Some analysis on the NYSPA case.

Court sends New York Second Amendment case back to lower courts without ruling on the merits

The Supreme Court sent a major Second Amendment case back to the lower courts today, ruling that the challenge to a New York City restriction on the transport of guns is “moot” – that is, no longer a live controversy – because the city changed the rule last year. But some of the court’s more conservative justices signaled that it might not be long before the court takes up another gun rights case.

The case in which the justices ruled today was filed in 2013 [SEVEN (7) YEARS!! ed.] by New York City residents who have licenses to have guns at their homes, as well as by an association of New York gun owners. The gun owners wanted to be able to take their guns to target ranges and weekend homes outside the city, but they were barred from doing so by the city’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city, which was enacted in 2001.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the gun owners’ case in January 2019, after both a federal district court in New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the ban. But before the justices could hear oral argument last December, the city argued that the case should be dismissed because it had repealed the ban and the state had changed its laws. As a result, the city suggested, the gun owners had received everything that they had asked for, and the case was moot.

The justices allowed the case to move forward, but today a majority of the court sent the case back to the lower court without weighing in on the merits of the gun owners’ Second Amendment claims. The court’s two-page opinion – which was unsigned but apparently joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh – explained that, as a result of the changes to state law and the city’s rule, the gun owners have gotten exactly what they had asked for: They can now take their guns to a second home or a shooting range outside the city.

The court turned next to the gun owners’ claim that the new rule still violates their Second Amendment rights because they can’t stop for “coffee, gas, food, or restroom breaks” en route. The court noted the city’s assertion that the gun owners are allowed to make such stops and stated that, in any event, the Supreme Court’s practice is not to referee that dispute but instead to send it back for the lower courts to decide. In the same vein, the court declined to weigh in on whether the gun owners can seek damages for the city’s violation of their rights under the old rule when they had not previously done so, leaving that question for the lower courts as well.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from today’s decision, in a 31-page opinion that was joined in full by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in large part by Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito was sharply critical of the decision to dismiss the case as moot, arguing that his colleagues were allowing “our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.” First of all, Alito argued, the case is not moot: The gun owners had alleged that the Second Amendment gives them “unrestricted access” to gun ranges and vacation homes outside the city, “and the new laws do not give them that.” As a result, Alito reasoned, although the gun owners “got most” of what they wanted, they did not get all of it, “and that means that the case is not dead.” Moreover, Alito added, if the court were to conclude, as the gun owners “request and as I believe we should,” that the city’s transport ban violated the Second Amendment, the district court “on remand could (and probably should) award damages,” which would also be enough to stave off mootness.

Addressing the merits of the gun owners’ claims, Alito concluded that it is not “a close question” whether the city’s transport ban violated the Second Amendment. In his view, the transport ban involves the same “core Second Amendment right” at the heart of the court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. The city’s arguments about the extent to which the transport ban protects public safety, Alito suggested, “were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below without no serious probing.” And if it is true this case is typical of the way that Heller has been applied in the lower courts, Alito cautioned, “there is cause for concern.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion in which he explained that he agreed with the majority that the gun owners’ original claims are moot and that the new claims should be addressed first by the lower courts. But Kavanaugh also indicated that he agreed with Alito’s “general analysis of Heller and” McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies fully to the states, and that he shares Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.” Kavanaugh posited that the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

Comment O’ The Day—

“The irony is that famine weakens the general health. The young become weak as the old. The hale develop debilitating conditions. The Four Horsemen never ride separately but together. People knew this once.”

 ‘Instead of Coronavirus, the Hunger Will Kill Us.’ A Global Food Crisis Looms. 

NAIROBI, Kenya — In the largest slum in Kenya’s capital, people desperate to eat set off a stampede during a recent giveaway of flour and cooking oil, leaving scores injured and two people dead.
In India, thousands of workers are lining up twice a day for bread and fried vegetables to keep hunger at bay.

And across Colombia, poor households are hanging red clothing and flags from their windows and balconies as a sign that they are hungry.
“We don’t have any money, and now we need to survive,” said Pauline Karushi, who lost her job at a jewelry business in Nairobi, and lives in two rooms with her child and four other relatives. “That means not eating much.”

The coronavirus pandemic has brought hunger to millions of people around the world. National lockdowns and social distancing measures are drying up work and incomes, and are likely to disrupt agricultural production and supply routes — leaving millions to worry how they will get enough to eat.

The coronavirus has sometimes been called an equalizer because it has sickened both rich and poor, but when it comes to food, the commonality ends. It is poor people, including large segments of poorer nations, who are now going hungry and facing the prospect of starving.
“The coronavirus has been anything but a great equalizer,” said Asha Jaffar, a volunteer who brought food to families in the Nairobi slum of Kibera after the fatal stampede. “It’s been the great revealer, pulling the curtain back on the class divide and exposing how deeply unequal this country is.”
Already, 135 million people had been facing acute food shortages, but now with the pandemic, 130 million more could go hungry in 2020, said Arif Husain, chief economist at the World Food Program, a United Nations agency. Altogether, an estimated 265 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by year’s end.

American Overseas

“This crisis has clearly distinguished the two parties and their attitudes towards America. With the people hurting, many sick and dying, many others with the stress of having lost their jobs, businesses, or livelihood, President Trump has stepped up and done his best to help. Whether he has always said and done the exact best thing is problematic–there is no perfect human. But he has put forth an unrelenting effort to help the American people through these hard times. That’s what good people do.

On the other hand, the Democrats and MSM have done nothing but play politics. They have incessantly criticized everything the President has done, Pelosi has twice delayed needed financial assistance to Americans, the Democrats have unfailingly served as lackeys to defend our enemies, denounced the President for not being prepared with enough tests, masks, ventilators, etc., while never once lifting a finger to help….I think one can be excused if one does, indeed, think that Pelosi and the Democrats do not care about the American people, but only care about using this tragedy to take down the President. THEY LOVE THEMSELVES FAR MORE THAN THEY LOVE AMERICA!!

In a crisis, good people with character rise above the petty and mundane things like politics to help their fellow man. Uncaring, selfish human scum with no character use a crisis to benefit themselves–looters in a storm. If the American people, collectively, have any character at all, they will re-elect Donald Trump in November and massacre the Democrats. If Biden and the Democrats win, it says only that, at this point in history, the American people are a sorry, debauched group of people who will probably end up as a Third World sh*thole nation. Some parts of the country, like the part Pelosi represents, already are, which is the only reason she is in Congress in the first place. Sh*thole nations elect sh*thole people.”

Top Ten Surprising Consequences of Covid-19 Hysteria:

1: Democrat governors rediscover Federalism.
2: Wanna-be totalitarians can’t help but unmask themselves.
3: Trump gets a daily platform to smack the media around (watched by millions).
4: The CDC is exposed as just another dysfunctional .gov agency.
5: FDA, same as above.
6: WHO, same as FDA, CDC.
7: The US media is in China’s pocket.
8: “Models” are completely useless except to frighten citizens.
9: We now know Nancy Pelosi has two $24,000.00 fridges.

And the 10th most surprising consequence of the Covid-19 hysteria?
Donald Trump was right about China the whole time, and everybody who didn’t know it before knows it now.

I’ve commented before on how left-liberals believe that a claim of incompetence is a valid defense against charges of malfeasance AND legitimate grounds for reelection.

See Hilary’s claim that having no clue that a private server was a security breach qualified her to be president.

Comment O’ The Day

The best description of democrat politicians that I have ever come across:

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

1: A proud look,
2: a lying tongue,
3: and hands that shed innocent blood,
4: An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
5: feet that be swift in running to mischief,
6: A false witness that speaketh lies, and
7: he that soweth discord among brethren.

(Proverbs 6:16-19)

When you think about it, there is nothing on that list that does not describe the democrat party leadership