Trump Backs Bid Against New York City Gun Rules At Supreme Court
The Trump administration is backing a coalition of Second Amendment activists challenging New York City’s gun transportation regulations before the Supreme Court.
The Department of Justice has asked the Court to appear in support of the activists during oral arguments in New York City Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City. The government has already filed an amicus (or “friend of the Court”) brief urging the justices to strike down the city’s rules.
“The United States has a substantial interest in this case,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the Court in legal filings. “As a general matter, the United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In addition, Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms, and the United States has a substantial interest in defending the constitutionality of those laws.”
“The United States is thus well-positioned to address the reconciliation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms with the governmental interest in regulating firearms,” DOJ added. The Supreme Court often grants the government’s request for argument time, and the Second Amendment activists challenging New York’s rules have consented to the Department’s involvement in oral argument.
The regulations at issue prohibit licensed gun owners from carrying firearms beyond city limits. License-holders may only transport their weapons — unloaded and in a locked container — to authorized gun ranges. The plaintiffs are a gun-rights group and several city residents who wish to take their guns to vacations homes and shooting competitions outside the five boroughs.
The plaintiffs argue that the city’s regulations violate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel freely, and a constitutional rule forbidding the states from discriminating against out-of-state competitors. That last rule is sometimes called the “dormant commerce clause.”
The administration takes a slightly different position. Though they agree the ordinance violates the Second Amendment and the dormant commerce clause, they do not believe it violates the right to travel.
“This ban, on its face, discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of local business; it allows petitioners to take their firearms to local firing ranges, but not to firing ranges outside the city,” government lawyers told the Court.
The city amended its rules after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, setting off an extended debate as to whether the case should be dismissed. The justices have not yet scheduled the case for argument.
The New York City case is one of several major Second Amendment cases looming over the high court after a string of deadly massacres in Gilroy, California, El Paso, Texas, Dayton Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Court returns from an extended summer recess in October, when it will resume hearing cases.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
“According to Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms, and the United States has a substantial interest in defending the constitutionality of those laws.” Truth be told, their interest lies in DISARMING the American people so they can take TOTAL CONTROL over us!!!
Of the twenty-seven words contained in our Second Amendment nowhere do I see any caveats allowing for the feral government, any government state or local the ability or responsibility to restrict my God given and constitutionally protected right of self preservation. There are no clauses allowing for background checks, waiting periods, psychological profiling, permitting, or the registration of any firearm to anyone!
Most of our elected politicians in Government don’t recognize the Clause “the right of the “people” to keep and bear (carry) arms ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ However, I do see plenty of elected officials who would just as soon try and TAKE our God given right by usurpative fiat while at the same time refusing to abide by their oaths of office. Guns have but two enemies, RUST and Politicians!!!
As for the NICS Universal background checks, They are the opposite of being effective and a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s already a crime to sell a firearm to somebody who is not legally allowed to own a firearm, whether one goes through a background check or not, that is already a crime.
The NICS background check database is “faulty” and “racially biased,” in that minorities are more likely to share a surname with someone else who may have a criminal record.
Consider for decades now our Bill of rights has been under attack. Again I want to reference the Amendment that the framers intended to guarantee compliance of the other nine amendments, our second amendment.
I am curious to find out just how many politicians would be willing to place the same caveats as they have on our Second Amendment or any other amendment e.g. file a form and wait several days so one can exercise their first Amendment right to exercise free speech – file a form and wait several days to exercise their third amendment rights protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure. Or the ninth amendment that states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, in the Bill of Rights even though they are not listed. Meaning they can be violated. The proverbial political foot is in the door, and APATHY from the American people is allowing the door to usurpation to be thrown WIDE open as if it wasn’t there.
Regarding Red flag gun confiscation laws; they violate the Fourth Amendment.
If the government takes somebody’s God-given rights because they think that a person might someday commit a crime, then we enter into the realm of dystopian science fiction movies. Whether one is an ardent defender of the Second Amendment or not, all of us should be concerned about the implications of the Fourth Amendment and due process. The fourth amendment is a foundation of our country.”
Democrats don’t care about keeping people safe. For Democrats, this issue is about emotion. They’re appealing to emotion and not reason. If they were appealing to reason, they would know ways to keep people safe and that, to quote a book, ‘more guns equal less crime.’ But also for the Democrats, it’s about paying back their donors. Soros and Bloomberg are going to want to get what they paid for, and what they paid for is disarming our society.”
No one but God can dictate policy to me and my family and I will do whatever it takes to secure my liberty and the liberty of my fellow patriots. Stand in my way try and usurp my rights or otherwise enslave me, you should be prepared to back your actions up with your life as I am prepared to do likewise!!
There comes a time when you have to stand for the Constitution or die by legislation one usurpative bill at a time.
I will offer this little but important lesson in history – The reason Americans should be aggressively fighting against gun control is because armed people will not willingly load themselves in boxcars or FEMA camps!
“Those who fear your gun do so because they know they are guilty of things for which they should be shot”- Kevin B Shearer
“Laws forbidding the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria
Libertas est, non liber – mercedem mihi portionem substantiae sumptus
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
Celer Silens Mortalis
Semper-Fidelis
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛABE