Second Amendment

New York City, Which Defended Its Onerous Gun Transport Restrictions As Necessary for Public Safety, Concedes They Weren't

Several justices seem skeptical of the claim that revising the rules after SCOTUS agreed to consider a challenge to them made the case moot.

|

For decades, New York City enforced uniquely onerous regulations that effectively prohibited licensed pistol and revolver owners from taking their weapons outside their homes, even when they were unloaded and stored in a locked container, unless they were traveling to or from one of seven gun ranges in the five boroughs. When several gun owners challenged those regulations, the city successfully defended their constitutionality for five years, obtaining favorable rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. But after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of that decision, the city rewrote its rules, backed a state law that eased restrictions on transporting guns, and urged the Court to drop the case, arguing that the regulatory and statutory changes made it moot. During oral arguments today in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, several justices seemed skeptical of that claim, which is transparently aimed at avoiding a Supreme Court decision that could clarify the contours of the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Richard Dearing, the attorney representing New York City, whether a prior violation of the old transportation regulations might be held against a gun owner when he tries to renew his license. "It absolutely will not," Dearing said, although the discretion to deny licenses for "good cause" seems to make that a real risk.

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that the possibility of obtaining compensation for economic damages related to the old regulations, although it was not specifically sought by the plaintiffs, might be enough to keep the case alive, as Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued. "This litigation, I think, has taken five-plus years, and that [issue] has become relevant only at this late stage, after the city and the state have enacted a new law," Gorsuch observed. "Why isn't the prospect of allowing damages to be added to the complaint enough?"

Gorsuch also noted that it's unclear whether the new rules allow gun owners to make stops while en route to ranges, competitions, or second homes outside the city. The city says such trips have to be "continuous and uninterrupted," while the state law says gun owners have to be traveling "directly" to their destinations. If those restrictions might be read to preclude stops for coffee, gas, or bathroom breaks, Gorsuch wondered, "why isn't there a live controversy remaining?" He suggested that "despite herculean, late-breaking efforts to moot the case," there is still relief the plaintiffs could obtain only through a decision on the merits.

Dearing assured the justices that the NYPD would not look askance at "reasonably necessary" stops for coffee, gas, or bladder relief, prompting Gorsuch to wonder, "Is coffee reasonably necessary?" While that remark prompted laughter, Gorsuch emphasized his point: "What's going to qualify? I'm just a little unclear about that."

So was Dearing. Justice Samuel Alito, who like Gorsuch remarked upon "the quite extraordinary step of trying to moot the case after we granted review," wondered about a gun owner who drives to a range in New Jersey and stops to "visit his mother for a couple of hours to take care of a few things for her." Dearing was unsure whether that would be allowed. "I think that would have to be a question now to be litigated under the state law," he said. "I hadn't considered the mother or mother-in-law example before."

Speaking for the plaintiffs, Paul Clement said Dearing's assurances are not good enough to make the case moot. "The city took it on itself in Section 7 of the new regs to tell you what they, at least at that point, thought was sufficiently direct, which is 'continuous and uninterrupted,'" he said. "They're now making representations that the reg doesn't mean what it seems to mean….My client[s] shouldn't have to rely on those representations. They should get that in writing in an injunction that would be enforceable. That would be effectual relief."

Perhaps the most telling exchange involved not the mootness issue but the constitutionality of the original rules:

Alito: Mr. Dearing, are the people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?

Dearing: No, I don't think so. We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.

Alito: Well, if they're not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?

Dearing did not have a very good answer, except to say that the city's arbitrary restrictions on transporting firearms may have made its other rules a bit easier to enforce. As the petitioners note, "The only 'evidence' the City has ever mustered to support the tailoring of its policy is an affidavit from a former commander of the state licensing division hypothesizing, with no evidentiary support whatsoever, that the mere presence of a handgun—even unloaded, secured in a pistol case, separated from its ammunition, and stowed in the trunk of the car—might pose a public-safety risk in 'road rage' or other 'stressful' situations." The city will have to do better than that if it wants to demonstrate that its rules were consistent with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which is why it is so desperate to stop the Supreme Court from considering that question.

NEXT: The "Right to be Forgotten" doubles back and shoots the shark

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maybe the Supreme Court should finally make an actual ruling on what the damn amendment actually means, and then maybe cities and states will stop trying to circumvent it through idiotic means and depriving people of rights that are clearly and succinctly stated in the Bill of Rights.

    Sorry, but New York is a symptom of your own fickle nature SCOTUS.

