A new day has dawned. Liberals are afraid of what might happen to their unconstitutional gun-grabbing if a challenge is heard at the Supreme Court. New York City has cried “Uncle” rather than risk a Heller-Type tidal wave of pro-gun goodness.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, which the court accepted in January, the city and state of New York appear to agree. They have essentially surrendered, changing the restrictions at issue even though the city successfully defended them before a district judge and a federal appeals court.
New York says it has given those who hold licenses to have guns on their premises exactly what they asked for — a greater ability to transport their weapons through and outside the city — and there no longer is a controversy for the Supreme Court to settle.
SCOTUS could still hear the case, having already accepted it for the Fall ‘semester.’ But the sense is that Robert’s will vote to let it slide and that’d be enough to keep the Court from having to consider such restrictions across the country in that context.
The city is relying on the precedent established by Chief Justice John Roberts in the dismissal of an unrelated case when he invoked the phrase suggesting that sometimes the plaintiff has to be able “to take yes for an answer.”
Wouldn’t it be inspiring if, for once, someone “talked to” a Justice and convinced them to do something conservative instead of liberal?
Could that even happen? Don’t you wish it would?
Liberals work hard to make your second amendment rights as costly and cumbersome as possible. All on the road to confiscation. (Hey, stop your gibbering, leftists, far too many of your leaders have said it out loud for you to deny it.)
Having a majority decision that these restrictions are unconstitutional would be a serious setback for the gibbering gun grabbers. Someone, maybe even Mike Bloomberg, made a phone call with some expletives (liberal’s know a lot of those) and convinced the City to drop it.
And they have.