NYC Gun Grabbers Change Law To Avoid Potential Supreme Court Loss

Not mentioned is the notion that New York City could change the regulation back if the Supreme Court decides to drop the case, because gun grabbers loke to play lots and lots of cases (though the Court will most likely not drop the case)

Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Police Department held an unusual public hearing. Its purpose was to make a Supreme Court case disappear.

In January, the court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun regulation. The city, fearing a loss that would endanger gun control laws across the nation, responded by moving to change the regulation. The idea was to make the case moot.

The move required seeking comments from the public, in writing and at the hearing. Gun rights advocates were not happy.

“This law should not be changed,” Hallet Bruestle wrote in a comment submitted before the hearing. “Not because it is a good law; it is blatantly unconstitutional. No, it should not be changed since this is a clear tactic to try to moot the Scotus case that is specifically looking into this law.”

David Enlow made a similar point. “This is a very transparent attempt,” he wrote, “to move the goal post in the recent Supreme Court case.”

The rule itself was about restricting where law abiding citizens could take their firearms. They were limited to 7 shooting ranges in the city (which the city would also like to shut down), but not to second homes or shooting ranges outside the city. The changes would remove those restrictions. If the court drops review of the case, you know that those restrictions would slowly re-appear. Because if the gun grabbers can’t do the Big Law, they’ll do death by a thousand rules.

Still, the city seems determined to give the plaintiffs — three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association — everything they had sued for. The plaintiffs, in turn, do not seem to want to take yes for an answer.

If you go back to the bold in the first excerpt, it is very easy to see why. They want the Supreme Court to rule to avoid future attempts by NYC (and across the country) to limit movement with a legally and constitutionally acquired firearm to this degree.

The court has said the “voluntary cessation” of government policies does not make cases moot if the government remains free to reinstate them after the cases are dismissed. But formal changes in laws may be a different matter.

To hear the plaintiffs tell it, the court should not reward cynical gamesmanship.

“The proposed rule making,” they wrote, “appears to be the product not of a change of heart, but rather of a carefully calculated effort to frustrate this court’s review.”

And now we wait. I’d personally bet that SCOTUS will review the case, and NYC and other gun grabbers will not like the ruling.