Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Dismissed as moot. Not unexpected: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/us/supreme-court-new-york-city-guns.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack, SASS #20451 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 BUMMER. That is what the City wanted because they didn't want a new 2nd. Amendment case before the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted April 27, 2020 Author Share Posted April 27, 2020 It illustrates a feature of court cases that folks sometime don't think much about. It's a dispute between two parties. The dispute determines the issues in court. If there's no more dispute, the court can't act. Here the plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the restriction had to be lifted, because it was unconstitutional. The ultimate relief sought in the dispute is the lifting or invalidation of the restriction. NY city lifted the restriction by repealing and replacing it with something else. The plaintiffs got what they wanted in the narrow sense ,which is the sense that is important to a court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 In a few years, someone will take the replacement law to SCOTUS, NYC will again repeal the law and replace that with something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasty Newt # 7365 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 They should have ruled on it, because it will be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 I applaud Justice Alito’s dissent. I wish I could buy him a drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.