Wed Aug 14, 2019, 03:32 AM

Dem Senators threaten Supreme Court

Sheldon Whitehouse: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”

It had been almost a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court took a major 2nd Amendment case, something Justice Clarence Thomas lamented in a dissent from the Court’s refusal to hear an appeal from a 9th Circuit decision upholding California’s 10-day waiting period even for those who already owned guns legally and had gone through the permitting and background check.

Thomas wrote:

Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance. We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years. Peruta v. California, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 7). And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving the Fourth Amendment—even though our jurisprudence is much more developed for those rights.

If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari….

The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.

So when the Court, in January 2019, agreed to take a major 2nd Amendment case, it was a big deal, We wrote, Supreme Court agrees to hear 2d Amendment case involving NYC firearm transport restrictions:

The Supreme Court finally has agreed to hear a 2d Amendment case, the first time since the Heller v D.C. (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decisions….

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a challenge to a New York City law barring transport of lawfully owned firearms except to one of six licensed firing ranges. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.

The Petition for Certiorari described the Question Presented:


New York City prohibits its residents from possessing a handgun without a license, and the only license the City makes available to most residents allows its holder to possess her handgun only in her home or en route to one of seven shooting ranges within the city. The City thus bans its residents from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits—even if the handgun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition, and even if the owner seeks to transport it only to a second home for the core constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense, or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting range to hone its safe and effective use.

The City asserts that its transport ban promotes public safety by limiting the presence of handguns on city streets. But the City put forth no empirical evidence that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in a container separate from its ammunition, poses a meaningful risk to public safety. Moreover, even if there were such a risk, the City’s restriction poses greater safety risks by encouraging residents who are leaving town to leave their handguns behind in vacant homes, and it serves only to increase the frequency of handgun transport within city limits by forcing many residents to use an in-city range rather than more convenient ranges elsewhere.

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

After the case was accepted and extensively briefed by the parties and dozens of groups filing Amicus (friend of the court) briefs, N.Y. City tried to avoid a decision on the merits by changing the law, which it claimed in a July 22, 2019 Suggestion of Mootness, required that the Court dismiss the case:

The Court granted certiorari in this case to decide whether a New York City regulation violated the Second Amendment or another constitutional guarantee insofar as it banned the “transport a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits.” Pet. for Cert. i. Two subsequent changes in law render that question—and this litigation—moot. First, the City has amended the challenged regulation to enable holders of premises licenses to transport their handguns to additional locations, including second homes or shooting ranges outside of city limits. Second, the State of New York has amended its handgun licensing statute to require localities to allow holders of premises licenses to engage in such transport. Independently and together, the new statute and regulation give petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit. The Court should accordingly vacate the decision below and remand with instructions to dismiss—or at least to consider in the first instance whether any Article III case or controversy still exists.

Everywhere the Constitution says “the People” it’s pointing out an INDIVIDUAL Right, not a Collective right

4 replies, 255 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dem Senators threaten Supreme Court (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Aug 2019 OP
Da Mannn Aug 2019 #1
Bob the Bilderberger Aug 2019 #2
Lowrider1984 Aug 2019 #3
Thorson Aug 2019 #4

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 07:07 AM

1. If Democrats cannot win, they will use Soviet style intimidation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 08:37 AM

2. Sheldon Whitehouse needs anger management classes

The guy always comes across as seething with anger at something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 10:41 AM

3. "How DARE these Justices rule against the democrat plan?!"

"You WILL "heal" yourself or WE will "heal" you our way!"
"You will not like our way!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 11:15 AM

4. Democrats simply don't like The Constitution. They want to rule, not represent.

They don't like that it reins in their power. It's a shame that they are not reprimanded for trying to destroy the Constitution that they swore to uphold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink