What’s really at stake in the Supreme Court’s new gun case

[Elderberry]

Orange County Register by Matthew Larosiere 3/6/2019

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn’ v. The City of New York (N.Y. Rifle & Pistol) in late January, it broke a decade-long reticence on the Second Amendment. The case, a challenge to a New York City law restricting the transportation of handguns, isn’t the minor issue it may seem at first glance. Indeed, N.Y. Rifle & Pistol is much more than a case about a dumb city law—it will set the future of how all Second Amendment cases are decided in this country.

N.Y. Rifle & Pistol concerns an utterly bizarre city law that effectively bans pistol permit holders from transporting their firearms outside of New York City (the irony of which seems to be lost on the eminently anti-gun municipality, one would think they would want as many guns to leave the city as possible). Still, this absurdity offers an opportunity: The case gives the Court a chance to set Second Amendment law straight after the lower courts have spent the last decade running roughshod over the amendment.

Our nation’s highest Court hasn’t made a substantive development in the Second Amendment context since 2008, when it upheld an individual right to bear arms in the D.C. v. Heller case (2010’s follow-up case, McDonald was a 14th Amendment case, breaking no new ground on the Second Amendment, just incorporating the law to apply to states as well). Even though coming to a conclusion on exactly how the Constitution protects Americans from overreaching gun laws was nearly impossible before Heller, nothing was really fixed afterward.

More: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/03/06/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-supreme-courts-new-gun-case/

[Smokin Joe]

Nothing is sure in any court, not even the plain language of the 2nd Amendment (when taken in historical context, very plain language). That the lower courts largely ignore the Heller decision is the unfortunate writing on the wall.

[Cyber Liberty]

Even if the Rifle and Pistol Club wins this, we will be reminded ad nauseum guns can still be taken away because Predicate Clause.  We need to pass a Statute because the Constitution is inferior to Statutes.  The Constitution s flexible (elastic, if you will), but Statutes are iron-clad.

[Elderberry]

Even if the Rifle and Pistol Club wins this, we will be reminded ad nauseum guns can still be taken away because Predicate Clause.  We need to pass a Statute because the Constitution is inferior to Statutes.  The Constitution s flexible (elastic, if you will), but Statutes are iron-clad.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Give 3D printing another 10 years to improve.

Then they'll pass 999 more idiot laws to regulate guns of all sorts.

But the horses will have already escaped the barn.

Won't matter or do much because Everyone will be printing their own, and they'll be much higher quality than the single shot Clorox bottles of today.