Second Amendment supporters rejoice…
…as Supreme Court decides to hear a critical case
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. The case represents the first Second Amendment issue the justices will hear since the landmark 2010 case of City of Chicago v. McDonald, which extended the establishment of the Second Amendment as securing an individual right from the federal government to the state governments.
The legal question presented in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., per SCOTUSblog, is “Whether New York 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.”
By Frank Miniter
At the SHOT Show in Las Vegas this past week – an annual trade show put on by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to finally hear another Second Amendment case is the second thing everyone is talking about – the first being the coolest and smartest new gun designs being unveiled.Everyone except Larry Keane that is. He’s the senior vice president and general counsel for the NSSF, and for him, the court’s decision is first and foremost on his mind. “With the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, this case could be decisive,” says Keane.
The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. New York City, at a minimum will decide whether or not a New York City law that limits residents’ ability to transport their guns outside of their homes is constitutional. Currently, residents in that city can carry a licensed (if they can get one), locked and unloaded handgun to one of seven shooting ranges within city limits, but nowhere else, including homes or shooting ranges outside of the city.
Keane is worked up because lower courts have been disagreeing with each other over basic gun rights questions for years. Some courts have even ruled that a local government can ban the most popular firearm design sold today – semiautomatic firearms – just because some are cosmetically different than others.
“It is long past time for the Supreme Court to give some guidance,” says Keane as we stand on the trade show floor amidst miles of aisles of guns and related products. “The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights shouldn’t be treated as if it is irrelevant, as New York City has done. Too many lower courts have simply disregarded Heller.”
The rest of the article may be read here: Fox News
Cautiously optimistic, with the addition of Justice Kennedy to the bench. If it goes 5-4 as I believe it will, surely other cases closer to home- the ability for citizens to carry is not decided by the State, but by the Constitution, for example.
Category: Second Amendment
What hurts or helps is the definition of “semi-automatic”.
TECHNICALLY (and I disagree as much as anyone who enjoys firearms) a double action revolver is semi-automatic.
If the powers that be could see that scrutiny it could either educate how little difference that distinction makes or just outright say “nothing aside from the bolt action rifle I pose with for campaign photos”.
Speaking as a commuter who works in a city in New York that requires I work nights from time to time.
And all of my revolvers are single action while my semi auto pistols are probably as illegal if I just kept a zip-gun in my glovebox.
You cannot make a zip gun anymore because they changed car antennas. Can probably find a piece of tubing the right size. Made my first zip gun as a kid in Brooklyn in the early 50’s but finding .22 cartridges in New Yawk City was the problem. For the uninformed, take a piece of 2×2 or 2×4, tape the car antenna to it, mount a door bolt with a sharpened edge so the edge strikes the antenna opening where a .22 shell is inserted with the brass edge catching on the opening retaining the shell in the “chamber”. Use strong rubber bands to propel the bolt towards the shell when you flip the bolt out of the slot. Badda boom, badda bang, you have violated New Yawk’s Sullivan Law and faced serious jail time if caught which is why we fired them on apartment building roofs because the cops were too out of shape to climb the five flights of stairs. All of the above was why I enlisted in the AF three days after my 17th birthday.
Absolutely wrong. A semiautomatic functions by the firing of a cartridge – exhaust gas or the recoil of the case against the bolt face. A double action revolver (or for that matter, a single action too) is driven by the human hand. Fire one, and another round does not come into position to fire without external action of a hand.
Color me skeptical. As Suzanne Sherman points out, Heller was not a “win”. https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/08/22/how-heller-botched-the-second-amendment/
“The biggest misconception about the Bill of Rights is that it grants rights to the people.” S. Sherman
Well, hell. I can see that. “…[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The idea, I suppose, is that the ‘right’ exists independent of the 2nd A and that the purpose of the 2nd A is to prohibit the Federal gov’t from infringing on that right. The problem with that take, as I see it, is that if there is no right under the 2nd A, then there is no right to be lost. It cannot simply exist in the ether. So, she lost me altogether with that. Plus, the Bill of Rights, as we all know, constrained only the central gov’t, not the states. Thus, the right that she does not recognize as included in the 2nd A could have been eradicated by the states.
