Tuesday, December 03, 2019

NTeffingCITY: "Our new verion of the law says this, but

it could actually mean that, and we promise this won't be abused, so you really shouldn't hear this case."
NYeffingCity, and all their little friends like Watts, really don't want the Supremes to hear this because it would almost certainly cut into their 'screw with any of those peasants who want a gun' space.  Like this:
Dearing assured the justices that the NYPD would not look askance at "reasonably necessary" stops for coffee, gas, or bladder relief, prompting Gorsuch to wonder, "Is coffee reasonably necessary?" While that remark prompted laughter, Gorsuch emphasized his point: "What's going to qualify? I'm just a little unclear about that."
Sure.  This is the NYPD that, for years, arrested people on a bullshit 'gravity knife' law.  If you believe they wouldn't do everything they could to arrest people(and yank their license) for this, you're an idiot.

Pay careful attention to the second paragraph here:
So was Dearing. Justice Samuel Alito, who like Gorsuch remarked upon "the quite extraordinary step of trying to moot the case after we granted review," wondered about a gun owner who drives to a range in New Jersey and stops to "visit his mother for a couple of hours to take care of a few things for her." Dearing(the NYC lawyer) was unsure whether that would be allowed. "I think that would have to be a question now to be litigated under the state law," he said. "I hadn't considered the mother or mother-in-law example before."

Speaking for the plaintiffs, Paul Clement said Dearing's assurances are not good enough to make the case moot. "The city took it on itself in Section 7 of the new regs to tell you what they, at least at that point, thought was sufficiently direct, which is 'continuous and uninterrupted,'" he said. "They're now making representations that the reg doesn't mean what it seems to mean….My client[s] shouldn't have to rely on those representations. They should get that in writing in an injunction that would be enforceable. That would be effectual relief."
Exactly.  The bastards are playing games to try to leave a way to screw with people, and it shouldn't be allowed.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I fully agree.

Also, what, exactly, keeps the PRNYC from reinstating the offending law, if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case on the grounds that it is moot?

Also let us assume, for the sake of argument, that in the near future the court votes as we might hope on this case--not merely to overturn the unconstitutional law, but set bold and sweeping new precedents for gun rights.

If big-city Marxist mayors and blue-state Marxist politicians defy the court, as they've been doing since the Heller decision, they ARE going to get a visit from the Army, right?

Or do the troops only get called out when activist judges force taxpaying parents to expose their children to the benefits of "diversity" at the point of a government bayonet? See also, Little Rock. See also, George Wallace. Because we all know what integration and "snivel rights" did for civilization in Little Rock. And Detroit. And Baltimore. And New Orleans. And Memphis. And Philadelphia. And Atlanta. And every other place it was enacted, without exception, in all of history--as if the end result weren't predictable, and predicted.