Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Why the NYC gun case must proceed in SCOTUS even after the law was repealed



Why the NYC gun case must proceed in SCOTUS even after the law was repealed

There’s a lot of confusion on social media surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case regarding a gun law that no longer exists. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York will be heard by the Supreme Court with a decision due by June, but the law in question was repealed and subsequent attempts to prohibit such laws by the state have failed to prevent the case from hitting the highest court of the land. The spin game has begun on both sides, but there’s still plenty of disinformation to sort through.

The original law prohibited gun owners from carrying their firearms out of the city, whether to gun ranges, second homes, or anywhere else. Firearms could be transported unloaded in locked containers within the city to local gun ranges, but leaving the city with them was deemed illegal. Two lower courts have already heard he case, sided with the city, and upheld the law. Once it was pushed to the Supreme Court, the city quickly reversed course. Then, the state prohibited similar laws from being enacted. Case closed, right? Wrong.

This wasn’t a matter of the city coming to its senses. They repealed the law to prevent it from being heard by the Supreme Court, knowing full well it was unconstitutional and would likely be deemed as such. They didn’t want to harm gun control actions across the nation by promoting their limited-reach, completely obtuse law, so they tried to make the case obsolete. It didn’t work. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case despite it being “irrelevant” in the eyes of the left, and for good reason.

New York City’s attempts to hold primacy over the Constitution cannot be allowed to happen again. Just because they repealed this law doesn’t mean they and the state won’t coordinate on similar laws in the future. By hearing the case, the Supreme Court will set the precedent that such attempts to subvert our Constitutional rights will not be acceptable. No jurisdiction, whether local, city, county, state, or federal, can impose laws that contradict what the Constitution clearly says. In this case, the right to keep and bear arms was being unnecessarily choked for the sake of virtue signaling gun control advocates who are systematically chipping away at our freedoms.

They knew what they were doing was opening the systematic gun control agenda up for rebuke by the Supreme Court. That’s why why repealed it. That’s why the state tried to codify restrictions to such laws in an effort to dissuade the court from hearing the case. It wasn’t just unconstitutional. It was anti-constitutional, and they knew it. Rather than take a loss now, they were hoping to push it off until a future time following a Democratic president who could pack the Supreme Court with leftists.

“The Supreme Court is not well,” Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said in August. “And the people know it. Perhaps particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

It was an unambiguous threat against the Supreme Court that Senate Republicans said was his way of saying Democrats will pack the court if they don’t dismiss this case. But here’s the thing. The next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office and their party controls the Senate, they will pack the court regardless of what happens with this case. This is the new normal in American politics and makes every election that much more important.

The left’s goal of liberty control is being challenged by the Supreme Court. We are wise to pray the Constitution is properly recognized and our freedoms are protect against the tyranny of leftists in New York City and far beyond.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement