A watershed moment on the way?

[armoredman]

The New York case against carry restrictions gets heard on Dec 2nd at SCOTUS. This is a Cam and Co review of what might happen.
https://youtu.be/dlz9-beubPQ

[steerclr]

Thanks for posting.  I wasn't up to speed on how municipalities we making "work a-rounds" to the 2nd admendment.

[armoredman]

Oral arguments were not recorded, but apparently only three justices asked questions, and RBG and Sotometyer asked why the case was even there - they have a vested interest in keeping it mooted.

[steerclr]

Thanks for the update

[AZ_CZ]

Oral arguments were not recorded, but apparently only three justices asked questions, and RBG and Sotometyer asked why the case was even there - they have a vested interest in keeping it mooted.

It's a valid question. The original case was based on State laws that have since been changed making any ruling concerning those SPECIFIC laws moot. The Supreme Court has specific criteria for hearing a case that limits arguments to the specific case filed and not something different in scope. It's like someone brought a suit to bring back original Coke but by the time it gets to SCOTUS they want to argue about White Claw.

Having said that I'm glad they are looking at the issue and hope we get some clarity.

[armoredman]

The issue with mootness is the fact that they obviously changed the law to avoid SCOTUS review, since they won at the District level. If they were sure the law would pass muster they would have defended it. This also means that there is nothing stopping them from simply changing the law back after the Court dismisses it as moot...and the whole vicious cycle starts all over again. Then there is the blatant threat against The Court that if they DON'T judge it moot, then the Demonrats will pack the court, expand it to 11 or more and pack those new spots with leftist justices, which IS legal under the Constitution, since there is nothing that says what size the court has to be. I think at one time it was 11. FDR tried this once, too, and, IIRC, the Court caved in order to not be rendered a liberal sidebar.

[Tahmail]

Pretty narrow scope of actual "gun issues" here.  I don't see it as a watershed moment but anything helps in this environment.

[M1A4ME]

And one of the big names behind the efforts to take our guns/rights, Michael Bloomberg, just put out a big add about why the Supreme Court is endangering all of us by looking at this case at it could result in dismantling "necessary" gun safety laws all across the country.

[armoredman]

We can only hope that all kids of laws get dismantled. 

[spt_1955]

The issue with mootness is the fact that they obviously changed the law to avoid SCOTUS review, since they won at the District level. If they were sure the law would pass muster they would have defended it. This also means that there is nothing stopping them from simply changing the law back after the Court dismisses it as moot...and the whole vicious cycle starts all over again. Then there is the blatant threat against The Court that if they DON'T judge it moot, then the Demonrats will pack the court, expand it to 11 or more and pack those new spots with leftist justices, which IS legal under the Constitution, since there is nothing that says what size the court has to be. I think at one time it was 11. FDR tried this once, too, and, IIRC, the Court caved in order to not be rendered a liberal sidebar.

I believe it is actually worse than this because AFTER NYC changed the law and files a petition for mootness which was denied the state of NY stepped in and enacted a law that would not allow a local government to issue "special permits" like the NYC Transport Permit. THey then filed another petition for Mootness.

[armoredman]

We have a few months yet to wait for the final verdict.

[MadDuner]

I hope RBG quits showing up for work.