Another let down by the Supreme Court

[Fredkrueger100]

https://gunowners.org/pratt-heller-react-to-scotus-decision-on-nysrpa-v-new-york-alitos-dissent/

This is no surprise. The Supreme Court is a joke and they will never apply the constitution as written.

 

[Jcelt]

Very disappointing. I had hoped what I thought was a conservative majority would have heard this. Looks like they were in the minority.

 

[chuter]

Now we'll see how long it takes NY to put crap laws in place again.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Very disappointing. I had hoped what I thought was a conservative majority would have heard this. Looks like they were in the minority.

I don’t trust trumps picks. So far they haven’t made any difference. Combo that with Trump “urging” them to not hear cases and we have no chance. The courts have way too much power. It’s a joke.

 

[RickN]

They did not hear it because NY had already changed the law so had no legal grounds to, but the dissenting opinions made it very plain that if a law crosses the line they will hear the case.

 

[dennishoddy]

NYC changed their gun laws to do an end around that forced the SC to not consider it the way I read it.

"The Court concluded that New York City’s change of its ordinance made the case moot, meaning it no longer presented a live “case or controversy” for the Court to decide."
The SC has very strict rules about what they can and cannot consider.

Short answer, it ain't Trumps Fault.

 

[ignerntbend]

Well, yeah. They aren’t going to question the constitutionality of a law that no longer exists.
Pretty easy call.

 

[Jcelt]

The way I read it , the conservative judges disagreed and felt like they had an opportunity to address another attack on the second amendment.

 

[TerryMiller]

Even before they made their decision, I knew the SC would pass on this one. The suit was brought up in New York and when it started into the process of being appealed, not heard in the first courts, and New York changed the law, it was a moot case before it even got there. But what RickN and jcelt said about the judges still issuing a dissenting opinion clearly says that the SC would have treated it differently had NY left the law as it was originally written.

In fact, I don't remember any other cases where such a dissent was issued upon a case considered moot. This could actually be a ground-breaking moment.

 

[dennishoddy]

NYC changed their gun laws to do an end around that forced the SC to not consider it the way I read it.

"The Court concluded that New York City’s change of its ordinance made the case moot, meaning it no longer presented a live “case or controversy” for the Court to decide."
The SC has very strict rules about what they can and cannot consider.

Short answer, it ain't Trumps Fault.

Even before they made their decision, I knew the SC would pass on this one. The suit was brought up in New York and when it started into the process of being appealed, not heard in the first courts, and New York changed the law, it was a moot case before it even got there. But what RickN and jcelt said about the judges still issuing a dissenting opinion clearly says that the SC would have treated it differently had NY left the law as it was originally written.

In fact, I don't remember any other cases where such a dissent was issued upon a case considered moot. This could actually be a ground-breaking moment.

I agree.