Not at all. It's actually appropriate. That's simply a "signal" that they aren't going to indicate they are leaning one way or another ahead of time.
NYC transport case -- Supreme Court Punts and Vacates
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
Not at all. It's actually appropriate. That's simply a "signal" that they aren't going to indicate they are leaning one way or another ahead of time.
Erich
Member
J. Thomas had the flu. He was back for the next arguments. No biggie.
Thank goodness!
Sistema1927
US Veteran
Post #20 has now become a pdf on my computer.
zogger
Member
I think this is good news but I am not holding my breath. I don't like the wording "...protect the ability of government to enact and enforce gun laws that are consistent with the Constitution. " Not sure how laws can be consistent with "shall not be infringed"
Sistema1927
US Veteran
Here would be one to begin: "All able bodied males, between the ages of 18-145, and unless registered as a pacifist, are required to own, maintain, and be ready to present, a rifle, appropriate accessories, and ammunition in defense of the Republic as members of the unorganized militia."
schutzen-jager
Member
QUOTE - NRA BACKS THIS CASE
YOUR NRA CONTRIBUTIONS AT WORK! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just because the NRA states that they are backing it does not mean that they have invested any money , legal aid , or input to the matter - a lot of their expenditures are now going to salaries + administrative expenses -
YOUR NRA CONTRIBUTIONS AT WORK! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just because the NRA states that they are backing it does not mean that they have invested any money , legal aid , or input to the matter - a lot of their expenditures are now going to salaries + administrative expenses -
Last edited:
zogger
Member
While SCOTUS seems to allow this kind of law, IMHO it still violates "shall not be infringed". If the people really wanted various exceptions to the 2nd amendment, then we should adopt a new 2nd amendment. Otherwise, all these laws should be gone.
Sorry for being off topic here.
Not dead yet.
1. They could amend their complaint to include damages. (probably an easy win for the petitioners)
2. The court could decide that there's a likelihood that NYC will revert to it's previous bad practices: 'voluntary cessation of a
challenged practice moots a case only if it is "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."'
#2. would be a better act on the Court's part, although it goes against precedent, because it would serve as a warning to other states that want to play NY's games with late repeals of patently unconstitutional statues.
1. They could amend their complaint to include damages. (probably an easy win for the petitioners)
2. The court could decide that there's a likelihood that NYC will revert to it's previous bad practices: 'voluntary cessation of a
challenged practice moots a case only if it is "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."'
#2. would be a better act on the Court's part, although it goes against precedent, because it would serve as a warning to other states that want to play NY's games with late repeals of patently unconstitutional statues.
OP
Not all. Alito questioned the new law pretty rigorously.
In any event, as you can see, oral arguments are a small part of SCOTUS cases. It's done on briefs. Seems the conservative group isn't too thrilled with NY's actions trying to moot the case at the 11th hour.
OP
NYC admitted the old law violated the Constitution:
A Positive review of the Oral Arguments
I found this to be well written and worth the read. It gave me some hope that relief might be forthcoming from the SCOTUS:
Supreme Court Hears Gun Rights Case Arguments – Shore News Network
I found this to be well written and worth the read. It gave me some hope that relief might be forthcoming from the SCOTUS:
Supreme Court Hears Gun Rights Case Arguments – Shore News Network
Similar threads
