by: Brent Smith
Scroll Down for Audio Version
The Atlantic wrote recently of, “an obscure New York City ordinance governing how firearms owners could—note the past tense—travel with their weapons.”
Under this law, “New Yorkers with a “premises” license had to keep their guns in their homes at all times, except when being taken to a licensed target-shooting facility for practice and training. But those facilities had to be in New York City itself. “Premises” licensees could not put their guns in their trunk and drive out of town for any reason—not to go to a gun range, not to compete in a shooting match, not to take the guns to a second home.”
A premises license? Well heck. If this isn’t unconstitutional, I frankly don’t know what is. Just where in the Second Amendment does it say anything about being forced to keep your guns at home at all times? Answer: NOWHERE!!
But as bad as this is, it is not my point.
The plantiffs, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, as well as the NRA, sued all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and much to most peoples’ surprise, they agreed to review the case.
This, as Joe Biden would say, is a “Big F-ing Deal!” The high court has not taken a Second Amendment case in over 10 years. The difference is evidently that anti-gun Kennedy is out and apparent pro-Second Amendment Kavanaugh is in.
What happened next?
In order to avoid the case from progressing to the high court, “The City repealed the offending transportation limits; the state legislature passed a statute banning the City from ever adopting them again. New York then told the Court the changes rendered the case “moot”—that is, in effect over, because the plaintiffs had what they’d asked for. The Court is supposed to dismiss moot cases, because there is no more “case or controversy” for the Court to resolve.
See what the problem is? Well, it’s completely bass-ackwards. First, by repealing the “offending” legislation, it gives the impression that the benevolent State of New York is bestowing a “right” on its citizens. Like – we have decided it was wrong to limit transporting your weapons, so we’re now allowing it.
Well heck no your not, for you had no authority to limit a citizens right to keep and bear arms in the first place. And in case you need a refresher, that means to own and carry.
And second – making something “moot” is nothing more than a bandaid. I can’t believe this, but I’m now going to quote the New York Times … positively.
Linda Greenhouse of the NYT asks: “Moot as in ‘nothing left to argue about ever again’ or moot as an example of ‘voluntary cessation’ that can be renounced at some future date?”
In other words, we’ll do anything to prevent this case from getting to the supreme Court. Even lie about the “permanent” repeal of the NYC law, which we’ll reinstitute when the heat dies down. If it makes it the Supremes, we may not be able to “un-repeal” the law.
This also nails the problem with all anti-constitutionalists in general.
Remember when Obama said he doesn’t like a Constitution of negative liberties. He wanted a Constitution spelling out what the government should do for us, ala FDR – a set of positive liberties. Sounds great right? It does until you actually think about the entire point of our Constitution.
The founders knew of the inherent danger of government. Like the Big Bang, it will naturally expand in all directions, encompassing more and more space, as it were. The Constitution, with its set of “negative liberties,” as Obama put it, spells out just what the federal government can’t do to the people – where it’s sphere of influence and interference ends.
The Bill of Rights is a set of unassailable individual rights, given by God and of nature, not by government. It’s the number one difference between ours and other nations’ Constitutions. No government – local, State or federal, has the authority to usurp these rights. And this is what New York is afraid of. This is why they hastily changed the law.