XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.politics.democrats.d, sac.general   
   XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh   
   From: constitution@usa.us   
      
   The Supreme Court took up its first major gun control case in   
   nearly a decade on Monday, hearing arguments in a dispute   
   between a gun advocacy group and New York over a statute that   
   restricted the transportation of firearms outside city limits --   
   even when licensed, locked and unloaded.   
      
   The city's statute was later amended but the court heard   
   arguments over the original measure anyway, in a case that could   
   have ramifications for local gun laws. The fact the high court   
   even considered the case -- New York State Rifle & Pistol   
   Association v. City of New York -- prompted a stunning complaint   
   earlier this year from Democratic senators, who filed a brief   
   essentially threatening to pack the court absent changes.   
      
   The warning underscored what could be at stake in Monday's case.   
      
   The Supreme Court has not issued a significant gun rights   
   decision since 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller. Since then   
   the court applied Heller – which recognized the right to possess   
   a firearm for purposes such as home protection – to states via   
   the 14th Amendment in 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. A 2016   
   ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts, which dealt with a state ban   
   on stun guns, did not focus on traditional firearms but   
   acknowledged that the Second Amendment extends to other weapons   
   as well.   
      
   It's unclear whether the case before the court on Monday could   
   join the list of landmark Second Amendment cases.   
      
   The law in question said city residents could apply for a   
   "premises" license to keep a firearm in their home, but they had   
   to keep the weapons at home. Licensees were permitted to take   
   their guns to one of the seven authorized city shooting ranges   
   if kept in a locked container. The New York State Rifle & Pistol   
   Association fought the law, claiming it was unconstitutional to   
   keep people from bringing their weapons to second homes or   
   ranges outside of the city.   
      
   While the court agreed to hear the case, New York City amended   
   the regulation following a change in state law, removing   
   prohibitions against transporting locked, unloaded, licensed   
   firearms to homes, shooting ranges, or competitions outside the   
   city. The city and its supporters claimed that the change   
   ultimately makes the case moot.   
      
   Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia   
   Sotomayor appeared to agree.   
      
   "The Petitioners have gotten the relief that they sought,"   
   Ginsburg noted during Monday's arguments. Sotomayor told   
   plaintiff's attorney Paul Clement that this was "a case in which   
   the other side has thrown in the towel and completely [given]   
   you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for   
   relief..."   
      
   Clement argued this was not the case, and that the new law is   
   still unclear because while it permits "continuous and   
   uninterrupted" transportation of firearms on their way out of   
   New York City, it does not address what would happen if a gun   
   owner, for instance, takes a coffee or bathroom break along the   
   way.   
      
   Sotomayor noted this is an issue with the new law, not the old   
   one at the center of this case. The new law has yet to be   
   reviewed by lower courts. Justice Stephen Breyer also said he   
   believes that people who stop for coffee while transporting guns   
   would not be prosecuted.   
      
   Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, pointed out that   
   stopping for coffee while transporting a gun would still have   
   been a problem under the old law, so this issue should be   
   relevant in the current case. The attorney for the city,   
   meanwhile, argued that such breaks "are entirely permissible,"   
   as the "continuous and uninterrupted" language is absent from   
   the state's law, which is controlling.   
      
   Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, however, argued that the   
   plaintiffs could be awarded damages for economic harm suffered   
   while the old restrictions were in place. Ginsburg noted that   
   this could have been a lifeline for the plaintiffs' case, except   
   they never requested damages.   
      
   "They've had every opportunity to say that they want damages,   
   including today," Kagan pointed out, "and for whatever reason,   
   Mr. Clement has, you know, basically said this case is not about   
   damages."   
      
   What the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association really wants   
   is for the court to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of   
   the old law, which could impact future legislation.   
      
   Clement claimed that a ruling was necessary to send a message   
   regarding the unconstitutionality of limiting the transportation   
   of firearms, which could prevent future prohibitions from going   
   forward.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)