    1. People will always try to diminish others liberties, judicial rulings means nothing.

      1. The court really needs to set a rule that any government official who is found to have violated someones rights has violated their oath of office to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and must be automatically impeached and removed from office or otherwise fired from government employment, and can never again serve in any government position whatsoever, at any level.

        1. Problems will still arise, as long as people are still given the ability to change the rules. The Constitution is great but is still weak in alot of areas. Certain base rights need to be enshrined and immutable. The antifederalists had the right idea.

        2. the Court cannot, unfortunatly, “set a rule” that has the effect of law. What DOES need to happen is that the CONgress must be held, feet to flame, accountable for their failure to make this clear in the law, prescribing severe penalties for violating the oath of office, then the Executive branch MUST enforce them…. even failing Congress “doing their job”, Exec Dept should be laying charges against oath breakers. That is felony perjury. Wanna disarm a bunch of people? Round up and charge all those who have violted their oath of office with felony perjury. That will for sure reduce oath breaking.

    2. They know what the amendment actually means. WE ALL DO! They’ve just been beating around the bush for over 100 years now.

      Also, I’m trying to help a soldier get home for the holidays. Please help out if you can:

      Get Brian Home for Chirstmas

      1. I’m not saying this is not a good cause but you’re posting this GoFundMe and YOU have not even kicked in any money?

        I just looked and there are 0 donations with a goal of $700.

        1. I just set it up. I also bought the dinner just after his graduation and paid for a suit bag for his formals. Excellent point though. Thank you.

          1. And…. I mistyped “Christmas.” Glad I don’t run a charity full time!

  2. Kavanaugh will look to the “traditions“ of Texas and other states to determine the scope of our right to carry. Kavanaugh is a justice because W Bush called Collins personally and urged her to support his former right hand man so you can bet Kavanaugh won’t “mess with Texas”.

    So we have a right to open carry that can be regulated liberally like how Texas for decades heavily regulated handguns outside the home and how Bush 41 signed guns in school zone legislation. But make no mistake then governor Reagan’s legislation to disarm scary black men is unconstitutional on several grounds, but then racists like Reagan tend to not think too highly of several amendments of the Constitution. 😉

    1. Reagan doesn’t think anything he’s dead.

      1. Well we have Reagan on tape calling Africans at the UN “monkeys” so we know Justice Thomas is correct about Reagan’s racism being the motivation for his unconstitutional gun laws.

        1. Yes, but Reagan evolved on his racism just like Obama did with the fags and gay marriage. So no use in bring up old news just to get a jab in at Reagan’s corpse, right?

          1. Actually Justice Thomas brought it up in his Heller dissent. So he pointed out many gun regulations were motivated by racism and Reagan’s blatantly unconstitutional legislation is preserved for history on YouTube unlike Thomas’ other examples. Plus the liberal 9th Circuit recently found Reagan’s prohibition on open carry to be unconstitutional so my comment is very relevant.

            1. And here I thought Justice Thomas was in the majority in DC v Heller. You learn something new everyday.

              1. My bad, generally when I discuss Thomas in this context it is with regard to his Newdow opinion which Stevens references in his Heller dissent. So Thomas correctly asserts the Establishment Clause is a “federalism provision” which is obviously what the 2A is as well. His concurring Heller opinion is powerful and calling the president who gave him a big break a “racist” is straight up BALLER!!

          2. Reagan evolved on his racism?

            I hope not. In the 20’s traveling with his college football team to an away game in Illinois, the lone black player was turned away at the hotel. Reagan took the player with him to his parents house the next town over to spend the night.

            1. So why do you think he signed unconstitutional gun control legislation when scary black dudes started exercising their RKBA??? Such a head scratcher. 😉

              1. As is with most things in life, I t’s not unidimensional in regard to why the law was passed. I’m sure scary black dudes had something to do with it. Even if so, Reagan’s legacy won’t be tainted by legislation he signed when he was a Democrat governor. Say, what’s up with Democrats and their obsession of gun prohibition and confiscation? I’m sure it’s all for the children.

                1. Uh no, he signed it when he was the conservative alternative to Nixon. Such a head scratcher. 😉

                  1. Hmm, interesting. Remember what Reagan said about nominating Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court? “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.” Oopsie! That was LBJ, the Democrat. See how easy that was? I can cherry pick racist shit from your side too, so fuck off you little weaselly prick. While your at it, pick up some Head and Shoulders for that itchy sloped head of yours you keep scratching.

                    1. How original, the “Buh Biden” defense! 😉

  3. It continues to boggle my mind that abortion, a right found only in the penumbras of the Constitution, not even in the 9th or 10th amendment, gets more loving from the Supreme Court than the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, enumerated in an entire amendment all to itself.

    1. Actually right to keep guns for self defense does not come from the 2A pursuant Cruikshank. So the right to keep guns for self defense was a right that preexisted the Constitution. So in Heller all that was necessary was to affirm Cruikshank and because DC is federal territory the court did have jurisdiction. McDonald would have simply incorporated Cruikshank.

      The 2A has to do with the state militias which was also in Cruikshank and if you read Heller the 2A shouldn’t have to be incorporated which means that every justice prior to 2008 was an imbecile.

      1. The second amendment is not only about militias. It’s also about individual right to self defense as well as group defense against governmental tyranny. Ask yourself this, where does the second amendment come from. Start there and you’ll understand it, rather than citing poor decisions from the 1800s. I mean Cruikshank was a joke.

        1. Cruikshank expresses what was believed for over 200 years—the 2A is a “federalism provision”…but Americans have a right to own guns for self defense. I support the outcome of Heller but the underlying rationale is a joke and the evidence is that it took a guy with a 206 IQ to come up with it.

          1. “guns for self defense” yes and what was this idea based off of, which was protected by the second amendment.
            I didn’t like the way Heller went either but they at least went in the right direction with it. You can argue that sure the bill of rights originally didn’t pertain to states on paper, but that definitely changed with the 14th. And there were clearly different understandings of the second amendment depending on who you read. Benjamin Oliver, Joseph story, st George Tucker, Timothy walker. Or pick any number of state Court references, buzzard, ayamette, bliss Nunn. Acting like there was one prevailing consensus is wrong and you should read through more.

            1. Actually if one agrees with Heller then one should be believe that the 2A as written should have applied to the states from day 1. So for America to be a free state then all Americans needed to have the RKBA upon ratification of the 2A. Incorporation doctrine wasn’t necessary which means McDonald was a screw up…ooops. 😉

              Btw, gun laws are the only racist laws in America…right???? I mean voter suppression laws were never racist. 😉

              1. “”Actually if one agrees with Heller then one should be believe that the 2A as written should have applied to the states from day 1″”

                I’ve never really understood the idea that one amendment in the Bill of Rights could apply to states but not others.

                1. And right of the people most naturally means the states. Just like in the first or the fourth amendment.

              2. The bill of rights was never even intended to be in the Constitution. But some wiser men saw from our history with england. That government always oversteps it’s bounds and it’s important to state certain ideas. The addition was a mess and shouldn’t have been necessary because the government has no power to take or restrict those rights in the first place.

      2. All of our rights “preexisted the Constitution.” Or at least that seems to have been the prevailing view of the founders.

        According to our founding documents governments could secure rights, not define them. People “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [meaning that not only can they not be taken away but they can not be given away] Rights, that among [but not limited] to these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        The “Creator” is not clearly defined; Many of the founders were deeply religious but others saw the “Creator” or “Providence” in broader, perhaps metaphorical, terms. None, except possibly for Tom Paine (who actually didn’t participate in the actual founding, he just wrote a couple of the “rule books”) was an actual atheist but they did believe that people had rights that were outside of the powers of princes of priests.

        1. Cruikshank specifically states the right to keep guns for self defense has nothing to do with the 2A but all Americans obviously have that right. The problem is incorporation doctrine didn’t exist at the time so the Supreme Court didn’t believe they had jurisdiction to rule on the matter.

          1. I agree, the 2A does not create our “right to bear arms”.

        2. Thomas Paine was not an atheist.

          1. Maybe, maybe not, hence the “except possibly” in my comment.

            President Teddy Roosevelt called Thomas Paine a ‘Filthy Little Atheist,’ a phrase with as many errors in it as words, since Paine was fastidiously clean, stood taller than most of his contemporaries at five feet ten inches, and was a professed believer in God.

            That whole “professed believer in God” thing comes into question when one looks at the “God” that Paine believed in. “Paine advocated a simple ‘Deism,’ a non-dogmatic belief in a Creator God who deserves our private worship and expects us to be decent to one another. ‘To do good is my religion,’ says Paine.” That to believers in a traditional God is tantamount to atheism.

            FWIW, I strongly dislike militant atheists. I belong to the “I Won’t try to convert you if you don’t try to convert me” school.

      3. You’re talking up Cruikshank as good law?

        Really, Cruikshank?

        So, are you a Klansman, a troll, or just someone who could drive an icepick in one ear and out the other without injuring himself? Because there are very much no other options.

      4. Ok, let’s play this game

        The 2nd Amendment is about protecting the right of “the militia” to keep and bear arms. So, what can we take from that?

