This is the highest court in the land, and it is the foundation and forms the framework for our laws. So what happens when those we look to for that legal foundation and those guidelines refuse to make a decision? This is exactly what happened this past week, but that lack of action doesn’t mean a lack of consequences as many 2nd Amendment defenders are pointing out.
As one recent story reported, the Supreme Court held a session this past week, “on its first major gun rights case since it decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago two years later.” Ordinarily, all eyes would have been on the story, but the coronavirus has made this time anything but ordinary.
So buried behind the mounting weight of those allegations of sexual assault against the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden and the pandemic, was this story. This is the ongoing saga of fighting for our 2nd Amendment rights and protecting them from those who want to take them away.
Yes, this was set up to be a big day and for many reasons, it just wasn’t going to steal many headlines in light of the current stories grabbing the spotlight. Nonetheless, this was one of those events that define the core of the American fabric. This is a case that had potentially far-reaching legal implications, no matter what the former VP did or didn’t do and regardless of how we are progressing against the pandemic.
As the aforementioned story reported, this is the gist of the argument:
“The case before the Court (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York) involved a New York City ordinance that prohibited even the few New Yorkers permitted by the Big Apple’s police department to have a gun in their home, from transporting it to any location outside the city’s limits, even if necessary to practice at a lawful gun range.”
If you think that sounds like a silly argument, then you aren’t alone. In fact, it appears the anti-gunners knew how silly this argument was as well. This is based on the fact, that according to the story, “New York City officials were not asleep at the switch… and once the High Court agreed to take the case for decision, they cleverly rescinded the gun-transportation ordinance; notwithstanding their earlier argument that it was “essential” for protecting the public.”
Yep, they essentially said the equivalent of ‘strike that part of the legislation.’ And that led to an out that has become far too easy and far too common for the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment fight – meaning no decision at all.
“On Monday, a majority of Supreme Court justices, including neophyte Associate Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, sided with the Court’s liberal bloc in a 6-3 decision declaring the case to be moot;” and that was it. Next case, please.
The obvious problem here, however, aside from the highest Court in the land being unwilling to show some backbone, is that this case goes beyond a mere travel ordinance. As the story pointed out, “Protecting Americans’ right to possess a firearm free of prohibitory restrictions imposed by local government, once again has been brushed aside for another day.”
This isn’t a story about the right to bear arms, the anti-gunners are smarter than that, at least marginally. No, this is about them attempting to control how we bear arms intending to effectively render the right to bear arms a moot point.
If there is any good news as the story reported, ‘The dissent, authored by Justice Alito and joined by fellow Associate Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, clearly and forcefully laid out the reasons why the New York City law was abhorrent to the Second Amendment’s fundamental purpose. These justices also argued that the case was anything but “moot.” ‘
The other good news might be that one day, hopefully, sooner than later, the Supreme Court won’t be able to hide behind the distractions being created by a worldwide pandemic or the lascivious behavior of political leaders. Then, perhaps, they will have to make decisions on the tough questions.
No, nothing about our gun rights or about those attempting to take our 2nd Amendment rights is a moot point, and no court can tell us otherwise. Next case, please.