Well, well, this should be interesting.
Gun-control advocates worry that a ruling could spell doom for measures that have been considered lawful by appeals courts in the past nine years, like assault weapon bans and restrictions on gun use outside the home.
A decision is expected by July, in the midst of the 2020 presidential election.
Looks like Justice Thomas may be going to lay law down.
As often as they find a way to disappoint us I’m not going to get too excited about this case but if they do what they should based on The Constitution it will change forever how gun rights are viewed in this country.
I hope for the better.
I would think the fact they took up the case even after NY tried their bull â– â– â– â– would be an indicator of something.
Maybe @Safiel has some thoughts.
There is another option - the case gets dismissed.
In any case, the justices have decided to move forward with oral arguments. They have warned the attorneys who will be arguing on Monday that they should be prepared to debate whether the case is still active.
“We hope and expect that the court will dismiss this case as moot,” Shearer said.
If it does so, the legal landscape for gun legislation will likely be unchanged, at least for now.
If NY retracted their case for the reason given in this article, thank you for bringing it up in the first place NY.
The Supreme Court should adhere to its long standing voluntary cessation guidelines, as applied to governments, which overrides any suggestion of mootness.
Refer to the scholarly article above for history and details. The article is drawn from the entity’s amicus curiae brief in the case.
It is interesting to note that what New York City is attempting was tried on numerous occasions by southern States. Changing or repealing racist laws to prevent or impede judicial review. The Supreme Court saw through their bad faith and created the voluntary cessation doctrine.
New York City vigorously defended their law at the District Court and Second Circuit. But like the southern States half a century ago, they changed their laws in bad faith in an attempt to impede judicial review. The Supreme Court, as it did in the civil rights cases, should invoke the voluntary cessation doctrine, ignore the suggestion of mootness and proceed to decide this case on its merits.
Oh no. One of the unelected robed monsters of doom is going to “lay law down”? Everybody duck.
Yeah! Yankee sons of… wait what!?!
I hope they come back with no restrictions on fire arms.
Never happen. They have armed guards.
I thought that was the reason people were voting for Trump?
Why would you think that?
Why?
…
I’ve been out shooting with some of the yahoos around here. They’d be mounting them on their pick up trucks.
ok. And?
I just can’t see it ending well. That thing is closer to artillery than it is to “arms” that we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear.
Not at all. Having said that, that thing is very difficult to bear.
I can’t see a lot of things ending well, but that’s not what rights are about. We have to wait until they end before we can judge.
Arms, as I understand it, are weapons that a soldier might typically carry on his person to a field of battle. That doesn’t fit that description.
