Image via Pixabay

New York City’s bizarre gun rule that prohibits gun owners from transporting their guns outside of the city is facing the ax via the Supreme Court. It’ll probably be struck down. The law makes no sense from a constitutional standpoint.

Then again, it makes no sense by any other criteria one can think of.

Now, the Department of Justice is joining in the chorus asking for the Court to overturn the law.

The Justice Department on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to overturn a New York City gun law that regulates where licensed handgun owners can take their firearms.

The justices are poised to hear the Second Amendment case next term, and it will be the first substantive gun rights cases the court has heard since Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark opinion in 2008 holding that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun at home and a follow up case in 2010.

Supporters of gun rights fear that the Supreme Court may have decided to weigh in now because Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation last year solidified a 5-4 conservative majority.

“New York City’s transport ban infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd and 14th Amendments,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in a friend of the court brief Wednesday.

The law prohibits individuals with so-called “residential licenses” from taking their guns out of their home to transport anywhere other than a small handful of authorized gun ranges within the city.

The problem is that it bars people from taking them to a second home, to ranges outside of the city, or to shooting competitions not at those specific ranges.

Frankly, this law needs to be struck down and struck down hard. I’d argue gun control advocates should want this law struck down too.

You see, if you adhere to the belief that more guns somehow equal more crime, then the last thing you should want is a law that makes people keep guns in the city rather than taking them away from the city. This law prevents the number of guns within the city from dropping in some cases.

For a gun control advocate, that should be a deal breaker.

However, I think we all know that’s not how the gun control crowd thinks. For many, it appears to be less about combatting violence and more about controlling guns for the sake of controlling guns.

It doesn’t matter, though. The Supreme Court will hear this case. It’ll listen to arguments and likely overturn the law.

What I look forward to reading is what justification is used to defend this law in the dissenting opinion — assuming, of course, that there is one.

I can’t fathom a single constitutional argument that can rationally be used to defend a law like this for existing, yet here it is, and it’s been defended all the way to the highest court in the land. I’ll read the opinion from start to finish. I like good comedy as much as the next guy.