Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Giffords Law Center amicus brief | Main | Ready on the right, ready on the left.... »

Supreme Court rules NYSRPA v. NY is moot

Posted by David Hardy · 27 April 2020 09:13 AM

Opinion here. Justice Alito, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas (in part) has a powerful dissent, essentially saying NY set out to moot this case precisely because we accepted it.

UPDATE: having read the dissent... it looks like we have three Justices signing on to Gorsuch's "text, history and tradition" test. That is, forget about standards of review. If a restriction wasn't known (perhaps even widespread) around the time of the Framing, it is unconstitutional. By that standard, even bans on concealed carry are questionable (first one was 1813, as I recall, and they didn't become widespread until the late 19th century). That's three votes against law that is likely to come before the Court. There may of course be more, some Justices may like that standard but thought the case was moot. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence hints that way.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

oldguy | April 27, 2020 10:55 AM | Reply

Did we really expect anything else? I do think they are driven by politics and honestly have become afraid of making hard decisions that go against the "progressive" agenda.
Sad!

Jeremy | April 27, 2020 1:22 PM | Reply

Thanks Roberts. We clearly need to replace another liberal justice for anything to happen.

r | April 27, 2020 4:31 PM | Reply

roberts and kav have dishonored themselves
the dissent should have been the decision
this is a truly sad day for the republic

475okh | April 27, 2020 5:00 PM | Reply

2nd amendment cases are like your crazy Uncle. No one really likes them and when they do appear everybody avoids them.

Anonymous | April 27, 2020 8:23 PM | Reply

The 10 or so cases the USSC were holding in limbo have all been distributed for conference May 1st. Here's hoping they pick a winner and have the balls to issue a real decision. (Unless they're just going to drop them all down the toilet.)

r | April 28, 2020 4:45 AM | Reply

anon 8:23
given the cowardice of roberts and kav’s cave the other ten are going for the facisists thx roberts for showing your turncoat and kav for caving
how could a sentient being read the permit process and not determine the regulations to be an infringement on the second ammendment rights of any US citizen?
no, expecting justice from this crop of cowards and facisits and oath breakers is just fantasy

the scum have sold out the constitution again

Leave a comment