he United States is legally built upon what’s known as the Constitution, a list of laws that outlines that basic protections afforded to Americans. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows United States citizens to bear arms – in simple terms, this means they’re allowed to possess firearms.
According to time.com, the state of New York has long supported a law applicable only to the residents of New York City that allows them to hold a permit to own a firearm that can be kept at only their home, further allowing them to only transport that firearm to any of seven shooting ranges located in New York City. It’s easy to see how the residents of New York City who are also firearm owners might take issue to this law, as they could face prosecution for simply transporting their guns to shooting competitions or gun ranges outside of these seven pre-approved destinations within New York City, or even transporting such firearms to another residence of theirs.
A trio of handgun owners who live in New York City with such licenses banded together in an attempt to change the restrictive law, which they believed was – and still is to this very day – excessively invasive in terms of their Constitution-given Second Amendment rights.
Believe it or not, the municipality of New York City, New York, hand-in-hand with the Empire State’s state-level legislative force, agreed to reduce such restrictions on New York City handgun owners before the United States Supreme Court even began to hear the aforementioned trio’s case at the highest level of all courts of law in the United States.
Just yesterday, on Monday, Dec. 2, 2019, Supreme Court Justices spoke amongst one another virtually entirely about whether they should kick the aforementioned case out from being heard or not, legally known as a dismissal.
During the hearing on Monday, the attorney who was hired to represent the trio of gun owners, Paul Clement, fought back against the Supreme Court Justices after they had brought up the idea that the defendant’s side of the argument had already given up. Mr. Clement particularly took issue with the potential that handgun owners who stopped somewhere to get a bite to eat or fill up their vehicle’s tank could find themselves in legal trouble.
They could even get in legal trouble – serious legal trouble, that is – for taking a bathroom break! The judges didn’t take that argument seriously. The case isn’t over yet.