Think of It as Good Old-Fashioned Bench Electioneering

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to put on hold a New York City licensing rule requiring prospective gun owners to show good moral character to own a firearm. In rejecting a stay request on Thursday relating to a district court order that’s being appealed, Sotomayor turned away yet another bid to prohibit government officials from enforcing their laws while being challenged in court. [More]

Sounds to me like she’s campaigning to keep her seat.

Related UPDATE

Yes, by all means.

[Via Jess]

We’re the Only Ones Processing Enough

Sometimes shining bright lights and banging pots and pans work.

Intolerable, that it took communicated outrage. And that the “concession” still isn’t good enough. And that “permits” are a thing.

[Via Jess]

To All Intents and Purposes

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen found that a central part of New York’s licensing process, requiring a special need to obtain a concealed-carry permit, violated the Second Amendment. Because of this, Rivera reasoned, New York can no longer presume that everyone who possesses an unlicensed firearm intends to use it illegally. [More]

The presumption ought to be that licenses are illegal.

[Via Jess]

A New York State of Mind

NYPD Granting Fewer Gun Permits After Supreme Court Ruled It Had To Grant More, Data Shows [More]

Checking the demographics of issued permits would be instructive. Are minorities “underrepresented”? Are there quotas to address that, and do they violate the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action ruling?

Oh, and before making him the poster child for Big Apple “gun rights,” how does Dexter Taylor vote?

[Via Andy M]

So… No Poll Taxes?

In a case involving fees for commercial filming in areas under the control of the National Park Service, the DC District Court has ruled that fees charged for exercising constitutional rights of the first order are unconstitutional… ‘This regime is difficult to square with the longstanding rule that the government may not “impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution,” including the First Amendment right to free expression.’ [More]

I see this was written before a historical understanding was ruled the standard.

Still, what’s with “a right granted by the federal constitution“?

[Via Dan Gifford]

Verified by MonsterInsights