Supreme Court Takes Up Gun Case

[Libertas]

The United States supreme Court has taken up another gun control case. This one involves a New York law that prohibits people from taking their firearms out of the city limits. Of course the Supreme Court is going to strike this law down.

If for no other reason, the federal government regulates interstate travel and trade. States have no right to regulate how people travel between states. Prohibiting someone from carrying their personal property outside of a city limit violates rights granted to the federal government.

Also, this is just an absorb law. People have a right to travel freely between cities and other states.

Why do states like New York pass such stupid laws? It is as if they sit and think about how stupid they can make their city and state look.

 

[deprogramming services]

Whatever decision the Court makes will not define the law; the meaning of the law is already clear. The decision will define the Court, as either a lawful judicial body doing its sworn duty in defending the Constitution, or a criminal gang, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

If the Court will not do its duty the American Republic is just an illusion, and we are a de facto democracy, which means rule by mob.

 

[Libertas]

Whatever decision the Court makes will not define the law; the meaning of the law is already clear. The decision will define the Court, as either a lawful judicial body doing its sworn duty in defending the Constitution, or a criminal gang, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Welcome to the community depro.

The courts should uphold the law, but courts such as the the ninth circuit typically ignore the law for their own agenda.

The supreme court will probably strike down the law for a number of reasons. If the government can tell people they can not take their firearm out of a city, then they can do the same thing for any other form of property.

 

[IamZeke]

On a side note, Trump has been fixing the 9th's little red wagon. At this point he's almost made it a conservative majority. Liberals will be forced to go find another district for their judge shopping because liberal circuit court rulings will be regularly overturned. At this point it is looking like the DC district appeals district is most libtard friendly, but that always carries the shadow of "DC doing it to us again" mentality that liberals try to avoid. The appearance of nationwide appeal is part of their strategic thinking to convince everyone they are in the majority. Demoralizing your enemy is part of winning. Trump taking 2020 election will completely crater the liberal passion for law via court action. They will be stuck again with going to the voters, who even if liberal as not as widely radical. That will force them to ride the Bidens and Clintons instead of the Sanders and Obamas. In races like that the conservative side always stands a decent chance of winning elections. Trump is salting the grass roots liberal backdoor avenues.

 

[Libertas]

On a side note, Trump has been fixing the 9th's little red wagon. At this point he's almost made it a conservative majority.

That is probably why Nancy hates Trump so much.

A few more justices and democrats will not have a safe haven court to run to.

 

[Snuffy]

Grabber groups across the nation begged NYC to abandon this law in an effort to avoid a decision by the SCOTUS. NYC did scrap their law . Now they are arguing that the issue is moot and should not be heard by the court. I would think the Court could not strike down a non existing law, but instead will fire a warning shot across the bow of anyone considering such legislation in the future.

 

[deprogramming services]

I hope the Court does its sworn duty in defending the Constitution, but I'm not confident it will. Most gun control laws are illegal and should be thrown out but they rarely are.

The illegal Lautenberg Amendment was upheld by the Court in a 6 - 2 decision, and one of the two dissenters, the ultra liberal Sotomayor, did not dissent on grounds that the law in question violated the 2nd Amendment; only Clarence thomas voted to defend the law. One out of eight (Scalia had not been replaced yet).

There are two new faces on the Court now and they are expected to vote as loyal Americans. Add them to Thomas and that's three out of nine. Still a big loss. Even after Ginsberg is gone and (presumably) is replaced by a loyal American it will still be four out of nine. Still a loss. Unless one who committed treason by voting to uphold Lautenberg somehow magically becomes a patriot. Not likely, but who knows.