• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices Refuse Case on Gun Law in New York

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This is not the end of the controversy as is noted in the article. Refusing to take the NY case would seem to be in conflict with decisions made in lower level Federal courts

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.


and the freakout will ensue
 
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.

none of the 45+ states that have sensible shall issue laws have had wild west outcomes

some think its because the circuit court encompasses CT as well
 
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.

Is there some reason that the only outcomes are "attack on the 2nd amendment" and "wild west?" Like, nothing in between maybe?
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I have to disagree. Check the actual crime rates in the "wild west", if you can find them and compare them to today. The earliest I have seen for murder go back to around 1900, and the murder rate then was so low compared to today, that every murder would be break in news on CNN, not a page 10 blurb in the local paper.
 
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.
 
The last bolded line of the OP says it all. They'll take a case that represents the many flavors of the new gun laws in the various states. Preferrable to making whack-a-mole decisions.
 
In other words, the courts are refusing to do their jobs and respect the Constitution.

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?
 
Last edited:
I hope not. I was born and raised in the wild west and love it dearly.

No, you weren't, and you should be thankful for that.
 
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.

Probably because there just wouldn't be enough time to deal with every case properly. And not every case needs to be argued in front of the Supreme Court.
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?

The "controversial" part was something another person alleged, not something the court claimed. In fact, I don't think the court ever gives a reason for why they choose not to hear a case.
 
Back
Top Bottom