Justices Refuse Case on Gun Law in New York
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday that it would not weigh in on a major Second Amendment question that has divided the lower courts: May states bar or strictly limit the carrying of guns in public for self-defense?
The justices turned down a case concerning a New York State law that requires people seeking permits for carrying guns in public to demonstrate that they have a special need for self-protection. In urging the justices to hear the case, the National Rifle Association called the law “a de facto ban on carrying a handgun outside the home.”
Additional cases presenting essentially the same question are likely to reach the court in the coming months.
They refused it, I'm sure, because of politics. If they were to find in favor of New York, it would be an attack on the second amendment. If they were to find against New York, they would fear a country like the wild west where everyone carried a gun. Neither is positive outcome. In other words, they chickened out.
They refused it, I'm sure, because of politics. If they were to find in favor of New York, it would be an attack on the second amendment. If they were to find against New York, they would fear a country like the wild west where everyone carried a gun. Neither is positive outcome. In other words, they chickened out.
The law remains in effect. What will boomsticklovers do now?
They refused it, I'm sure, because of politics. If they were to find in favor of New York, it would be an attack on the second amendment. If they were to find against New York, they would fear a country like the wild west where everyone carried a gun. Neither is positive outcome. In other words, they chickened out.
They refused it, I'm sure, because of politics. If they were to find in favor of New York, it would be an attack on the second amendment. If they were to find against New York, they would fear a country like the wild west where everyone carried a gun. Neither is positive outcome. In other words, they chickened out.
Is there some reason that the only outcomes are "attack on the 2nd amendment" and "wild west?" Like, nothing in between maybe?
I hope not. I was born and raised in the wild west and love it dearly.
I don't understand why the SCOTUS should be able to refuse any case that's worked its way up to that level. I agree: They chickened out.
It's ridiculous that courts can refuse to hear a case on the basis that any finding might be too controversial. Are they bound to uphold the law or not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?