        1: The militia are a military force. That means the 2nd protects their right to have military weapons. So yes, I do have a right to won a machine gun

        2: Who is “the militia”? Every non-felonious US Citizen over the age of 18.

        3: Where can the militia train? Well, the traditional place was the village green. So, any public park (hello Central Park) should be allowed.

        4: Who runs the militia? NOT the State. The militia typically chose their own officers.

        5: Where do the militia store their weapons? In their homes.

        6: Who CAN restrict the weapons, training, etc of the militia?

        No one.

        “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. NOT “Congress shall make no law …” The 2nd is not merely a limitation on the Federal gov’t, it’s a limitation on all levels of government.

        Great, let’s go with that interpretation

        1. “1: The militia are a military force. That means the 2nd protects their right to have military weapons. So yes, I do have a right to won a machine gun”

          US v Miller, whether Miller could legally possess the sawn off shotgun hinged on whether it had military utility.

          The courts later stood Miller on its head.

        2. The 2A refers to the same militia referred to in the body of the Constitution. In fact one of the law review articles cited by Scalia in Heller contains an error because Volokh posits that if the federal government can call forth the militia then how can the state militias be a check in tyranny by the federal government? Well the Constitution provides the states appoint the militia officers so the officers would be loyal to their respective state and not the federal government. Apparently Volokh and his 206 IQ weren’t aware a little something called the Civil War happened. 😉

          1. “right of the people”. It’s not a right of the militia. I forgot to post this earlier,
            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/amendIIs9.html
            Unless you want to make the same stupid argument the left has been making. That presumably people in the second amendment are different from people in the first and fourth.

            1. So all Americans had the right and McDonald was unnecessary?? Tell me—why all the confusion for 200 years that the BoR only applied to the federal government?? So the 1A specifically refers to CONGRESS but according to you the 2A isn’t limited to the federal government…such a head scratcher. 😉

              1. Yes, all Americans. just because people had agendas and differences of opinions does not invalidate the right. And seriously, two hundred years. There were alot of people that understood it differently. Did you even read rawle? And you’re the person trying to mince words saying the people in the second amendment actually mean militia. If we didn’t have bills of rights at either the state or federal level would it be okay for a state to disarm you or put onerous regulations on your liberties. You really need to read Blackstone and go back through and read American law concerning our English inherited rights.

                1. I actually understand that which is why I believe Cruikshank should have been affirmed and then incorporated. You are the one that believes the 2A confers a right that existed prior to the ratification of the 2A!?! I support the outcome of Heller but our right to keep guns in the home for self defense has nothing to do with the 2A as it is “not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.“. The implication is that the right exists!! Cruikshank says the people of Louisiana have the right but the federal government can’t enforce the right which is why incorporation is necessary with respect to Cruikshank!!

                  1. . Its affirms and confers that right to Americans to be free from government interference. Yes it existed before the amendment but our English heritage showed that this important right right must be conferred to americans specifically because of the abuses of the past. In fact I never argued it wasn’t a natural right, I simply pointed out that the right was broad and meant to apply to all americans. It’s part of the basis of a republican government. What’s your obsession with Cruikshank. Why not read the founders, in stead of a court case approx 100 years after the founding. There were literally a decade away from Bingham and couldn’t figure out the fourteenth. Not very intelligent men

                    1. Cruikshank merely reflects the understanding of the 2A at a point in time…which happened to be the understanding of the 2A for 200 years. Obviously people can be wrong but the actual text of the 2A affirms their understanding of the amendment. So if you want to read the perfect strict constructionist interpretation of the 2A read Stevens’ Heller dissent. If you want to read the proper liberal extrapolation of the “right to keep guns in the home for self defense“ that develops from Cruikshank read Stevens’ McDonald dissent. If you want read an absurd liberal constructionist opinion developed by a person with a 206 IQ that didn’t want to work for NASA then read Scalia’s Heller opinion. 😉

          2. Here’s some more for you. but you might be just some troll so am I wasting my time?…. Who knows. If you don’t know who rawle is Google is your friend.
            https://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.txt

            1. Query—in 1820 what person would have had standing to bring an action for violation of the 2A? So we know exactly who would have standing with respect to a violation of the 4A—a federal marshal enters a home without a warrant. But the 2A specifically refers to a “free state”, so how can Louisiana be a “free state“ if it prohibits concealed weapons?? It would seem in 1820 that a Louisiana resident would have standing to bring an action for violation of the 2A if the state passed a law that outlawed concealed weapons…and yet no one thought to bring the action when Louisiana did just that?!? So the only people in America that lived in a “free state” were Americans that lived in federal territories and yet a very famous federal marshal was known to confiscate weapons when people entered his city in a federal territory!?! The 2A just seems strangely general when the other amendments in the BoR are more specific…such a head scratcher. 😉

              1. I don’t even know where to start with this.

      5. “state militias” did not exist when the Constitution and Second article of Ammendment werew weritten. Nope. The ONLY militia known and considered at that time was the “local” militia, the men of any given town or region training togehter, each bringing his own arms and equipment when summoned, and for regularly scheduled drill and exercises. At that time “militia” meant EVERY able bodied male, armed with his own weapons, and well trained/skilled in their use. .