I enjoy a litany of “rights” not bestowed or even mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Given that they are not codified, do they exist in the ether? Here’s my main issue with Scalia’s opinion : “Section III of the opinion starts with the following sentence and offeres a perfect example of why it is imperative to refer to the Second Amendment as a restriction and not a grant of rights: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” meaning, it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Had the amendment been held to the standard as an absolute restriction against the general government, there would be no room to whittle away at a pre-existing right. As the jurist mentioned earlier, the right was antecedent to the Constitution and the founders and ratifiers felt it best the general government have a hands-off approach in this area. Citing United States v. Miller 307 U. S. 174 (1939), Scalia qualifies the types of firearms “protected,” as those which were deemed to be those “in common use at the time.” Also crucial to the Second Amendment “right” is the right to self-defense, as he explained in section IV of the Court’s opinion. The handgun, the primary focus of the law at issue, is “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” He points out how easy a handgun is to store in the home, that it is readily accessible when needed, that it cannot be easily taken away, that it’s easier for those without upper body strength to use, that it can be held in one hand, and that handguns are the most popular choice among Americans for self-defense. Herein lies another fundamental flaw in Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. By focusing on the popularity of the handgun, he leaves open the possibility that other firearms may be considered to be outside the purview of the Second Amendment.” ~S. Sherman He did us no favors by unnecessarily waxing about handguns. Not trying to be argumentative. I always… Read more »
Much of what Scalia wrote is dicta, so many words that were unnecessary to the decision rendered. I do wish that he had kept that to a minimum but he did meander about. I do not agree with Sherman that this was a flaw in his legal reasoning. Much went undecided in the decision and, the fact is, that, as in most close decisions, he had to accommodate others in the majority to build that majority. What the current Court does with this and other 2nd A cases sure to come before it will reveal more to us. It’s rather a shame that five individual lawyers in black robes get to dictate how we are to understand and apply the language of the 2nd A, but that’s the way it is. I still heave when I recall the tax pronouncement that was health care insurance and the ‘fundamental right’ to same-sex marriage that was, after more than 200 years, found to be hidden in our Constitution.
I appreciate your reply. I fear we are, step by step, approaching the day when the 2nd will mean handgun only, for defense and hunting only… or God know what. I think that someday (if not already) Heller will be regarded as a “cut” among the death of 1000 cuts.
The notion of consent of the governed sums it up for me. I wish someone would mention it in an opinion.
PS: I know you’ve focused your superpowers of anger, control, and narcissism on me to get ME to think like YOU. I think it worked, just a little bit. Congratulations.
And as we ask everyone to turn into the Gospel according to Brother John Moses (Howitzer be his name) Browning, Chapter 19 verse 11, I verily beseech ye Brethren and Sisters to ask said supposed elected by the people representatives….
What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” don’t they understand?
The Founders did not put the 2nd A in there so the Citizen could hunt for food. It was put in there because the Founders knew that there may come a time when the Citizen would need to protect life and limb from an oppressive government. That time is very, very nigh for us now. We are teetering on the edge of an oppressive government taking total control of our Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those who give up freedoms for supposed security will soon find themselves with neither.
It is not just the organized military of this Country that has kept foreign invaders at bay. It is also the 10s of millions of armed citizens. The main threat to freedom loving Patriots is more from domestic enemies v a foreign invader. If we had not had a strong 2nd A, the jack booted heel of the despot would have already been driven into the soft underbelly of defenceless women and children. Be Aware….Be Very Aware…
ps nice gun pr0n ‘Ed,…TanKs. Always good to see a Swabbie so enthralled with Army Hardware!
Amen.
I cannot support or compromise any further restriction for that reason.
A.) It (common sense gun control, stronger background checks, banning novelty peripherals such as bump stocks) won’t work.
B.) When it doesn’t work then they will want more legislation until we are protecting ourselves and enjoying range time with registered baseball bats covered in foam that can only be removed with permission.
Ya know, I’ve been going pretty light on the Nautically Challenged here, and what do I get? Even a nice email from AP has this dirt digger dog face BS in it. Now this? Army hardware? Pffft, here’s some Navy hardware..
