Called it. Everyone with any brains at all (so a very small minority here) knew this was the decision from the very beginning. No great 2A victory, not even a small one. Completely and totally MOOT!
Anyone who thinks SCOTUS will make a pro-2A in our lifetimes is smoking crack.
yeah I'm smoking rock. some basalt and granite rn
>Anyone who thinks SCOTUS will make a pro-2A in our lifetimes is smoking crack.
Apparently you didn't read the concurring opinion, or the dissent.
>implying it could have been anything else
This was within precedent.
>And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.
From Brett himself.
The court's hand was forced, this ruling shows two things:
1: The lower courts can't fuck around anymore because they will actually get challenged this time
2: The supreme court wants more 2A cases
What did the concurring opinion say?
They have 4 pending right now.
Denied
Denied
Denied
Denied
Ain't gonna be any 2A cases again.
good, they can move on to the twenty other cases in their docket which didn't involve last minute legal fuckery.
Based Brett grabbing antigunners by the pussy.
Pretty much this
Is this the same supreme court that stated the 2nd amendment isnt absolute. And states have the right to regulate.
We have been fucked since 1934. And no one can save us but ourselves
In so many words: "I agree this this particular case is moot, but we need to address the fact that lower courts are completely ignoring Heller and McDonald. Let's take another 2A case ASAP."
And then there were 3 saying "This isn't moot, and NYC was in the wrong." So there was a 5-4 split on mootness. The concerning thing is that Roberts didn't join Kavanaugh on the concurrence.
>The concerning thing is that Roberts didn't join Kavanaugh on the concurrence.
I don't see a reason why he would. After Trump v. Hawaii the writing has been on the wall.
Oh, thats great. We have the 2nd amendment basically neutered down to nothing. But hey! Kavanuaugh wrote a worthless oppinion.
I for one am glad the assualt on our second amendment is over!
>i don't understand whats being said but i still want to be angry!
>being this much of a fucking idiot
You're entitled to your shitty opinion.
The Supreme Court is now publicly seen to be cowed by threats from legislators.
What a legacy.
>threats
What are you talking about? The legislatures changed the law and rendered the case moot. This has happened many times before.
>cowed
I didn't realize they became cattle. Please stop being dumb.
How was their hand forced?
>legislators
I wanted to join in on quoting one word and being mean to you, faggot.
>implying this wasn't the whole plan and they won't now repeal the law.
That's the problem, everyone except the supreme court knew NYC only repealed the law under threat of a supreme court challenge. Why this point was not argued I Don't know.
>That's the problem, everyone except the supreme court knew NYC only repealed the law under threat of a supreme court challenge.
Hence fourth mootness. Do you understand how the American legal system works? This doesn't change the fact the Court has several 2A cases in their docket.
>everyone except the supreme court knows
SCOTUS is not the constitution police. They exist to pass judgement on cases that are brought before them, and if a case becomes moot then they don't really have much of a choice but to let it go.
>What are you talking about?
This:
supremecourt.gov
With amici like these, who needs enemies?
>he doesn't understand that the court declaring a repealed law unconstitutional would be a massive break from precedence and would allow future liberal courts to declare essentially everything unconstitutional
>t. illiterate moron
crack a dictionary, sweetie
That's not what he's saying. It was smart for NYC to repeal the law in terms of a larger political agenda. Democrats weren't going to get a favorable ruling, so they repealed the law to get mootness which is preferable to a ruling against their agenda. If they had ruled, it would have set a very strong pro-2A precedent.
Mootness was coming, the law was changed to give the petitioners basically the letter of what they wanted. The law was clearly unconstituional, but I think the majority had the mootness issue correct.
Pic related, not OC.
Because now there's a loophole anti-gunner can abuse. They can temporarily repeal their laws to avoid court challenges they know they'll lose. And once the court rules any challenges against their 'defunct' laws moot they'll put them back in place.
Rinse and repeat
Precent dictates that this case should be moot because there is no longer a claim. It would be like if you ran over my mailbox and refused to fix it, so I sued you. Before we could go to court, however, you changed your mind and repaired my mailbox. I don’t have anything to sue over so the case is moot.
Why the fuck did they wait so long to moot it?
This was always the case, and for more issues than just the 2A.
way more than 4. There are at least 3 NJ cases alone.
Fucking St Alito is trying to save his beloved NJ the way St. B. Saves Cali
Roberts is a traitor
Yes, this is lawfare, and the government has been doing it for a long time.
As Alito points out in his dissent, the court will see the case despite otherwise being moot if they think that there is intent to game the system. If NYS and NYC changed the law back, they would very likely rule on it even if they changed it again.
However, it hasnt and isnt the place of the judiciary to rule on how constitutional a law would be if it WERE in effect.
Senator Whitehouse and several others wrote a letter openly threatening the SCOTUS
I did. Check your thesaurus. This is why plain english has gone back in favor with lawyers.
Yeah, no shit. I'm saying that there was nothing the court could do about it. Alito going into the esoteric of what is and what isn't moot wasn't going to change that.
>Because now there's a loophole anti-gunner can abuse
Thats not how any of this works.
I really hope mississipi or alabama bans abortion or islam or something and then moots the case
i.e. the Court would rule despite mootness if the following occured
>NYS changed the law back to what it was
>it reaches the SCOUTUS again
>after getting cert, NYS again changes it to be what the petitioners want
The court wouldn’t take kindly to that and rule against the state because it won’t respect the precedent
>Because now there's a loophole anti-gunner can abuse
You think exploiting mootness is a new tactic or something?
Fuck off, dumbass.
Yes, that is what I'm asserting would happen.
