SCOTUS: to rule on gun rights

[philip964]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 251054002/

USA Today shaking. They may expand gun rights.

[srothstein]

I am surprised that SCOTUS is keeping the case alive. I thought it would die as a moot case when the state law was passed banning cities from those types of restrictions. I saw two explanations for why the case is going to be heard still:

1. SCOTUS hates when cities or states try to manipulate the court by repealing laws to make cases moot. It is a trick that allows the laws to stand in other places and the city could reimpose the same or a very similar law.

2. The two new conservative justices (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch) are really pro-gun and want to make a ruling to help with carry rights. If this is true, expect a fairly general and far-reaching ruling. It may even deal a death blow to may issue permitting schemes.

I have to say that I doubt this case would be heard without Kavanaugh and Gorsuch being there. And for that, though I may not like his behavior or agree on all his positions, I have to say thank you to President Trump for nominating them and standing behind them throughout the confirmation process.

[chasfm11]

This case could be better than Peruta if the decision goes the way that Steve suggests.

[RoyGBiv]

SCOTUS oral arguments are still not televised, right?

Working from home today. Would like to watch.

[Flightmare]

SCOTUS oral arguments are still not televised, right?

Working from home today. Would like to watch.

That is correct. Which means unless we're in the room, we have to wait and see if someone made an audio tape or the judicial opinion to be released.

[Jago668]

Video of a guy that was in the room.

[dlh]

I am surprised that SCOTUS is keeping the case alive. I thought it would die as a moot case when the state law was passed banning cities from those types of restrictions. I saw two explanations for why the case is going to be heard still:

1. SCOTUS hates when cities or states try to manipulate the court by repealing laws to make cases moot. It is a trick that allows the laws to stand in other places and the city could reimpose the same or a very similar law.

2. The two new conservative justices (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch) are really pro-gun and want to make a ruling to help with carry rights. If this is true, expect a fairly general and far-reaching ruling. It may even deal a death blow to may issue permitting schemes.

I have to say that I doubt this case would be heard without Kavanaugh and Gorsuch being there. And for that, though I may not like his behavior or agree on all his positions, I have to say thank you to President Trump for nominating them and standing behind them throughout the confirmation process.

The Supremes may say, as they did in Heller, that these laws violate all three tests (the rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny standards) and accordingly find them unconstitutional. This might be an attractive option from their standpoint as it kicks the can down the road regarding which of the three tests has to be used and avoids in-fighting on which test is proper.

[mojo84]

Looks like at least one of the justices may think it is a moot point.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supr ... -argument/

[jason812]

Looks like at least one of the justices may think it is a moot point.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supr ... -argument/

It would appear that the city changed it's laws/rules after the case was taken to the Supreme Court. It also appears that this was done to get the case thrown out. I'm guessing it is due to fear NYC would lose the case. If the case is dropped before a ruling can be made, the city gets to keep it's other 2A infractions in place. If the court rules the way we would like, NYC could lose all of it's anti 2A laws. I believe the city is trying to maintain its power over the citizens by trying to get the case dropped.

[Soccerdad1995]

Looks like at least one of the justices may think it is a moot point.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supr ... -argument/

That's Ginsberg. She stopped being a real justice a long time ago, if she ever was one. She is an activist who happens to wear the robe of a SC justice.

Trump will replace her with an actual justice next term.

[jb2012]

Looks like at least one of the justices may think it is a moot point.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supr ... -argument/

That's Ginsberg. She stopped being a real justice a long time ago, if she ever was one. She is an activist who happens to wear the robe of a SC justice.

Trump will replace her with an actual justice next term.

I sure hope so. There’s no way she won’t retire within the next 5 years, but I also question how she’s still sitting on the stand today.

[crazy2medic]

Looks like at least one of the justices may think it is a moot point.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supr ... -argument/

That's Ginsberg. She stopped being a real justice a long time ago, if she ever was one. She is an activist who happens to wear the robe of a SC justice.

Trump will replace her with an actual justice next term.

I sure hope so. There’s no way she won’t retire within the next 5 years, but I also question how she’s still sitting on the stand today.

With her constant in and out of the hospital over the last year I highly doubt she has a year much less 5 years!

[mojo84]

Looks like at least one of the justices may think it is a moot point.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supr ... -argument/

That's Ginsberg. She stopped being a real justice a long time ago, if she ever was one. She is an activist who happens to wear the robe of a SC justice.

Trump will replace her with an actual justice next term.

According to the article, it may also be Roberts.