These are war shots fired in anger, no lookie loos on the fo’c’sle.
Show off.
Call my people, do lunch. Later..
Anyone still using BBs or 16″/50s ?
The 1911 lives on in many hands.
Still have the old Daisy round-mag BB gun I got when a child. Still shoots accurately enough to outshoot the grandkids’ Red Ryders.
I’ll see your popguns and raise ’em 1000, Squiddly Diddly 🙂
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/atomic-annie-the-nuclear-gun
Atomic Annie? Now, where have I heard that before? (smile)
Not bad, but this Army hardware packed a whole lot more wallop (up to 80kT) – as well as an 1100 mile range..
Tanks Hondo, Rub his little salty dog nose in it (smirk) I knew you’d come thru for us.
goarmybeatnavy
I’m sorry, did you say something? I couldn’t hear you over the awesomeness of Polaris.
yeah, yeah, yeah…and the keepers of the ruined rifle range, aka a golf course, have silos full of Minute Men IIIs.
You cannot tote none of this high speed low drag hardware in a cross draw tankers holster as befits a true warrior.
You also cannot deny that Brother John Moses Browning (Howitzer be his name) did perfect some of the best hardware known to Army kind everywhere, which in turn, was adapted for use of all of the “sister” services. Amen..and turn to Rev 19:11 for the readings.
And so we’ve come full circle.
But the ride was pretty fun. *grin*
Personally, if I was going to be impressed by crazy Navy ideas, it would be this:
https://archive.org/details/gov.doe.0800018
Nuclear ASW weapons, really? Didn’t know such things existed. Or something.
“Eradication of Earth’s
Population loves Polaris.”
Dave Mustaine (Megadeth)
The 16in. guns were nuclear capable as well.
Supposedly the Rooshians 160mm mortar was nuclear capable. Only had a 10 mile range… dunno if I would want to trip off even a small nuke that close.
It is easy to shoot if your gubmit doesn’t give a shit about the gun crews.
Watching the SCOTUS closely to see who of the Republican appointed Justices will be the first one to “evolve”.
Funny how only the right of center Justices evolve.
If this new York blatant violation of the second is upheld the 2nd will mean nothing and states will go full force to ban and confiscate. Some already are doing it. Piss on this fake as s justice system it’s about to fail and lose all credibility in my view. Can kill babies legally can’t own a firearm in the same state what the fuck.
Killing babies and can’t own a gun…
Probably the worst laws ever passed by any American state or federal government ever…
Makes me sick to my stomach, literally to think about that and the manner that they celebrated the new law…
I just can’t watch this shit on TV anymore and find myself watching my large assortment of DVD’s, Amazon Prime and a few Red Box rentals now.
Two possibilities:
1- The Supremes, instead of making an actual ruling, just say the case was handled improperly and hand it back to a lower court to be re-litigated. They’ve done this a number of times since Ginsberg went all Weekend at Bernie’s.
2- Chief Justice Roberts decides that the Second Amendment doesn’t really exist at all, because that’s what the people who have the pictures of him with sheep tell him to say.
Thanks Dave P, I was wondering what they had on Roberts.
The Supremes took this case because it is such an outrageous law.
Of course, preventing a citizen from transporting his unloaded and locked,legally owned and registered gun from his NYC apartment to his vacation home in Montauk is ridiculous and unconstitutional.
This case was granted cert. because the conservatives on the court are likely to declare that only strict scrutiny can be used to judge the constitutionality of gun laws.
Strict scrutiny means that only the narrowest measures can be used to carry out the law.
Controlling large numbers of gun owners to prevent a single road rage incident during transport will not be allowed under strict scrutiny.
(New York argued that this is the basis for this law)
Only the lesser levels of scrutiny like intermediate scrutiny or rational basis allow for gun control under the guise of “common sense” gun laws.
They picked this egregious case because it is a perfect example of gun control masquerading as gun safety.
This case is critical because it relates directly to the “bear” part of “keep and bear.” Watch closely, and weigh every single word in the decision very carefully. This is truly a landmark case, IMO.
And it’s not over until the fat lady sings.