A panel of judges on the 2nd US. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan has rejected the NRA’s appeal against an unjust New York law that closed gun shops in the state during the pandemic. The panel ruled against the NRA because the order no longer applied, and the statutes had been changed in order to prevent a similar order in the future. But is that justice? The court is letting New York get away with a temporary crime. As Tom Knighton explains in Bearing Arms, it’s not right. He writes:
If we don’t have access to a gun store, we don’t necessarily have a right to keep and bear arms.
However, during the pandemic, many states ordered gun stores to close–right at a time when more and more Americans were clamoring to buy a gun. One of those states was, unsurprisingly, New York.
Also unsurprisingly, the NRA filed a lawsuit. It didn’t go the way the organization would have liked, so they appealed it.
Well, that didn’t go so well either.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled against the National Rifle Association in the gun rights group’s lawsuit challenging New York state’s closing of gun stores early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a 3-0 vote, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the NRA’s bid for an injunction was moot because there was “no reasonable prospect” of more closures, after the state legislature curtailed the governor’s power to impose COVID-19 restrictions.
Lawyers for the NRA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, which represented the state, did not immediately respond to a similar request.
The NRA had sued over a March 2020 executive order by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo closing gun stores because they were “non-essential businesses.” It said the closures violated the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions.
A federal judge dismissed the NRA’s lawsuit in August 2020, and Cuomo’s order was later rescinded.
In short, the court didn’t actually say Cuomo’s order was legal or constitutional, only that it was over and there wasn’t a high likelihood of that order being issued once again.
That’s something that’s always bugged me about the court system. You can stop all over my rights all you want, but if you stop before it gets to court, there are no repercussions for having done so. The state can do whatever they wish.
It’s like a bully giving a kid a wedgie, but he avoids punishment because he stopped before going to the principal’s office over it.
Nothing about that is right. It may be legal, but it’s a prime example of how what is just and what is legal don’t always occupy the same real estate.
Action Line: If your state doesn’t respect your rights and attempts to infringe upon them, it’s time for you to look for a better America, today.
E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy
Latest posts by E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy (see all)
- My Nephew Graduates, and I’m Larry the Cable Guy - June 5, 2023
- California Is Driving These Wealthy Businesses Out of the State - June 5, 2023
- Rome, Paris, U.S.A.: Global Crisis in Confidence - June 2, 2023
- Your Survival Guy’s Best Insider’s Guide to Rome - June 2, 2023
- What Is a Fiduciary Duty? Are You Working with a Fiduciary? - June 2, 2023