Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Supreme Court hears gun control case that inspired court-packing threat from Dems
13 views
Skip to first unread message
2A
Dec 3, 2019, 5:09:49 AM12/3/19
to
The Supreme Court took up its first major gun control case in
nearly a decade on Monday, hearing arguments in a dispute
between a gun advocacy group and New York over a statute that
restricted the transportation of firearms outside city limits --
even when licensed, locked and unloaded.
The city's statute was later amended but the court heard
arguments over the original measure anyway, in a case that could
have ramifications for local gun laws. The fact the high court
even considered the case -- New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association v. City of New York -- prompted a stunning complaint
earlier this year from Democratic senators, who filed a brief
essentially threatening to pack the court absent changes.
The warning underscored what could be at stake in Monday's case.
The Supreme Court has not issued a significant gun rights
decision since 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller. Since then
the court applied Heller – which recognized the right to possess
a firearm for purposes such as home protection – to states via
the 14th Amendment in 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. A 2016
ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts, which dealt with a state ban
on stun guns, did not focus on traditional firearms but
acknowledged that the Second Amendment extends to other weapons
as well.
It's unclear whether the case before the court on Monday could
join the list of landmark Second Amendment cases.
The law in question said city residents could apply for a
"premises" license to keep a firearm in their home, but they had
to keep the weapons at home. Licensees were permitted to take
their guns to one of the seven authorized city shooting ranges
if kept in a locked container. The New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association fought the law, claiming it was unconstitutional to
keep people from bringing their weapons to second homes or
ranges outside of the city.
While the court agreed to hear the case, New York City amended
the regulation following a change in state law, removing
prohibitions against transporting locked, unloaded, licensed
firearms to homes, shooting ranges, or competitions outside the
city. The city and its supporters claimed that the change
ultimately makes the case moot.
Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia
Sotomayor appeared to agree.
"The Petitioners have gotten the relief that they sought,"
Ginsburg noted during Monday's arguments. Sotomayor told
plaintiff's attorney Paul Clement that this was "a case in which
the other side has thrown in the towel and completely [given]
you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for
relief..."
Clement argued this was not the case, and that the new law is
still unclear because while it permits "continuous and
uninterrupted" transportation of firearms on their way out of
New York City, it does not address what would happen if a gun
owner, for instance, takes a coffee or bathroom break along the
way.
Sotomayor noted this is an issue with the new law, not the old
one at the center of this case. The new law has yet to be
reviewed by lower courts. Justice Stephen Breyer also said he
believes that people who stop for coffee while transporting guns
would not be prosecuted.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, pointed out that
stopping for coffee while transporting a gun would still have
been a problem under the old law, so this issue should be
relevant in the current case. The attorney for the city,
meanwhile, argued that such breaks "are entirely permissible,"
as the "continuous and uninterrupted" language is absent from
the state's law, which is controlling.
Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, however, argued that the
plaintiffs could be awarded damages for economic harm suffered
while the old restrictions were in place. Ginsburg noted that
this could have been a lifeline for the plaintiffs' case, except
they never requested damages.
"They've had every opportunity to say that they want damages,
including today," Kagan pointed out, "and for whatever reason,
Mr. Clement has, you know, basically said this case is not about
damages."
What the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association really wants
is for the court to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of
the old law, which could impact future legislation.
Clement claimed that a ruling was necessary to send a message
regarding the unconstitutionality of limiting the transportation
of firearms, which could prevent future prohibitions from going
forward.
It was to the backdrop of this case that Democratic senators
issued their warning earlier this year.
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," said
the brief, filed in August by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.,
Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard
Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "Perhaps the
Court can heal itself before the public demands it be
'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
That brief drew criticism from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and
others.
“When you hear Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme
Court….....they are talking about making the Court more
liberal,” Graham tweeted at the time.
Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, a well-known liberal voice
and fierce critic of the Trump administration, also came out
against the Democrats on this issue, calling their brief
“inappropriately --- and stupidly --- threatening.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hears-gun-control-
case-that-inspired-threat-from-dems
nearly a decade on Monday, hearing arguments in a dispute
between a gun advocacy group and New York over a statute that
restricted the transportation of firearms outside city limits --
even when licensed, locked and unloaded.
The city's statute was later amended but the court heard
arguments over the original measure anyway, in a case that could
have ramifications for local gun laws. The fact the high court
even considered the case -- New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association v. City of New York -- prompted a stunning complaint
earlier this year from Democratic senators, who filed a brief
essentially threatening to pack the court absent changes.
The warning underscored what could be at stake in Monday's case.
The Supreme Court has not issued a significant gun rights
decision since 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller. Since then
the court applied Heller – which recognized the right to possess
a firearm for purposes such as home protection – to states via
the 14th Amendment in 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. A 2016
ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts, which dealt with a state ban
on stun guns, did not focus on traditional firearms but
acknowledged that the Second Amendment extends to other weapons
as well.
It's unclear whether the case before the court on Monday could
join the list of landmark Second Amendment cases.
The law in question said city residents could apply for a
"premises" license to keep a firearm in their home, but they had
to keep the weapons at home. Licensees were permitted to take
their guns to one of the seven authorized city shooting ranges
if kept in a locked container. The New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association fought the law, claiming it was unconstitutional to
keep people from bringing their weapons to second homes or
ranges outside of the city.
While the court agreed to hear the case, New York City amended
the regulation following a change in state law, removing
prohibitions against transporting locked, unloaded, licensed
firearms to homes, shooting ranges, or competitions outside the
city. The city and its supporters claimed that the change
ultimately makes the case moot.
Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia
Sotomayor appeared to agree.
"The Petitioners have gotten the relief that they sought,"
Ginsburg noted during Monday's arguments. Sotomayor told
plaintiff's attorney Paul Clement that this was "a case in which
the other side has thrown in the towel and completely [given]
you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for
relief..."
Clement argued this was not the case, and that the new law is
still unclear because while it permits "continuous and
uninterrupted" transportation of firearms on their way out of
New York City, it does not address what would happen if a gun
owner, for instance, takes a coffee or bathroom break along the
way.
Sotomayor noted this is an issue with the new law, not the old
one at the center of this case. The new law has yet to be
reviewed by lower courts. Justice Stephen Breyer also said he
believes that people who stop for coffee while transporting guns
would not be prosecuted.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, pointed out that
stopping for coffee while transporting a gun would still have
been a problem under the old law, so this issue should be
relevant in the current case. The attorney for the city,
meanwhile, argued that such breaks "are entirely permissible,"
as the "continuous and uninterrupted" language is absent from
the state's law, which is controlling.
Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, however, argued that the
plaintiffs could be awarded damages for economic harm suffered
while the old restrictions were in place. Ginsburg noted that
this could have been a lifeline for the plaintiffs' case, except
they never requested damages.
"They've had every opportunity to say that they want damages,
including today," Kagan pointed out, "and for whatever reason,
Mr. Clement has, you know, basically said this case is not about
damages."
What the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association really wants
is for the court to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of
the old law, which could impact future legislation.
Clement claimed that a ruling was necessary to send a message
regarding the unconstitutionality of limiting the transportation
of firearms, which could prevent future prohibitions from going
forward.
It was to the backdrop of this case that Democratic senators
issued their warning earlier this year.
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," said
the brief, filed in August by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.,
Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard
Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "Perhaps the
Court can heal itself before the public demands it be
'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
That brief drew criticism from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and
others.
“When you hear Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme
Court….....they are talking about making the Court more
liberal,” Graham tweeted at the time.
Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, a well-known liberal voice
and fierce critic of the Trump administration, also came out
against the Democrats on this issue, calling their brief
“inappropriately --- and stupidly --- threatening.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hears-gun-control-
case-that-inspired-threat-from-dems
!Jones
Dec 3, 2019, 10:18:01 AM12/3/19
to
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 11:05:50 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns 2A
<consti...@usa.us> wrote:
>The Supreme Court took up its first major gun control case in
>nearly a decade on Monday.
<consti...@usa.us> wrote:
>The Supreme Court took up its first major gun control case in
SCOTUS used to be a respected group of professional jurists who were
trusted to arbitrate varying constitutional interpretations
impartially. Today, they're just another group of special interest
hacks who blow in the political wind. Actually, one can accurately
make a similar statement about the legislative branch. (Is there any
possibility the house won't impeach never mind how weak the case? Is
there any conceivable "high crime" and body of evidence that would
cause the senate to remove no matter how serious and air-tight the
case). I have no comment about the executive branch.
The 1787 constitution has certainly had a good run... but any document
that has lasted 232 years is simply geriatric. That material was all
written to a late 18th century society and obviously no longer
applies; to survive, we must bring our governing documents into the
21st century. Instead of arguing over what a group of old
slave-owners in white wigs meant to have said in 1787, we should be
writing what it *does* say in 2020.
Essentially, our democracy is failing... and they do die; ours can
easily die quickly, clutching a dead document.
BTR1701
Dec 3, 2019, 10:58:18 AM12/3/19
to
In article <55cd7faa5ee403fc...@dizum.com>,
warning that you've gone completely off the rails.
2A <consti...@usa.us> wrote:
> Clement claimed that a ruling was necessary to send a message
> regarding the unconstitutionality of limiting the transportation
> of firearms, which could prevent future prohibitions from going
> forward.
>
> It was to the backdrop of this case that Democratic senators
> issued their warning earlier this year.
>
> "The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," said
> the brief, filed in August by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.,
> Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard
> Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "Perhaps the
> Court can heal itself before the public demands it be
> 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
>
> That brief drew criticism from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and
> others.
>
> "When you hear Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme
> Court...they are talking about making the Court more liberal,"
> Clement claimed that a ruling was necessary to send a message
> regarding the unconstitutionality of limiting the transportation
> of firearms, which could prevent future prohibitions from going
> forward.
>
> It was to the backdrop of this case that Democratic senators
> issued their warning earlier this year.
>
> "The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," said
> the brief, filed in August by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.,
> Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard
> Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "Perhaps the
> Court can heal itself before the public demands it be
> 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
>
> That brief drew criticism from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and
> others.
>
> "When you hear Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme
> Graham tweeted at the time.
>
> Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, a well-known liberal voice
> and fierce critic of the Trump administration, also came out
> against the Democrats on this issue, calling their brief
> "inappropriately --- and stupidly --- threatening."
If Laurence Tribe is telling you you're too liberal, that should be a
>
> Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, a well-known liberal voice
> and fierce critic of the Trump administration, also came out
> against the Democrats on this issue, calling their brief
> "inappropriately --- and stupidly --- threatening."
warning that you've gone completely off the rails.
trotsky
Dec 3, 2019, 1:09:30 PM12/3/19
to
Just Wondering
Dec 3, 2019, 1:28:57 PM12/3/19
to
Go for it, nobody's stopping you. Let us know how that works out.
0 new messages