"It would mean that judges couldn't consider the public safety need for any given gun law and would only be looking at whether the law is supported by early American history," she said.dissent"Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny," he wrote.
So, too, with fellow conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who were part of the Heller and McDonald majorities, though their records are less certain. The suit was brought by a group of gun owners living in New York City and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, an NRA-affiliate group, which challenged a New York City regulation barring the transport of handguns outside the home, including to a second residence.
Attorneys for New York argued that the city's move made the case "moot," or no longer active, and urged the court to dismiss the matter. But the court has not done so, and the gun owners argue that their case is still live because the city could still penalize them for past violations.
Does it really matter? At the end of the day we're just going to have to hope that on any given day some gun freak doesn't decide to just shoot up the place we happen to be in at that particular point in time.
What's an 'assault weapon'
NYCNavid Scotus especially justice Roberts has a choice put a target on every school age child's back and for his historical legacy be labeled a traitor or ignore the Federalist Society and do the right thing.
That chick is ripped
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
U.S. Supreme Court weighs challenge to New York gun transport limitsThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first major gun rights case in nearly a dec...
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Gun control advocates nervous as Supreme Court takes up first 2nd Amendment case in a decadeUS Supreme Court set to wade into gun control debate for the first time in nearly a decade on Monday, hearing a dispute over an NYC gun restriction that could have major implications for gun rights nationwide. I’ll boycott states, businesses, people with pro control positions regardless
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »
The Supreme Court hears its first gun-rights case in a decadeNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. (NYSRPA) v City of New York is the case gun-rights advocates have been waiting for since 2008 “A firearms advocacy organization founded in 1871”. 🤔.
Source: TheEconomist - 🏆 6. / 92 Read more »
Supreme Court hears biggest Second Amendment case in a decadeAfter nearly a decade of silence, the Supreme Court is poised Monday to consider a case concerning the scope of an individual's right to keep and bear arms in a dispute concerning a New York City gun regulation. Gun ownership actually promotes a more civil society. Gun ownership actually allows for the possibility of raising a real army. Thus a leader would need to stand before like-minded men and argue his point of them going forth into conflict. NRA I think the moral of the story is that anti-gun people need to stop making unreasonably restrictive gun laws if they don't want them challenged and precedent set.
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »
U.S. Supreme Court to hear its first major gun case since 2010A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the U.S. Su... I want to believe this issue, any issue will get a fair hearing at SCOTUS. It takes an extra helping of faith these days. Well, most of the supreme court anyway.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Gun safety groups brace for Supreme Court moves on 2nd AmendmentFor the first time in nearly a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will consider Second Amendment rights in a closely watched case that gun safety advocates worry could set a dangerous new precedent. A dangerous new precedent is an advocate group wanting to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. 'well regulated', it says. Armed forces represent THE PEOPLE, and SHOULD be the only ones PERMITTED to carry guns.
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »