Law Supreme Court Refuses to Drop 2A Case, Despite NYC Pleas - The Supreme Court on Monday signaled their willingness to hear the first Second Amendment case in a decade

Diabolical diabetic

Spookytober time


The Supreme Court on Monday signaled their willingness to hear the first Second Amendment case in a decade, known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City. The High Court denied a motion, filed by the City, asking for the case to be dropped because of its mootness.

NYC filed the motion because they changed the law in question since the case was first brought about. In their mind, the law changes addresses any concerns the plaintiffs have. The justices scheduled oral arguments for December, telling both sides the “question of mootness will be subject to further consideration, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.”

The City banned gun owners from transporting their lawfully purchased firearms outside of city limits. When the New York State Rile and Pistol Association filed their lawsuit, gun control advocates in the state decided to remove the ban, out of fear of losing in court.

“It’s outrageous that the city has furiously tried to derail this case by changing the law,” Alan Gottlieb, Founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement. “That says volumes not only about the city’s fear of having to defend their restrictive gun control law before the court, but it also suggests to us that the city knew all along their law would not pass the constitutional smell test under any level of scrutiny, and they panicked."

Pro-gun advocates want the Court to make a determination in this case, out of fear that the law will be reimplemented should the case be dropped.

Back in August, a handful of Democrats wrote an amicus curiae brief telling the Supreme Court not to take up the case because it's political in nature. The Democrats also threatened to pack the Court with progressive justices if they move forward with the case. In response, 56 Republican Senators sent a letter to SCOTUS, telling them not to be intimidated by Democrats' empty-handed threats.

- End of Article -​

Also a here is a Vox article from before the decision was made with some more information
Last edited by a moderator:


Human behavior is exceptional behavior.
If New York City is reacting the way it is, then this upcoming Supreme Court decision might nuke the entirety of gun control legislation and holocaust the entire gun control argument in one fell swoop.

In which case, DO IT Supreme Court.
Or we could have a surprise 5-4 where one justice decides to write themselves into history books; in this case by arguing only the military has 2nd amendment rights.

Fuck courts that do not have juries of our peers.

It's HK-47

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies
True & Honest Fan
I remember @It's HK-47 writing something about this before.
I went on one of my predictably textwall-sized rants about it in the Kavanaugh thread, yeah. This is going to be an uncommonly important year for the Supreme Court, and no matter which way it sways in any of these cases there's going to be a mountain of salt as a result. My primary interest in this year's hearings is the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. New York City because of the ramifications it could have against or for the Second Amendment, but that's not to say that there aren't plenty of other interesting cases headed there this year, too.

As sad as it is to have to admit that the Constitution has become politically bifurcated, the odds of "one side" winning every single one of the cases is very slim. That being said, each victory for these major cases is going to be a very, very big victory. The stakes are pretty high this year, which is why so many politicians have been leaning on the Supreme Court so hard that the walls are practically bending.


Professional Niggo
While I’m in favor of us having a little tighter control over who can own a gun, a law that prevents the owners of guns from transporting their guns out of the city ala Hotel California rules seems intensely exceptional.
That's why the slippery slope argument holds water. First it's just keep it in the city forever than its you can never leave the range with it.


Is it Morning Yet?
This "Forget about it, We changed our minds!" after the process of judicial review has started is the same kind of end-run their rank-and-file are trying to do now with the Ukraine-whistleblower shit: "Trump can't investigate a political rival for corruption, that's self-serving, so it makes HIM guilty of corruption, only WORSE!"

They don't want it ruled unconstitutional because they just plan, like Brexit, to do it over and over and over again until they get the result they want, then turn around and fight tooth-and-nail to never ever speak of it again, even though they spent the last "X" years saying the issue "hadn't really been settled yet".

Back in August, a handful of Democrats wrote an amicus curiae brief telling the Supreme Court not to take up the case because it's political in nature.
Peak clown world.... you can't rule on this, because, it's politics? What do you think the genesis of LAW is you idiots?! That it just kinda happens like lightning strikes or earthquakes? Politicians make law, ergo, law is political. Who's supposed to review it? The crystal spheres? The Wildlife? Flip a coin? Jesus.......

The Democrats also threatened to pack the Court with progressive justices if they move forward with the case.
They'll do that no matter what, it's not a persuasive threat when there's absolute certainty of action behind it no matter what you say in return.....

Step up and defend your position, you back-stabbing legislative cowards.
Last edited:

Prompt Critical

While I would love to see a clean sweep getting rid of over a century of accumulated and clearly unconstitutional firearms law, SCOTUS has in recent history proved extremely chickenshit in issuing only autistically narrow 2A rulings (as in District of Columbia v. Heller) and then not making any particular effort to force their incorporation on the states anyway.

I'm not terribly optimistic about this one but would be happy to be proved wrong.


True & Honest Fan


No controlling legal authority
I'm not gonna lie, I'm a little nervous: All it would take is one judge to undermine what should be a god-given right.
The saving grace here is that the 2A uses the phrase "the right of the people", an important descriptor used used for emphasis only in a few places in the entire Constitution. (in the bill of rights its in the 1A, 2A, and 4A) It is what protects the right, not "shall not be infringed", when it is infringed all the time in one way or another. Nullifying that clause guts those three anemdments, as well as the 9th, and the most important amendment, the 10th, which also refer specifically to "the people".

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino