SCOTUS: to rule on gun rights

[philip964]

I read, maybe it was here, that SCOTUS does not like it when the government being sued repeals the law, so it is moot. They like taking those on and ruling.

I just like it when the USA Today is worried about what they may do.

[jerry_r60]

If anyone wants to read the transcript of the proceedings today it's here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 0_m64o.pdf

[RoyGBiv]

NRA Asked Anti-Gunners the Name Of the SCOTUS Case They Were Protesting. Their Responses Are Amazing.

"The name of the case, I don't know," one man said. "Actually, frankly speaking, I did not read. I was recruited here to represent my grandchildren."

Later in the video the same man is shown talking about the NRA.

"Demand action! Demand action for shutting down [the] NRA," he said. The man also suggested getting rid of the Second Amendment because "a gun for self-protection" is "not relevant at all" today.
"We live in a civilized society and must protect the interest of everybody," he explained.
Another man seemed to think the case was about so-called "assault weapons."
"We want to ban 'assault weapons,'" he said. When asked how an "assault weapon" is defined, his response was even more facepalm worthy.
"Well, anything that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger," he responded. Based on that definition alone, all guns would be banned.

[Soccerdad1995]

This "old" law is akin to saying that you can exercise your first amendment rights, but only in your home. And travelling from your home to any other place with anything that has writing or other communication is strictly forbidden. So they changed the law and said, effectively, you can travel with words, but only if it is a direct and continuous trip, and we'll define those terms as narrowly as we can while still saying that we changed the law.

At what point do we acknowledge that the second amendment is just as important as the first amendment and deserves equal protection?

On a separate note, didn't the courts already tell our President that making a slight change to the law was not enough to make legal challenges moot? I thought this happened with the travel ban.

[E10]

To answer Tom Gretchen's comment that the anti-gunners are here, and we're not - we have jobs, and responsibilities, and don't have the financial backing to pay people to show up (as I'm sure some of those folks were). Besides, if a rabble like that can influence a SCOTUS decision, then we're already in enough trouble to pull it over our heads and tie a knot in it.

[RoyGBiv]

This reporting sounds a bit hopeful.

https://reason.com/2019/12/02/new-york- ... ey-werent/

[Lynyrd]

This reporting sounds a bit hopeful.

https://reason.com/2019/12/02/new-york- ... ey-werent/

I am following this with much interest. I have read several articles quoting a few sentences from the oral arguments. But this article was not written by a liberal hack who pretends to be a journalist while really trying to force their opinion on people. Thanks for the link.

[chasfm11]

Yet another perspective
https://www.heritage.org/courts/comment ... ign=thf-fb

[casingpoint]

After much cogitation following a reading of the oral arguments, it is apparent if the plaintiffs were to drink less coffee on range days there wouldn't be much of any call for bathroom breaks, and the High Court can now move on, case closed.