New York Anti-Gun Legislators Try Changing Gun Laws to Avoid SCOTUS Rulings
Elections have consequences. Presidential elections have consequences for the courts, which New York anti-gun activists and legislators know full well. They're scampering like scared ants fleeing the soap bottle in desperate attempts to avoid the Supreme Court taking their clearly unconstitutional gun laws and issuing rulings which could affect gun control laws across the country. From The New York Times:
In January, the court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun regulation. The city, fearing a loss that would endanger gun control laws across the nation, responded by moving to change the regulation. The idea was to make the case moot.
I'm not sure what the legal definition of trying to change the rules after you lost is called, but I'm going to go with "cheating." Really it seems like New York City is cheating twice: they passed a law they knew was wrong, and in order to avoid a grounding from mommy and daddy, they're changing those bad laws. Gun rights advocates, who were looking forward to a potential SCOTUS spanking, are none too pleased with New York City's chicanery.
“This law should not be changed,” Hallet Bruestle wrote in a comment submitted before the hearing. “Not because it is a good law; it is blatantly unconstitutional. No, it should not be changed since this is a clear tactic to try to moot the Scotus case that is specifically looking into this law.”
But since SCOTUS decided to hear the case, New York City has cried uncle, pulling back all the regulations of this specific law. The law basically says New York City gun owners aren't responsible enough to safely transport their guns to any place other than their houses and their gun ranges. Gun owners took issue with the law and sued.
The changes to the regulations will happen soon enough, though, and the Supreme Court will then have to consider whether there is anything left to decide.
The court has said the “voluntary cessation” of government policies does not make cases moot if the government remains free to reinstate them after the cases are dismissed. But formal changes in laws may be a different matter.
New York is nervous after the departure of Anthony Kennedy, replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who, rumor has it, likes beer. The new Supreme Court might look more favorably on the Second Amendment, which has Second Amendment haters weeing themselves. Regardless of what kind of beer Kavanaugh's sipping.
Here's a radical idea. Put on your thinking caps and tell me what you think of this. What if cities and states always acted as though the courts might slap down their crappy laws? What if, and bear with me here, cities and states only passed laws that were clearly constitutional? Radical idea, am I right? Of course, it'll never happen, which is why the Founding Fathers put all these checks and balances in place, knowing people in power had a tendency to be corrupt little snot napkins. Even though there's already a pretty clear Amendment promising the right to keep and bear arms.