BREAKING: Supreme Court Punts on Gun Rights, Declares New York State Rifle & Pistol Case Moot

H/T The Truth About Guns.

New York changed its law and the Supremes punted on gun rights.

In an effort to avoid an almost sure adverse ruling by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the city changed the underlying law. It was an obvious and nakedly cynical attempt to have the case declared moot and dodge a likely expansion of gun rights in the United States.

That gambit worked. In a ruling announced this morning, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has declared the case moot.

You can read the Court’s decision here.

Here’s the Associated Press’s Mark Sherman’s report:

The Supreme Court sidestepped a major decision on gun rights Monday in a dispute over New York City’s former ban on transporting guns.

The justices threw out a challenge from gun rights groups. It ruled that the city’s move to ease restrictions on taking licensed, locked and unloaded guns outside the city limits, coupled with a change in state law to prevent New York from reviving the ban, left the court with nothing to decide. The court asked a lower court to consider whether the city’s new rules still pose problems for gun owners.

The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

But other guns cases remain in the high court’s pipeline and the justices could decide to hear one or more of those next term.

Although the opinion was unsigned, the court was split, 6-3, over the outcome.

Gorsuch joined Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissenting from the dismissal. Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he agreed with the result, but also said the court should take up another guns case soon.

Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision early in 2019 to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices.

Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.

Those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case before arguments in December.

Below The Radar H Res 702

H/TAmmoLand.

Representative Ayanna Pressley (Delusional-MA) is one of the goon squad.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- You might notice we have touched on resolutions recently. While they do not have the force of law, they can be a very potent way of shifting public perception – and with that shift in public perception comes a shift in votes, in the legislatures at the state level, in Congress, and at the polls on Election Day.

One particularly dangerous resolution is H Res 702, introduced by Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). Pressley, one of the members of “The Squad” that gets so much airplay from the mainstream media, has made a serious propaganda play aimed right at our Second Amendment rights with this resolution.

For starters, look at the title of the resolution: “Recognizing that the United States has a moral obligation to meet its foundational promise of guaranteed justice for all.”

As a propaganda move, it is not too shabby. The 31-page resolution contains a massive laundry list of left-wing statements of “facts” and then offers what they consider as solutions for Pressley’s idea of what constitutes “justice.” You have to go to the end of page 25 and the top of page 26 of the PDF to find the portions that affect our Second Amendment rights.

Those two paragraphs, though, should disabuse Second Amendment supporters of any notion that will get anything but injustice from Pressley, if she had her way. Take a look at what she demands on the gun issue.

She starts off by saying she wants to reduce “gun violence” by “regulating manufacturers.” Of course, she’s trying to convince people gun manufacturers aren’t regulated with that line. The many federal, state, and local laws that are in force (see the NRA-ILA summaries) say otherwise.

Pressley goes further, to also call for “limiting firearm production and sales, including a permanent ban on assault-type weapons.” Now, we have discussed the injustice of these bans on multiple occasions, notably with schemes like those put forth by Elizabeth WarrenBeto O’Rourke, and Eric Swalwell.

Representative Pressley isn’t done, though. She also calls for “a mass gun buyback program.” Now, she doesn’t say whether or not it is mandatory, which Beto O’Rourke (now Joe Biden’s “gun czar”) was calling for in the wake of the El Paso mass shooting, but the word “mass” indicates she wants to take a lot of guns away.

One of the giveaways can be seen in some of the laws she has co-sponsored. Among them are the Gun Records Preservation Act (the House version of the Tiahrt Restrictions Repeal Act), the House version of Warren’s anti-Second Amendment monstrosity, and the Disarm Hate Act. She can also be expected to be a reliable vote for anything that advances an anti-Second Amendment agenda.

H Res 702 would be a huge advance for an anti-Second Amendment agenda. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and politely urge them to oppose this resolution.

These Are the States Projected to Gain and Lose, Congressional Seats Following the Census

H/T Town Hall.

It will be interesting to see how many DemocRat seats are lost and how many Republican seats are gained.

Things are going to be interesting once the 2020 census is completed. Based on newly-released figures from the Census Bureau, quite a few heavily populated, Democratic-leaning states are going to lose Congressional seats. And states that traditionally vote Republican are set to gain seats.

According to the Wall Street Journal, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia are all expected to lose one Congressional District. Texas is expected to gain two seats while Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon are expected to each gain one Congressional seat.

The population rate grew 0.5 percent over the last year, which is the slowest in a century, the Brookings Institution concluded.

For the first time since California joined the union the state is projected to lose Congressional seats, The Hill reported.

The power shift from the midwest and northeast is huge for the southwest, where housing is cheaper, the weather is warmer, the job market is stronger, and, in some cases, the taxes are lower.

Districts will be doled out by December 2020 but details will be worked out in 2021. It’s hard to say which political party will benefit from the reallocation because the political party that’s in the majority redraws those districts. Who controls the state legislatures will be determined during the 2020 election.

