The Supreme Court has evaded cases concerning the second amendment for years. That is until today when the court agreed to hear a challenge to a highly restrictive gun ordinance in New York City. NYC makes it hard for residents to own a firearm as they grant very few licenses. To make matters harder for licensed gun owners, they cannot carry them outside city limits. Because of these laws, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association along with three residents have sued the city. They have lost their case in the district court and the court of appeals. Their argument is that NYC is the only jurisdiction that prohibits legal gun owners from doing this. Personally, I am not sure this is the gun issue the Supreme Court should be hearing at the moment. With so many mass gun shootings in this country with semi-automatic and automatic rifles, they would be better served confronting a larger problem which plagues the U.S.
- Anna Speer
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-rights-return-to-the-supreme-court-11548202109
I agree with your point, but I think any step to control gun usage is a step in the right direction for this country.
ReplyDeleteI think it's good that this has gone to the supreme court, as it wil likely prompt more discussion about the issue, which I think is good for the country. However, this could also result in a supreme court decision that sets gun reforms years behind in progress.
ReplyDelete-Dillon Quicksall
I agree with you Dillon. I think that it’s often the case where the Supreme Court makes a decision that is a really good step in the right direction or a really bad move. For example, the Dred Scott case stripped African American rights even far after the thirteenth amendment was passed.
Delete-Ryan Mecca
I am all for this. It is important that gun rights aren't forgotten about and that some action is being taken. This a hopefully going to be a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteWe have the right to bear arms, but states like New York and California make it difficult to exercise that right. I, probably contrary to most of you reading this, hope the Association wins their case.
ReplyDeleteThe post above states that this is not "the gun issue the Supreme Court should be hearing at the moment," considering the mass shootings that have occurred all too often. If the underlying premise is that because more people are killed by "assault rifles," the type of firearm in question should then be that of "assault rifles," I´d have to disagree, simply because far more people are killed by handguns than by rifles of any kind (FBI Crime Statistics).
I actually have a lot more to say but I should really be doing note cards right now.
I agree woth your opinion and i'm also glad about the fact that this has gone to the Supreme Courts hands as well. I think it is important that gun rights arent something that is forgotten about.
ReplyDelete