Gun Owners Blast NYC’s Shady Effort to Avoid Likely Supreme Court Loss

‘This is a very transparent attempt to move the goal post in the recent Supreme Court case…’

NYC Tries to Change Its Gun Control Law to Prevent Supreme Court From Overturning It

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association / IMAGE: Saratoga Flag via Youtube

(Kaylee McGhee, Liberty Headlines) Fearing that the Supreme Court will overturn gun-control regulations in the state, New York City officials are attempting to prevent the decision by amending the law on which the court will rule.

In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to an existing gun-control regulation in New York City, which prohibits law-abiding citizens with premises licenses from taking their guns into homes and shooting ranges outside the city.

According to The New York Times, the city’s police department held an “unusual” public hearing last month to make the Supreme Court case “disappear” by amending the law and removing these regulations.

To alter the regulation, feedback from the general public was required, and many citizens who attended the public hearing disagreed with the city’s attempted manipulation.

“This regulation shouldn’t be modified,” resident Hallet Bruestle wrote in a submitted remark. “Not as a result of it’s a good regulation; it’s blatantly unconstitutional. No, it shouldn’t be modified since it is a clear tactic to attempt to moot the SCOTUS case that’s particularly trying into this regulation.”

Another NYC resident wrote: “This is a very transparent attempt to move the goal post in the recent Supreme Court case.”

Before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Affiliation v. Metropolis of New York, city officials had defended the regulation in previous court challenges, arguing that it “furthers an essential public-safety curiosity.”

The plaintiffs in the case wrote that the city’s attempt to make the case moot is “just not regulation,” but manipulation.

“The proposed rule making,” they wrote, “seems to be the product not of a change of coronary heart, however relatively of a fastidiously calculated effort to frustrate this courtroom’s overview.”