Supreme Court Sides With New York In Gun Rights Case
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 7 months ago
The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped issuing a major ruling on a New York handgun law, a blow to gun rights advocates and the Trump administration, who had hoped the conservative majority would expand gun rights as early as this term.
In an unsigned opinion, the court said on Monday that it sent the case back to the lower court because after the justices agreed to hear the dispute, the New York City law at issue was changed. The court directed a lower court to consider remaining claims from the challengers of the law.
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, said in a concurring opinion that while the court should sidestep the case at hand, he also agreed with the dissenters’ concerns that lower courts have been thumbing their noses at Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd Amendment and said the court should “address that issue soon.”
Brett Kavanaugh is just a scared little boy in man’s work. There is also coverage at Ammoland here and here. The later analysis at Ammoland is a bit too Pollyanna for my tastes. The bottom line is that the court is comprised of six progressive justices, two reliable conservative/libertarian justices (Gorsuch and Thomas) and one conservative justice (but who will ordinarily side with police powers over individual rights). The rest couldn’t care less about you.
Roberts is a Bushie. He is just doing what Bush would have wanted him to do – Bush was ready to sign a new AWB except that he couldn’t get the Congress to go along with it. Roberts can always be counted on to side with the progressives on heavy duty, important cases.
As I’ve said before, don’t expect the black robed tyrants to protect your God given rights and liberties. I do agree with one commenter.
The court jesters ruled in Heller that the enumeration of the right removed it from government regulation and they still retain thousands of rules unlawfully infringing the right to this day in complete defiance of their ruling. This should be noted when they rule it means nothing, has no weight, no force. Clowns in gowns is all they are.
Heller and McDonald may as well have never been decided because they mean nothing. They were weak anyway, but the counties, states, FedGov, and lower courts laugh that their decisions, daring them to make others like it.
Dogs show submission by peeing when they greet you, showing their belly, putting their tail between their legs, and lowering their head. They get a sense of security knowing their rank. The “Supremes” behaved like dogs.
|
|
On April 27, 2020 at 10:48 pm, George 1 said:
Don’t be too sure of Gorsuch. He already sided with the lefties on an immigration case that would have made it easier to deport certain classes of aggravated felons.
On April 28, 2020 at 2:51 am, Dan said:
As is usually the case the SCOTUS avoids hearing 2A cases whenever they can possibly do so. They simply DO NOT WANT to rule on the issue because that would force them to expose their beliefs and agenda. Any ruling that infringes on the Second Amendment exposes those who support it for being the lying hypocritical rights abusers they are. And
they DO NOT WANT to rule in favor of the Second because ALL of the judges on that court are firm and wholehearted believers in Big Government and MORE POWER for said government. They do NOT wish to expand our 2A rights in any way if they can avoid it…..and they have done a VERY good job at avoiding the issue for decades. In the past 80 odd years they have only heard a handful of 2A cases.
On April 28, 2020 at 10:00 am, Michael (from Utah) said:
Brett Kavanaugh was the wrong guy to pick. My own believe is that Amy Coney Barrett should have been Trump’s pick, but I suppose I could be accused of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
That said, the Supreme Court has never been in the business of protecting your rights. The court is there to validate and rubber stamp expansions of governmental power as “constitional”, which carving out exceptions to your rights under the guise of, you guessed it, expanding governmental power.
On April 28, 2020 at 10:03 am, Michael (from Utah) said:
Sorry, I meant “My own belief…”
I’m guilty of trying to multitask too often and it doesn’t work well. :)
On April 28, 2020 at 10:03 am, Herschel Smith said:
Don Willett would have been the best choice.
On April 28, 2020 at 12:34 pm, Frank Clarke said:
The whole notion of “mootness” is a plague that needs to be rooted out. Its operative result is this:
— unconstitutional law gets passed
— challengers lose in lower courts
— when challenged at SCOTUS, the law is repealed making the case moot
— lower court precedent stands that the unconstitutional law is acceptable
— challengers get to do it again (expensively) in every jurisdiction as the now-acceptable infringement is repeated.
That’s not justice.
On April 28, 2020 at 12:43 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Frank,
Precisely. It’s legal wrangling, playing the court system, and it’s immoral, but acceptable as long as the SCOTUS plays along with the nefarious gaming.
They don’t care. About us, or their reputation as thinkers.
On April 28, 2020 at 4:56 pm, X said:
The Supreme Court started to use sophistry to undermine the intent of the Constitution after FDR threatened to pack the Court in 1937… and by the 1960s, they were merely inventing “constitutional rights” out of thin air… “right to birth control” (Griswold v. Connecticut), “right to an abortion” (Roe v. Wade), “one man, one vote” legislative districting (Baker v. Carr), “bona fide occupational qualifications” that forbid an employer from requiring a high school diploma if it has a “disparate impact” on Negroes (Griggs v. Duke Power) “diversity” enabling universities to have racial quotas so long as they don’t call them quotas (Bakke v. University of California), and the “right to pornography” (Lemon v. Kurtzmann).
They haven’t paid any attention to the actual language of the Constitution for a half-century (unless it suits their political biases to do so). They’re not gonna start now.
Just remember, George Washington, Henry Knox, Anthony Wayne, Nathaniel Greene, and Horatio Gates didn’t go to London and beg British judges for their rights…