Supreme Court allows New York gun law placing restrictions on concealed firearms to remain in effect
Source: CNN Politics
CNN The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm to remain in effect while legal challenges play out.
In a brief order, the justices rebuffed an emergency request from challengers to the law who say it violates their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They asked the justices to lift a federal appeals court order that froze a district court decision that invalidated key provisions.
The justices declined to do so. Justice Samuel Alito wrote, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, to say they agreed with their colleagues but stressed they were not ruling on the merits of the law, but simply declining to intervene in the dispute at this juncture. The case is currently before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
I understand the courts denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuits procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view in the merits of the case, Alito wrote. He urged the lower court to continue to expedite the appeal. The courts order marks the first Second Amendment case to reach the high court since a major Second Amendment decision last summer that expanded gun rights nationwide.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/11/politics/supreme-court-new-york-gun-law
Full headline: Supreme Court allows New York gun law placing restrictions on concealed firearms to remain in effect pending legal challenges
question everything
(47,607 posts)FBaggins
(26,795 posts)The 2nd circuit appears to be acting pretty quickly and there isn't much need for an emergency vacate of their order since the status-quo leans in that direction.
JT45242
(2,320 posts)The decision threw out "well regulated" and common sense regulations.
Cars, well regulated. Schools, well regulated. Food, well regulated in theory.
But an object designed for killing things that the founders included well regulated in the document, not so much according to Alito and the other whack job 'originalists.'
elleng
(131,439 posts)melm00se
(4,998 posts)that (local) prohibitions on concealed carry.
Thank you.
LetMyPeopleVote
(146,005 posts)LeftInTX
(25,817 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,113 posts)LeftInTX
(25,817 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,113 posts)don't know what "headline" means and prefer to make them "summaries".
MayReasonRule
(1,463 posts)melm00se
(4,998 posts)presence scrutinized?
Once it becomes fair game for one thing, it is not a leap that it will be applied to others.
MayReasonRule
(1,463 posts)The lack be of precise definition makes the potential for rampant abuse long, broad and deep.
More than slightly reminiscent of the Patriot Act to this casual everyday observer.
msfiddlestix
(7,289 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,289 posts)based on the appeal filing to be heard before them.
It's always interesting to me SCOTUS ruling doesn't seem too concerned about firearms in their Court.
Oh. Wait. Can't get past Security carrying firearms? Isn't that a violation of 2nd A. according to their rationalization?