>he didn't read Alito's dissent
They'd be declaring the new law unconstitutional. Or finding it constitutional using strict scrutiny, establishing that as the correct standard instead of the heightened-in-name-only-scrutiny rubberstamping the lower courts used, or whatever; the point is, the decision would apply to the new law, so your greentext is bullshit.
Was phoneposting from shower, didn’t read, my bad
s/cowed/cucked/
There you go, updated to the modern vernacular.
Happy now, zoomer?
Woah there buddy, you seemed to have posted a thread that may have something to do with politics. We all know that /k/ is a board about weapons and military equipment, not politics, regardless if said politics literally determine the future and existence of ownership of said weapons. You best be moving this thread to Yas Forums, where underage teenagers from countries outside the US and totally have a better understanding of the SCOTUS will help you out. I suggest that you also go chill out in pic related to help cool down because it's so much more related to weapons than a stupid supreme court case.
this
So this basically means we have to wait another year for Cert on literally any other 2A case on the docket, and then another 8 months after that for them to give an opinion? Jesus fuck senpai I thought that we were finally going to make some progress with the 2nd in the courts at least, I bet they are just going to deny cert on shit like the handgun roster for California or the carry case.... So much for fucking Trump helping the 2A forward.
You think the Civil Rights battles were won over night? No, it took decades to get anything done. The fact the Court put this out is a good sign. Go be a pessimistic cunt elsewhere.
SEE YOU IN A YEAR FAGGOT WHEN CERT IS DENIED
is this your own personal reference?
i try to keep track of 2a cases, but right now I just knew of Worman v. Healey and Rogers v. Grewal.
>NOOOOOOOO THE COURT WONT HEAR IT BECAUSE I SAID SO
>He thinks the supreme Court actually hears gun rights cases
Pic rel is you
DC vs Heller was in 2008 and nigger faggot states violate it anyway with no punishment from the supreme court because they won't hear cases
And to add, Rogers v Grewal is distributed for this Friday's conference as is Worman v Healey.
I hope but very much doubt either will be given cert, especially the "Assault Weapons" case because there would be far reaching implications that could effect everything from NFA items to banned state laws. I cant see them granting cert though for the life of me.
As a matter of fact, TODAY, 4-27 every single one of these cases was distributed for conference, some after having seen no movement since March of 2019, Friday, 5-01.
Do you really think that not a single one is going to get heard?
Coincidentally, the day Kavanaugh says the court has to make sure Heller and McDonald are being applied properly, and they should use their existing docket to do that?
The court is holding at least 10 2nd Amendment cases (Pena v Horan, Mance v Barr, Rogers v Grewal, Gould v Lipson, Ciolek v. New Jersey, Cheeseman v Polillo, Worman v Healey, Malpasso v Pallozzi, Culp v Raoul, Wilson v Cook County). There are two challenges to assault-weapons bans, several carry-related cases, a challenge to the federal interstate handgun sales ban, and non-resident permit ban cases in that mix. Given that the court has been holding some of them from as early as April 2019, does this shed any light on a potential outcome for NYSRPA? If NYSRPA is mooted (is that even likely at this point?) are these cases like to be remanded, or might some of them receive a grant? If so, which cases are more likely? If NYSRPA is decided on the merits, will all of these cases be remanded in light of the decision, or might the court grant them to build a more robust caselaw around the second amendment post-Heller?
All the 2A cases floating out there right now
airtable.com
Not denied, the 2nd Circuit opinion was invalidated, and the case sent back to them (remanded) for rework.
NYSRPA was just mooted.
The entire list the user posted above were all distributed for conference today, conference on May 1.
I think it is very likely, given Kavanaugh's concurrence, that some are heard shortly.
No hope senpai, been waiting more than 10 years on literally any significant movement on this shit and I really cant see Heller 2.0 after all this time occurring.
That was copypasta from SCOTUSBlog's live blog today, forgot to zap that part.
Yes, it was mooted, but the dissenters aren't happy about it. Basically they feel Government at all levels can make bad laws, then simply undo them when challenged in court.
and some decent dicta about the retardedness of the NYC contradicting itself. Along with a nice place to send educated but ignorant normies when they say
>it's just common sense control
to show them what these fools actually believe and have passed as law.
Fuck off retard, come back when you have something constructive to say.
fucking Yas Forums is a waste. you try to make a thread and it gets slid by 20 cuck tranny threads. Literally the only way to make a thread on there that sticks is by making one where you say Yas Forums btfo
Every single case will be denied cert. Guaranteed.
>Do you really think that not a single one is going to get heard?
Yes, every single one will be denied cert.
Maybe so, but you faggots said that about NYSRPA too.
That it would be mooted and the case didn't actually involve the 2A but mootness? Yeah, I did say that for a year. And I was right.
No, before it was granted certiorari, retard.
>t. fucking retards who don't read
Freedom boner increasing
>And no one can save us but ourselves
This, God will not help those who refuse to help themselves.
>The concerning thing is that Roberts didn't join
He Is controlled op.
Time for RBG to retire then. And our resident Wise Latina, ¡¡¡Ms. Sóñíá Sótómáyór!!!
Please, we all know that RBG is being Weekend at Bernies’d
>. We all know that /k/ is a board about weapons and military equipment, not politics, regardless if said politics literally determine the future and existence of ownership of said weapons. You best be moving this thread to Yas Forums,
Only we are affected by these laws and rulings and therefore have every right to post about it, if you don’t like you can fuck off glow nigger.
>he can't detect sarcasm unless he sees a /s
Because he will side with the leftists on anything gun related should it somehow make it to the court.
they are going to consider an awb/ccw case friday
more info on this please
...
>They're going to deny cert to a AWB case Friday
FTFY
...