Exciting December for 2A laws

[Tanis143]

So far this month we have the SCOTUS taking on the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case even though NYC removed that stupid bit from their laws (seriously, how can city law regulate where you take personally owned items?), and now we have a new bill in HoR: Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act.

I'm more optimistic about the SCOTUS case than I am the HD&CSA bill, at least with the dems in control of the HoR.

 

[foghorn918]

What’s in the bill?

 

[Tanis143]

What’s in the bill?

Basically removes SBRs and SBS from the NFA and forces the BATF to destroy all records of them.

 

[Catt57]

I had read that SCOTUS is not going to hear the case since NY already removed the statue. Of course, that may have just been written by wishful Dems hoping to dodge a figurative bullet.

 

[Dumpstick]

I had read that SCOTUS is not going to hear the case since NY already removed the statue. Of course, that may have just been written by wishful Dems hoping to dodge a figurative bullet.

SCOTUS is hearing the case now. Yesterday and today.

 

[BobbyV]

Basically removes SBRs and SBS from the NFA and forces the BATF to destroy all records of them.

 

[rawhide]

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/7833...tle-in-10-years-may-transform-legal-landscape

 

[BobbyV]

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/7833...tle-in-10-years-may-transform-legal-landscape

I remember reading about that now.

New York is a bizarre state.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chuter]

Here's a transcript of the arguments, I skimmed over it a little, it's a long read.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_j4ek.pdf

 

[dennishoddy]

Here's a transcript of the arguments, I skimmed over it a little, it's a long read.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_j4ek.pdf

Long read for sure. Got started on the first dozen pages and then realized it will take some time to actually read it.
From the first part I read, it appears NYC didn't want this to go before SCOTUS and NYC basically capitulated.
The defense was arguing that even though they capitulated, there were still requirements that any travel to a range, out of state, etc had to be continuous and uninterrupted.
So the argument with the liberal judges was what if one needed a potty or coffee break along the way? If they had a flat tire and could not continue the trip they are guilty under that current statute?
All that needs cleared up.