        And THAT means that every INDIVIDUAL must have an unlimited right to own, keep, carry, repair, use, buy, sell, his own arms, of military usefulness, to render him ABLE to show up when it was appropriate, for training, defense of the town, or others. Self-defense, as against two and four legged predators of the time, was also in view, as such occasions did arise from time to time.
        Lexington and Concord, April 1775, was the result of fourteen thousand colonial militia mustering at the news that the Regular ARmy of Britain were coming against them to take their arms, leaving them defenceless against all threats. The colonials voted with their lead balls….

        1. That is incorrect. The militias were an actual entity that were unfortunately suboptimal under the AoC. So the body of the Constitution sets out to rectify many of the problems experienced under the AoC, and so the Constitution contains militia clauses that set out to correct the issues AND prevent the need for a standing army. Washington actually called forth several state militias to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion so we know exactly what the state militias were. Under the Constitution the militias once again were suboptimal and after the War of 1812 the Army became more important than militias.

    2. And the right to shoot off inside another dude’s colon. The left thinks that “right” is inviolable.

      1. Wow, some random homophobia.

        1. I feel like he must have enjoyed it more when he knew he was doing something illegal.

        2. Um, what? You’re the one being homohobic by presuming he was being homophobic.

        3. He conflates homophobia with hoplophobia regularly, so you’ll have to forgive him.

      2. If it’s 2 consenting adults, they do have that “right”.

    3. Our right comes from our nature as sapient beings and there’s only one, to be free from the initiatory use of force.

    4. Actually, the founders mostly considered English law in their deliberations. The feeling that rights came from outside the law and the personalities of princes and priests prompted the English to behead one of their kings and banish another when they got to uppity with the whole “divine right of kings” thing.

      English law at the time of the American Revolution was silent on abortion until the “quickening” which generally occurred about thirteen weeks or about one-third of the way into the pregnancy. Thus the Supreme Court was on solid ground in deciding that Roe v Wade did not allow the prohibition of abortions in the first trimester.

      1. “…the Supreme Court was on solid ground in deciding that Roe v Wade did not allow the prohibition of abortions in the first trimester.”

        IOW they really didn’t need the whole “penumbras” argument. They could have just gone with the “this is what the founders thought” argument. 🙂

        1. No, what they *should* have said was, “This, like virtually all criminal law, is a state matter; please leave the feds out of it.”

          1. That’s what Ron Paul said in 1988 which is why some of us were willing to work on his campaign.

  4. But after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of that decision, the city rewrote its rules, backed a state law that eased restrictions on transporting guns, and urged the Court to drop the case, arguing that the regulatory and statutory changes made it moot.

    They’re like a bully picking on a little kid until the kid’s big brother shows up. Now all of a sudden they want to play nice. Prosecutors do this crap frequently, trying to bully somebody into taking a plea deal by dragging out a case until they drop the charges at the last minute because they don’t have a solid case and they’ve never had a solid case. If I were a judge, I’d refuse a motion to drop the charges, let the prosecutor eat the L, don’t be bringing these bullshit cases in here.

    1. Jerryskids has it exactly right. They got “caught,” by the Supremes and now — all of a sudden — they’re so respectful of the 2nd Amendment. NOT! What could be more explicit than “shall not be infringed”? States with open carry and/or easily licensed concealed carry have the lowest crime rates, duh!
      When you know that anyone you meet on the street might be packing, you get REAL polite to everyone you meet.

    2. Yeah but they just had to screw themselves by making the new law so restrictive someone could get arrested for stopping to take a leak on the way or get a bite to eat.

      Requiring a “continuous and uninterrupted” trip won’t pass constitutional muster.

      1. It won’t pass constitutional muster if Roberts doesn’t chicken out. Odds are he’ll chicken out, he lost his nerve some time during the Obama administration, and nobody knows where he left it.

    3. And of course if the case were mooted, what’s to stop them from just passing the same restrictions again, keeping them on the books for another 5 years while the case works its way back up to SCOTUS, then repealing them again for 6 months?

      If they have no intention of doing something like that then there wouldn’t be any need to moot the case, save the trip and the money and don’t even show up for arguments, let the court find the law unconstitutional, and that’s the end of it. Since its already repealed you don’t even have to bother repealing it again

    4. Yeah. I saw an article the other day where they were trying to say that because the law had been changed, it was all good, and the SC was just overreaching their power at this point. Of course it made no mention that NY had waited 5 years until it was clear the case would go to the SC before changing. I hope this case destroys the restrictive shit the Dems are trying across the country

  5. It sounds like the fix is also unconstitutional.

  6. Kinda risky posting this article while there’s Hihnsanity occurring in another thread.

    I really hope this is just the beginning of the new SCOTUS knocking down all the unconstitutional gun laws.

    1. Also, whose the blond? Cuz would.

      1. I took another gander at the pic and you’re right, damned cute. About the age of my daughters, but still….

      2. Also, whose the blond? Cuz would.

        I’m kinda surprised this wasn’t higher in the thread. It’s a great pic of her if that dude in the robes would get the hell out of the way.

        1. Umm…you’re referring to the one who’s mostly hiding behind his back??? Shesh.

          The other one…emerging prognathism.

    2. What gets me about Hihn is his stupid a – b = Zero equation he’s always going on about. I really think Hihn is some paranoid schizophrenic who stole the real life Michael Hihn’s identity for the sole purpose of dictating what the insane voices in his head maddeningly scream at him all day. I recall some poster here claiming he got in touch with the real life elderly Michael Hihn who thought the whole thing was hilarious that he was being impersonated.

      1. So was there a time when the Hihn on here was actually sane then?

        1. Actually, to a large extent, he was. No sneers, boldface, ass-rape threats, whatnot. You can’t easily prove it though, b/c Reason’s since scrubbed his posts.

          The impersonating theory seems implausible, given the enemies list posted on the supposedly-real Hihn’s website. If that site isn’t the real deal, then new-Hihn went to a great deal of trouble to mirror old-Hihn’s corpus.

          1. I remember seeing the list, however it was so long ago I don’t remember what was on it besides one or two folks from here. If you’re making lists like that though, you’re probably a few fries short of a happy meal or spy thrillers are a lot closer to real life then I thought

            1. He’s posted it as recently as a few weeks ago, all the while denying it’s an enemies list, which is in itself rather…fanciful.

              https://reason.com/2019/11/17/democrats-are-conjuring-up-new-rights/#comment-8016810

  7. ” clarify the contours of the Second Amendment.”

    Uh, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty damn clear.
    Anybody but a democrat can understand it.

    1. Then why did it take a guy with a 206 IQ to provide the underlying rationale in Heller over 200 years after the 2A was ratified?? Such a head scratcher. 😉

      1. Because some are ALWAYS trying to undo the constitution because some don’t like the risks that freedom entails.

        1. But why did it take a guy with a 206 IQ when the 2A is so plain spoken?? Such a head scratcher. 😉

            1. Motherfuck John Wayne too!

              No justice no peace!!

        1. I love these gun threads because this comment section turns into a Black Lives Matter rally where all the conservatives turn into Malcom X.

          FIGHT THE POWER!

    2. Oh, the Democrats understand it full well. That’s why they’re such fucking weasels about concocting bullshit rationalizations to violate it.

      -jcr

  8. I think this is one of the best blog for me because this is really helpful for me. Thanks for sharing this valuable information for free…
    https://www.aryawartapackers.com/packers-and-movers-in-muzaffarpur.html

  9. Here’s why I don’t accept the “we don’t have to rule on this case because regulatory and statutory changes made it moot” argument.

    The plaintiffs were not just arguing to have the law rescinded. they were arguing that the law being contested violated their constitutional rights.

    After this case is declared moot, what is there to stop NYC, or any other jurisdiction, from reinstating it.

    NYC rescinded this law not because it recognized that it was unconstitutional but because it didn’t want to argue that it wasn’t.

    Now, I am not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar but that is what simple logic tells me.

    1. “I am not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar”
      That’s ok, don’t beat yourself up over it. The Constitution was never meant to be absolute, it is more or less a set of guidelines that can be easy followed depending on what time of the month it is!

      1. @Wearenotperfect wrote: “The Constitution was never meant to be absolute, it is more or less a set of guidelines that can be easy followed depending on what time of the month it is!”

        I am hoping that you merely forgot to close that missive with the /sarc indicator … that you really didn’t mean it to be serious.

        1. Seriously? I don’t mean any disrespect but are you really that naive? If it was meant to be absolute then why are the courts and Americans in general still arguing and debating to this very day on what it really means? Just curious on your take on the matter?

          1. Some people just want to disarm the public, so they don’t accept the plain, clear language of 2A. Just like people who don’t want to accept the results of the 2016 election.

    2. The commonly used rubric for this is that a state can indeed do this, but only if it sufficiently binds itself into the new rules. A change in statute is generally insufficient, but a state constitutional amendment generally is.

      That would not help, of course, if the plaintiff sought damages, as Justice Gorsuch suggested might happen, as you’d still have to adjudicate if damages were merited – unless they state just pays them off, as happened in Pottawatamie County vs McGhee (prosecutors and police literally framed a couple of black guys from another state and the state argued that they were immune to suit for framing someone, settled after oral argument)

      1. Yes, but what the plaintiffs are looking for is to have the law that they are fighting declared unconstitutional so that any other jurisdiction tries to pass any similar law they will get slapped down before it gets out of the planning or committee stage.

        If the city or the state want to set regulations on how firearms can be safely transported and protected from theft (or otherwise prevent from falling into the “wrong” hands) that is maybe OK. but the kind of blanket law the NYC had in this case is IMHO an unreasonable restriction on “the right to bear arms” and the court needs to serve notice clear notice about how they will deal with any future cases of this kind.

      2. I am not exactly sure how anyone could determine damages in the case. The damage is that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights have been violated. How does anyone monetize someone else’s constitutional rights?

        Sorry, but as I see it, the only satisfaction the plaintiffs’ can get is that their constitutional rights have been violated and that any further attempt to do this will face the same bitch slap..

        1. You can monetize their legal costs, at a minimum.

  10. Reagan doesn’t think anything he’s dead. http://www.templerun3.biz

  11. …Gorsuch emphasized his point: “What’s going to qualify? I’m just a little unclear about that.”

    A Supreme Court justice and indeed New York’s own attorney don’t know exactly what the law demands, how the absolute fuck is a law enforcement? Or the poor son of a bitch law enforcement is pointing their guns at, tackling and slapping the cuffs on?

    1. Yeah, isn’t there a rule that laws can’t be vague “catch-alls”, they have to have defined boundaries?

    2. The NY attorney is making a lot of promises about how that law will be enforced that aren’t backed up by the law itself. What the NYPD will do with that law on the books isn’t his decision to make. It’s another avenue for selective enforcement, and we all love the results that usually gets.

      1. like NY wasn’t just gonna switch back if the case got dropped, and the SC knows that

        1. Yeah, I’m glad some of the justices saw through that and are keen on taking the case anyways.

          New state motto for NY: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  12. The NYC government has no constitutional prerogative to license guns at all, and fuck the Supreme Court for ever letting them pretend otherwise.

    The second amendment is not ambiguous.

    -jcr

  13. If you happen to book a flight with a plane change in NYC, any guns in your checked bags will be seized and you can be charged with a felony. Although NYC prosecutors are usually happy with the value of the seizures plus a hefty fine.

  14. One of the few issues where Reason is still making sense.

  15. I’m trying to figure out where this BS came from:

    JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose — I mean, this is why these things are difficult for you. All right? I understand that. But in Massachusetts, historically, all the guns and ammunition were stored in a central place at night, I believe, at the time of the resolution — revolution. Not in anybody’s home.

    Did Breyer miss the part where Bellesiles “Arming America” was completely discredited?

    1. The 2A was clearly drafted with the events of Lexington and Concord in mind. Otherwise one would have to believe the 2A didn’t need to be incorporated because it applied to all Americans from day 1. So how can only Americans in federal territories and DC have the RKBA prior to incorporation when the 2A applies to all Americans?!? Contrast that with the 1A which specifically refers to “Congress”.

    2. Justice Breyer actually told this huge whopper in front of everyone. What a liar.

  16. To my mind, this is analogous to “yes, I was trying to hotwire the car, but then a police cruiser pulled up and shone a spotlight on me. They shouldn’t arrest me because I put down my tools and that made it moot.” This isn’t an amicable disagreement. NYC tried to violate the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens. The SC should make it crystal-clear that they’re not allowed to do this, and ideally that should result in NYC being punished in the lower courts, both so that they won’t try it again, and so they serve as an object lesson to other states and municipalities.

  17. NY repealed its prohibition law while Warren (3 girlfriends) Harding was prez, and only the Volstead act coerced NY. That economy-wrecking federal law contained similarly odd restrictions on transfer, storage and transportation of the Rum Devil. Oddly, there is no place to download the Volstead Act in searchable ascii or html, and what bits and pieces can be found are lo-res and unconvertible even with good gear and warez. After a full century NOBODY has the text of the Volstead Act posted anywhere online?

  18. It is time for the Supreme Court to clarify the 2nd Amendment!

    If, as the “Gun Safety” groups and the Democrats are constantly claiming, the rate of mass shootings and the number of victims per shooting are both increasing, why is every Democrat, at every level of government, saying they want to further infringe my ability to protect myself? It is already illegal for felons to possess firearms; it is already illegal to attempt to harm people without legal justification; it is already illegal to shoot people without legal justification; and, it is already illegal to murder people. The term “common sense laws” means the proponents of those laws can not offer any real proof of their effectiveness, so they want us, and the federal courts, to “just believe”. None of these laws proposed by the “Gun Safety” groups and the Democrats protect me; they only infringe on my right to protect myself and/or others. Why do the federal courts use the lowest possible standard of proof (“Preponderance of Evidence” vs “Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”) when evaluating if a “gun control” law has an overwhelming benefit to society and is therefore a permissible infringement on the 2nd Amendment? Those shootings are all criminal acts, committed by criminals. I am not a criminal and I am legally licensed to carry a concealed firearm for protection, which is exactly the Right protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment. My finger prints are on file with the government, they monitor my background record and, in addition, they run a full background check on me every 5 years when I renew my CCW license. Can you say that about your next door neighbor? Why do I need a government issued license to carry a concealed firearm that I have to renew every 5 years and why, even with that license, can’t I carry my firearm in every municipality, territory, state, and every other part of the United States, when we have The Constitution of the United States that says:

    The Constitution of the United States . . .

    Article. IV.
    Section. 1.
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    Section. 2.
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. . . .

    Article. VI. . . .
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. . . .

    Amendments . . .
    Amendment II
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. . . .

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. . . .

    AMENDMENT XIV
    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . .

  19. and “THAT QUESTION” is precisely WHY the High Court MUST weigh this travesty of justice and liberty in the balance of constitutionality. Those “Noo Yawkers” running that assylum need to take a course in logic. Tey mainteined an onerous lw for many years, caring not one whit for the damage it has done to their underlings. And once those underlings rose up to challenge their idiocy they tried the sidestep and shuffle of admitting they really did not NEED the new law anyway…. by dumping it. Mostly.
    What NEEDS to happen is for this court to simply declare that the State of New York was, and remains, out of line, and issue a sharp injunction which commands the City of New York, and the state too while they are enjoining, to get their hands off everyone’s firearms. Nearly every other state have no problem with normal law abiding folk carrying and otherwise transporting handguns wherever they decide to go. Keep, and bear, are two somewhat similar verbs.. the one is not possible without the other also in place. WHen I buy a gun I don’t “keep” it down at the gun store, only accessible during business hours and closed on Sunday. Or maybe Saturday. Never can tell when I might want to do a bit of practice, just to make sure my hand is still “in”. If I WANTED to kill anyone with that piece, I’d have done it decades ago. The fact I’ve not yet so done is proof I don’t want to. But Nannies gotta nannie…. they think. Hope SCOTUS takes them out to the woodshed for a nice long loud chat.

  20. I’ve always found the pedantic discussion over “what was meant by a well regulated militia” in the 2nd amendment bizarre.

    The Bill of Rights was incorporated to prevent the majority from using democracy to strip the minority of certain rights. Does anyone really believe a “regulated militia” in the form something like a national guard needed special constitutional protections to exert their rights? That interpretation of “well regulated militia” represent not just the government backed majority, but the armed government backed majority. To say they needed special Constitutional protections in the bill of rights is akin to taking the quote:

    “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep protesting the vote. ”

    And interpreting it to mean we need to ensure the right of the wolves to be well armed. It simply makes no sense.

    Unless, of course, you interpret the Bill of Rights as a document designed to protect the government and the majority of citizens from the unpopular minority. Under that interpretation, the 1st amendment is there to protect the governments right to free speech and religion, the 4th is there to protect the rights of the police during a search, etc.

    1. In the end I suppose the interpretation of militia makes little difference. Once we’ve reached the point where the Bill of Rights must make it all the way to SCOTUS to be defended, that right has already been eviscerated for anyone who would depend upon it for protection. No ruling by SCOTUS can counter that.

    2. The Right to Bear Arms (Amendment II)

      To assign convoluted interpretations of words in order to purportedly clarify a law written in plain language is an intrinsic contradiction, the purpose of which can only be to obfuscate the original intent of the framers of that law.

Please to post comments