No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money is reporting on a loss in District Court. I think we’re probably going to lose in District Courts a lot. What matters is losing in higher courts. This will be appealed. Even if, on appeal, the case loses, it may still create a circuit split that will force the Supreme Court to make a final decision.
2 thoughts on “Momentary Setback”
Comments are closed.
“Found that Second Amendment protections in Heller only applied to “hearth and home” and not to carry outside of the home.”
Markie Marxist sez: “See! It’s the right to keep not bear arms, just like the Second Amendment says! Can’t gun owners read? Where do they get the idea that they have a right to actually ‘bear’ arms? They must be reading comic books instead of the Constitution!”
“Besides, private gun owners don’t win in New York. Ever. We Marxists own that state, so we don’t allow it. Our judges there will rule against gun owners because the sun is shining, unless it’s raining, and then they’ll rule against them because it’s raining, though they are, of course, smart enough to cloak their rulings in proper-sounding legalese. Still, any excuse will serve a tyrant! All that matters is that we win and that private gun owners lose! Ha! Ha! All your right to keep not bear arms are belong to us!”
This ruling conflicts with at least a dozen cases that say the state/police have no duty to protect you (including SCOTUS’s own Castle Rock v. Gonzales).
Rulings at the lower courts that conflict with SCOTUS jurisprudence are cert petitioner’s wet dreams. This shouldn’t be viewed as a loss, just as a stepping stone to SCOTUS.