearly 40,000 people were killed in the United States by a gun, including approximately 2,500 school-age children. That is over 100 people per day and more than five children killed each day. Sixty percent of gun deaths each year are firearm suicides. ...Directly measurable costs include lost income and spending, employer costs, police and criminal justice responses and health care treatment. Indirect costs include reduced quality of life due to pain and suffering. Gun homicides are also associated with fewer jobs, lost businesses and lower home values in local economies and communities across the nation."
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b2ee3158-aff4-4563-8c3b-0183ba4a8135/economic-costs-of-gun-violence.pdf
34
@Legendary Economist: You can never tell if somebody is being ironic these days. We have quite a large industry, public and private, devoted to making crime illegal. Some aspects of law enforcement are clearly overdone and pointless, but some of it makes total sense.
4
There are general exceptions to mootness. The most applicable here are voluntary cessation and capable of repetition.
Where a defendant is acting wrongfully, but ceases to engage in such conduct once a litigation has been threatened or commenced, the court will still not deem this correction to moot the case. Obviously, a party could stop acting improperly just long enough for the case to be dismissed and then resume the improper conduct. For example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., the Supreme Court held that an industrial polluter could not claim that the case was moot, even though the polluter had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution. The court noted that so long as the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, it could open similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the penalties sought.
Also, a court will allow a case to go forward if it is the type for which persons will frequently be faced with a particular situation, but will likely cease to be in a position where the court can provide a remedy for them in the time that it takes for the justice system to address their situation. The most frequently cited example is the 1973 United States Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, where the case was heard long after Plaintiff Roe ceased to be pregnant.
Just because New York changed the gun law doesn’t mean they can’t go back again after the case is over.
49
@LegalEagle
Wouldn’t that line if thinking simply make us slaves to the Judiciary? After all, in theory, a legislative body could potentially enact or re-enact any law at all. If we believe that the mere possibility that the legislature may enact a law is enough for the Court to preemptively disallow it and tell them where the Constitutional line falls, what sherd the requirement of actual controversy do we have left?
... and if that line is gone what is restraining the Judiciary from simply dictating what the law is?
15
@LegalEagle
Your analogy is wrong. Laidlaw had plainly violated an existing law and caused present and residual harm. I quote from Wikipedia: "Standing was properly based on the fact that the residents alleged that they would have used the river for recreational purposes, but could not because of the pollution." Laidlaw was "an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued."
Note that the pollution does not disappear when the chemical plant is closed down.
This is not analogous to harm disappearing upon repeal of the New York law.
4
@LegalEagle Only a Conservative (FOX media follower?) could think that after repealing a law a city would pass it again just to show they could! Just because Republicans lie through their teeth every day does not mean that everyone everywhere does it just because!
1
I fear that four of the justices can't wait to do just the opposite of what the Editorial Board suggests; and the Chief Justice will probably go along with them.
Must EACH of us lose a loved one before the gun lobby is stopped? The rest of the world looks at us with a mixture of pity and disbelief.
162
@bnyc Indeed, no further lives should be lost, and no one agrees that the price for having the second amendment is innocent lives to be lost, or anyone innocent being injured. Absolutely not.
But look at what the prohibitions in these laws provide, and you would likely admit that there is no clear path to cessation of gun violence.
Much of it is due to lack of respect for another human, for a life, or complete disregard to having someone injured with potential for lifelong consequences. It just doesn't flow from restriction, which this law is all about. One must keep guns from not those willing and able to hold and use them as allowed by law, but from those who are immature or disturbed enough to use them in the manner we all despise.
4
@bnyc We need responsible gun control legislation...emphasis on responsible. Obviously people with mental issues or children shouldn't own an AK-47. But the NY law wasn't responsible and the Supreme Court needs to make a statement. The issue here is that the gun control zealots have shown they will happily cross the line to further their agenda. They will only pull back unconstitutional laws such as the one NY tried to put in place when challenged by a SCOTUS review. SCOTUS may as well rule on the case now or face the endless cycle of bad laws, the threat of SCOTUS review, law rescinded. The NY law was enacted in bad faith, as evidenced by the pull-back once SCOTUS review was a possibility. Repealing the law to prevent the Court from finding it un-Constitutional is an evasion strategy. If the Court finds the case moot, there is nothing to stop New York from re-instating the restrictions. So if I steal your wallet and give it back to you before the police show up then I'm home free? There is no case because I reversed my illegal action before any consequences could be imposed? New York did indeed pass the law and then went to court to enforce it. They shouldn't be able to just go "my bad" after likely infringing on the rights of thousands of law-abiding citizens. New York forcefully oppressed their citizen's Constitutional rights under threat of severe criminal sanctions. They need to be sent a strong message that such unconstitutional behavior will not be tolerated.
10
@bnyc - We really can't understand why reasonable, highly effective solutions used throughout the developed world for decades can't be employed in America. Surely government is for the people and not only gun manufacturers who wear a NRA mask.
The number of Americans who needlessly die each day because gun manufacturers game the system is shameful and avoidable. Right now is the perfect time to have this discussion - in 2020 no politician will get my vote unless she/he commits to controlling guns.
7
“New Yorkers have made their voices clear about the gun transportation ban through their elected representatives. “. Have they? Can anyone believe they are anti-ban?
12
The Problem is that the City can turn right around and re-enact the same ordinance as soon as the litigation goes away.
29
I am continually amazed at what this country has given up. The Supreme Court has been lost for thirty years. For what?
The extreme left sacrificed our common future over illegal immigrants. Their extreme positions led to the election of Trump.
And their extreme positions, now, will lead to his re-election.
34
@Willt26 I think you're right. I still pull the lever for the Dem but between guns and immigration I sure do pause. There are other issues for me but there are probably many like me who don't view things as broadly.
4
"extreme left"
lol
2
@Willt26
What in the world are you talking about?
@somsai
Do you believe the lie that Democrats favor unlimited immigration? Do you believe the lie that Democrats "want to take away our guns"?
6