The actual reapportionment calculation will take place by December 2020, with its details worked out in 2021. Each state will redraw its legislative maps, and those that have more than one congressional seat will redraw districts as well.

Majority of Americans WANT the ‘Citizenship Question’ On the U.S. Census

H/T Godfather Politics.

The citizenship question was on the census form until Bathhouse Barry Obama removed it.

With yet another liberal court intervening to try and stop the Trump administration from doing its job, a new poll finds that a majority of people WANT the “citizenship question” to be placed on the upcoming 2020 U.S. Census.

The administration had proposed adding a question to ascertain if those replying to the census were official U.S. citizens. But the courts struck down the proposal.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the citizenship question that the Trump administration proposed, but the court did not say that no citizenship question is permissible. Now the administration is considering altering the question for inclusion on the 2020 Census.

But, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll, most Americans want such a question on the Census. The poll found that 53 percent want the question whereas only 32 percent do not, the Washington Examiner reported.

The survey asked: “Do you think the federal government should or should not ask people whether they are American citizens as part of the 2020 census?”

The results:
-Should ask 53%
-Should not ask 32%
-Not sure 14%

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.

48K people are talking about this

According to George Washington University Law professor John Banzhaf, the citizenship question should be able to pass Constitutional muster.

“There are several rationales — including one based upon the Constitution itself — which could well still persuade the courts to permit a citizenship question on the census, especially if the explanation were included in the executive order now being considered, rather than in some new declaration by the Secretary of Commerce,” Banzhaf said.

Indeed, such a question was on the U.S. Census from 1850 until Eisenhower eliminated it for the 1950 Census.

The media did not really report that the question had been removed by the Eisenhower administration. Worse, current reporting of Trump’s decision to put it back is often presented without telling the public that the question has only been missing from only seven Census forms in the last 170 years.

Trump Is ‘Very Seriously’ Considering This Route To Get That Key Citizenship Question On The Census

H/T Town Hall.

We need the citizenship question on the 2020 census that way we can get a better idea of how many illegals there are in America.

The number of illegals in America is a question Delusional DemocRats do not want answered.

Of the many legal roadblocks, the citizenship question on the 2020 census was one I thought would never be one. We’ve added one before in past surveys. It’s constitutional. The Justices noted that in the recent 5-4 decision to send this back to the lower courts for review. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court. The main problem was that the Court didn’t like the Commerce Department’s reasoning for adding the question.

No doubt this was a body blow and it was even more disheartening when Commerce decided that they were going to print the surveys without the question. Again, the question itself is constitutional, but there was no time to hash this legal matter out in time. The clock was already running out. Yet, prior to the Fourth of July holiday, Trump said he ordered the Department of Justice to look into ways to add the question onto the survey.

He had also mulled delaying the census until this matter can be resolved. Now, the president might just add it through executive order. As Obama said, elections have consequences and he had a phone and a pen. Yep, and that applies to any president (via Associated Press):

President Donald Trump said Friday he is “very seriously” considering an executive order to try to force the inclusion of a citizenship question as part of the 2020 Census.

Speaking to reporters as he departed the White House for a weekend in New Jersey, Trump said the idea is among four or five options he’s considering as he pushes the issue.

“It’s one of the ways that we’re thinking about doing it, very seriously,” he said, despite the fact that the government has already begun the process of printing the census questionnaire without that question.

[…]

An executive order would not, by itself, override court rulings blocking the inclusion of the citizenship question. But such an action from Trump would perhaps give administration lawyers a new basis to try to persuade federal courts that the question could be included.

This is a key question. If you don’t have the right to vote here, you shouldn’t be counted. Sorry, only citizens should be counted and this strikes at the heart of Democratic Party power. They’ve harnessed and exploited illegal aliens for years to boost their delegations on the Hill.

This could undercut that immensely, especially in California. They cannot let this happen. So, even though an executive action won’t overrule the courts per se, it will spark yet another meltdown about this presidency.

That alone is worth doing. It will be great to see the liberal media have a meltdown again. And it will probably guarantee that the 2020 Democratic candidates would peddle positions to counter this move that goes so far to the left, they’ll go off the cliff. I mean they’re already insane now.

Do it, President Trump.

***

UPDATE: As for the DOJ legal team, well, a Maryland judge affirmed that they’re pursuing adding the question per the White House demands (via WaPo):

Government lawyers affirm administration will pursue adding citizenship question to 2020 Census, according to statement to Maryland judge. This is a developing story that will be updated.

[…]

A federal judge in Maryland overseeing one of three lawsuits on the citizenship question has given the Trump administration until 2 p.m. Friday to explain how it intends to proceed.

U.S. District Judge George J. Hazel has indicated he is poised to authorize litigants to start producing information in the case before him, which raises questions about whether the government had a discriminatory intent in asking for the addition.

In a call shortly before the 2 p.m. deadline, a Department of Justice lawyer said the government still doesn’t know what it plans to do, according to Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represents some of the plaintiffs challenging the question.