I read this yesterday and am surprised nobody has posted here.

Summary was a NY law that violated the 2A by onerous licensing and gun transport/traveling and other restrictions. Plaintiffs sued, and by the time it worked it's way to the SCOTUS, NY knew they were in the wrong and rescinded or changed the law.

6-3 ruling (Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas dissenting) the Supremes tossed in on mootness. The theory of mootness means that since there's no current harm, there's no remedy and no reason to have a trial over it. It's a rarely used device, and federal courts typically don't let offenders off the hook just because they stop offending. A well known example is a polluter who fixes his pollution after being sued.

There is a principle in law about judicial efficiency. All the Supremes had to do was craft a short opinion to resolve the debate, something like this:

"This / these laws are plainly in violation of the express language, meaning, and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. And while NY has cleverly retracted its law, after years of civil rights violations, we find that harm was done and future harm by similar laws will be done if this is not forever addressed and settled.

Is a thief not guilty even when, after caught, he returns the stolen item? Is a rapist not guilty even after getting caught and apologizing? Is a liar not culpable even after apologizing once his lie is revealed? A knife wielding attacker causing harm to a victim, is not exonerated once the victim receives medical care and heals. While mitigating steps to fix the harm are recognized in the law, they never undo the harm or broken law. Fixing the conduct is not a defense, it is mitigation on the punishment. The bedrock of our judiciary holds illegal behavior accountable, regardless of the mitigation the guilty party does to fix it. The guilt is in the actions. Mitigation is a separate matter. And in the case before us, civil rights were plainly violated for a number of years and unknown, unknowable, and unquantifiable harm was done.

We recognize it takes years and significant economic investment (economic harm) to get relief through the Courts. Allowing respondents/defendants to control the litigation process by "fixing" their illegal behavior on the eve of trial, and "mea culpa, and a pass" both rewards bad actors and fails to give plaintiffs their 'day in court.' We are making it widely and clearly known that this law, and others that plainly violate the clear language and intent of the 2nd Amendment, are Un-Constitutional and cannot be "fixed" once infringed upon by merely withdrawing it. So today we take two plain actions. We first enact a nationwide injunction against any state gun control measures XYZ that are in violation as being on the face a violation of the 2nd Amendment, utilizing a strict scrutiny standard of review. Secondly, to put teeth to these words, we award the plaintiffs compensatory damages of all costs and fees and punitive damages of this astronomical amount to be placed into a trust and divided among all gun owners in the state who can file a claim for harm."

Cite? Link to case? Case #, anything?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_ba7d.pdf
Yup, sorry 'bout that. Here's the opinion.

Alito's dissent nails it.

This decision gives me some concern/pause about Roberts on gun cases...

There's several more gun cases coming up for review. I'm not-very-confident in the court composition and sure would feel a lot better if we had a couple more conservative gun judges.

The ruling is pretty strongly worded and very critical of NYC. First, when the law was in for serious scrutiny NYC tried to withdraw the law. That was actually a sleazy move on NYC's part. If the supreme court did not rule the plaintiffs could not receive damages. The supreme court demanded to hear the case, ruled against the unconstitutional law, and granted damages. That is major support. The court sent a very clear message regarding restricting travel with a firearm.

The supreme court also spanked the lower courts. It told them a cry of "public safety" is not a blank check for cities to pass restrictive gun laws.

I doubt this will stop law makers from passing BS laws. They love to pass what ever law they like and don't bother to evaluate its lawfulness.

We know how to make that happen......getting Trump reelected is going to be THE priority this year