« Ouch! | Main | Page on judicial appointments and vacancies »
NYSRPA v. NY set for oral argument
It's set for Monday, December 2. The docket also shows that NY's suggestion of mootness will be considered in the Court's conference on October 1.
The Solicitor General has asked for ten minutes of Petitioners' (the good guys') time, with Petitioners' consent. "As a general matter, the United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In addition, Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms, and the United States has a substantial interest in defending the constitutionality of those laws. The United States is thus well positioned to address the reconciliation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms with the governmental interest in regulating firearms."
UPDATE: Yep, as the above suggests, the SG's position will be that (1) the NY statute is unconstitutional but (2) please don't say anything that calls into doubt provisions of GCA 68. We can hope he spends more time on (1) than on (2), but I wouldn't bank on it. The focus of the SG's office is on defending Federal statutes; attacking a State statute is, at most, incidental.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Fyooz,
Read the motion linked in David’s post.
Carl:
so if the SG asked for some of Petitioners' time and Petitioners agreed, we think the SG is going to help Petitioners' case and not sabotage it.
Not a lawyer so I hope I'm reading this right.
Now wondering what could go wrong.
thanks
Once more the supreme court gave us state gun laws because Marshall and his dweebs failed in Barron (1833). There is no 'governmental interest' in regulating Arms. The governmental interest is in the safety of the people and ONLY state governments hold any delegation of power over that issue. The feds are not delegated much of any power over individuals. Note that no exception is written in the 2nd so that one must realize that 'governmental interest' is another of the non-existent reasons that the courts have pulled out of no where to usurp power from the People. The feds do not have police powers over activities except for the 6-7 explicitly noted and in DC. States retained police powers.
Anyone with an IQ over 3 grasps that only individuals can have Rights from God because God's relationship and endowment of Rights is ONLY at the individual level. That fact goes to prove that the SC and other Courts have failed to properly do their duty and lack understanding of the basic principles upon which our entire system of government was founded. So long as we allow the courts to tell us what is and isn't a Right, those Rights are not then rights but privileges. Judges are NOT more knowledgeable or wiser or smarter that the People. Judges are not less apt to be corrupt. And as was published in the 90s, judges are more likely to use their predilections to decide issues.
Hell all gun laws are unconstitutional. Extremely limited police powers are the fed level and limiting/punishing Arms issues NOT one of the federal police powers. Screwed up powers on Arms BECAUSE of the lies in Barron (1833) made BY the SC. No authority to ban anything as evidenced by the 18th. If one spends a little time really learning the Constitution one will learn that everything NOT written is withheld and that just about every SC decision is wrong. We wouldn't have needed Heller if the courts hadn't given us Barron. Judges just need to quit thinking they are above the People. Go read Book 1 Pg 205 of Blackstone and get back in the servant position of a judge.
"substantial interest in defending Constitutionality of those laws"
what are they trying to pull? Federal laws regardless of what may happen to NY laws?
who's the SG and what is his or her record on this?