danb
dont be a dumbass
DIG= Dismissed as Improvidently Granted.
Someone on Dave Hardy's blog brought up a good point about the Firearm Owners Protection Act and how NYC/NJ regularly arrest law abiding people delayed at the airport who claim and later try to recheck their baggage with a firearm. People have been arrested for it. NYC has no respect for that federal law so why believe their promises now regarding state law or the unconstitutional permitting process. I really hope SCOTUS takes this case even though the conventional wisdom believes its moot.
The question presented is:
Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Is the case still moot considering the question presented and NYC's historical treatment of people travelling through the local airports?
LKB, who witnessed the oral arguments, offers his opinions here:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/d...te-rifle-pistol-assn-supreme-court-arguments/
Speaking of Kavanaugh, he didn't speak. I'm assuming his Thomas-like reticence is because he knows how this is going to play out, continues to want to stay on Roberts good side, and is saving his powder for a different 2A fight.
Near the end of the argument, Justice Ginsburg (who looked very frail, but nevertheless was engaged and asked a number of probative questions in both of Monday’s arguments) asked the City’s counsel whether, because the transportation ban forbade taking a licensed gun to a second house (whether in or out of the city), that would require a license holder who wished to be armed at home to acquire two guns — one for each house — and leave one gun at an unoccupied location at all times, which she seemed to intimate would be less safe than transporting one gun between them.
LKB, who witnessed the oral arguments, offers his opinions here:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/d...te-rifle-pistol-assn-supreme-court-arguments/
Difficult to fathom the amount of money that has gone into deciphering what exactly "Shall not be infringed" means. We have an entire branch of .gov to figure this out (if and when they want to) and now what is the number .... 20K laws in relation to bearing arms in this country? I overheard someone saying there is a method to keeping the cash cow alive and the inaction will continue and I just thought I would mention that. Sorry for the abstract thinking.
If your post was in response to me RambingOne, I meant no digs.
Maybe someone has mentioned this already: I think voting to moot it out would give Roberts some political good will with the libs if he is to become the new Kennedy. He could be seeking that before going with Alito/Kav/Gorsuch/Thomas in a larger "text, history, and tradition" opinion in another case pending cert (God willing).
There is so much speculation here though, so what the hell do I know.
In terms of hand-wringing, this is going to be worse (and longer) than the Kavanaugh confirmation. Woof.
If your post was in response to me RambingOne, I meant no digs.
RTWT:Nope, was trying to get an explanation of what the legal term DIG means. All’s well.
Difficult to fathom the amount of money that has gone into deciphering what exactly "Shall not be infringed" means. We have an entire branch of .gov to figure this out (if and when they want to) and now what is the number .... 20K laws in relation to bearing arms in this country? I overheard someone saying there is a method to keeping the cash cow alive and the inaction will continue and I just thought I would mention that. Sorry for the abstract thinking.
If your post was in response to me RambingOne, I meant no digs.
I found this very interesting (From the article Stoveman posted)