Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NYC firearms transport case gets SCOTUS cert

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by camper4lyfe View Post
    So they hear the case today, but what's the expected timeline to get a decision?
    I think the decision is likely to be announced around June?

    Everyone is going to be trying to figure out what the justices are thinking based on their comments and questions today.

    Anyone know if RBG is going to be there for today's oral arguments?
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
    www.unconvictedfelon.com
    www.facebook.com/blackcoyotesrt

    I was thinking of his cannon.

    Comment


    • #17
      NRA Life Member
      NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
      www.unconvictedfelon.com
      www.facebook.com/blackcoyotesrt

      I was thinking of his cannon.

      Comment


      • #18
        Consider the source, but: I just saw a NY Times article reporting on the proceedings today, looks like SCOTUS may decide the case is moot based upon all the 11th hour law changes that NYC made.....
        Beer is like porn, you can buy it but it's more fun to make your own

        I have to bend over too far

        I get a boner.

        bareback every couple of days, GTG. Bareback, brokeback, same $hit!

        I joined a support group to help me deal with my social anxiety but I just can't seem to work up the nerve to go to a meeting......

        Comment


        • #19
          yep, dodge the real issue
          don't ever expect "justice" from SCROTUS
          “The function of the law is not to provide justice or to preserve freedom. The function of the law is to keep those who hold power in power.” – Gerry Spence

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by thughes View Post
            Consider the source, but: I just saw a NY Times article reporting on the proceedings today, looks like SCOTUS may decide the case is moot based upon all the 11th hour law changes that NYC made.....
            Consider the source.

            Based on the different reviews and summaries of oral arguments that I've been reading, I'm not sure that they'll decide the case is moot. As far as I can tell, conditions haven't changed any since the court denied the NYC argument for dismissal. So to go through all this pomp and circumstance just to render it moot after oral arguments seems like a dumb move from a court that puts a high value on its time. Roberts pointed out that the plaintiffs' case could be amended for monetary damages, and that would mean that case is still alive.

            Some of the information I've been getting from Twitter sources seems more optimistic, but nothing I'm reading is giving me the impression this is going to lead to a big "strict scrutiny" ruling. I don't follow these things on a regular basis, so I'm not sure how many times the court makes a ruling that isn't more or less aligned with what is being argued. In this case, it seems that most of the arguments were about mootness, and the plaintiffs weren't necessarily making a strict scrutiny argument. Sounds like a better argument could have been made by the 2A side, but time will tell.

            I'm not really sure what to make of it. It seems like the SCOTUS would be more than a little concerned about legislatures being able to ignore their decisions and pass whatever law they want just to nullify it quick before it reaches the highest court in the land. But they only get to judge the cases before them so who knows.
            NRA Life Member
            NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
            www.unconvictedfelon.com
            www.facebook.com/blackcoyotesrt

            I was thinking of his cannon.

            Comment


            • #21
              https://www.law.com/nationallawjourn...20191103223833

              Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito Jr. on Monday appeared to strive
              to save the U.S. Supreme Court’s first major gun-rights case in nearly a
              decade from disappearing without a ruling on the scope of the Second
              Amendment.

              Groups supporting broad firearm rights, critical of how lower courts
              have applied the Second Amendment, have urged the court to use the case
              to announce a tough standard or test that governments must meet in order
              for regulations to be upheld as constitutional.

              Alito and Gorsuch dominated questioning of New York City Law
              Department’s chief of appeals Richard Dearing, who argued there no
              longer was a live controversy for the justices to resolve in the case
              /New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York/. Before
              the case was argued, New York scrapped its rule that set restrictions on
              the transport of firearms outside the city limits.

              Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan pushed
              back at comments by Alito and Gorsuch that suggested the court could
              still issue a ruling on the New York regulations.

              Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh did not ask any questions
              during the arguments. Kavanaugh’s silence was somewhat surprising given
              his strong dissenting opinion in a 2011 Second Amendment case when he
              sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In that ruling,
              Kavanaugh wrote a *_lengthy dissent_
              <https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...36-1333156.pdf>*
              explaining why he would strike down the District of Columbia’s firearm
              registration requirement and ban on semi-automatic rifles.

              The mootness issue surrounding the case arose after the justices agreed
              to review the New York case. The defunct restrictions limited the
              transport of guns—unloaded and locked in a container—from the home to
              any of seven designated shooting ranges inside the city. License holders
              could not transport their guns to shooting ranges or second homes
              outside of the city. *[Clauses intended to protect the in-city
              businesses and thereby increase city tax revenue.]*

              After the city eliminated those restrictions, the New York General
              Assembly, amending state law, said premises-license holders could
              transport their handguns to any location where they are lawfully
              authorized to have and possess such a weapon.

              During arguments Monday, Gorsuch called *the city’s amended ordinance
              “herculean, late-breaking efforts to moot* the case.” Alito described it
              as a “quite extraordinary step” to attempt to moot the challenge.

              But Ginsburg, questioning Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, *_lead
              counsel_
              <https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...18%20FINAL.pdf>*
              for the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, said the new state
              law blocks whatever the city attempted to do. “What’s left of this
              case?” she asked. “Petitioners have gotten all that they sought.”

              Whether the challengers received all they asked for in their lawsuit was
              at the heart of the mootness arguments. Clement contended that if they
              had prevailed in the lower courts, they would have sought an injunction
              protecting against any future prosecutions for violations of the old law
              and other collateral consequences of that law.

              Clement and Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall also argued that the
              challengers still might be able to ask for damages for economic losses
              flowing from the defunct regulation. *But Dearing drew support from
              Ginsburg when he countered that the high court had never used a late
              damages request to save a case from mootness.*

              The challengers also contend the city’s old law violates the Second
              Amendment, the commerce clause and the right to travel. The U.S. Court
              of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling in
              favor of the city on all counts.

              On the merits of the constitutional challenge to the defunct city
              restrictions, Clement and Wall urged the high court to adopt “text,
              history and tradition” as the constitutional test for gun regulations.

              Clement said the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not
              strictly limited to the premises.

              Wall argued the justices’ landmark Second Amendment *_ruling_
              <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf>* in
              2008—/District of Columbia v. Heller/—said to start the constitutional
              analysis with text, history and tradition. History answers the question
              about the city’s restrictions because, he claimed, “There is no
              historical analog” for those restrictions.

              But Sotomayor called that test a “made-up new standard.” Heller, she
              added, was very careful to say: “We treat [the Second Amendment] as any
              other constitutional provision.”

              Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. on Monday asked few questions during
              arguments in the New York case and he gave no indication of where he
              might stand on the mootness and merits issues.

              More than 40 amicus briefs have been filed by a broad range of gun
              rights groups, civil rights groups, victims of gun violence and others.
              Major U.S. law firms, representing various friend-of-the-court parties,
              were largely supportive of New York’s regulatory scheme for firearms.

              Wall argued for the Justice Department likely because Noel Francisco,
              the U.S. solicitor general, had recused. His former law firm, Jones Day,
              *_filed a brief_
              <https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...w%20Center.pdf>*
              on behalf of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
              Last edited by Norm DeGuerre; 12-03-2019, 10:43 PM.
              “The function of the law is not to provide justice or to preserve freedom. The function of the law is to keep those who hold power in power.” – Gerry Spence

              Comment


              • #22
                Here is my only issue with the moot point deal. What is to stop the city from enacting the ban after it gets thrown out and then we have to go threw it all over again only to have them change the law once again. I'm getting very sick of this tyrannical way of government and running to another state isn't going to change the problem. Look at Virginia for Christ sake. All Democrat led and now counties are sandbagging their borders with 2nd amendment sanctuaries.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by blackpowdershooter30 View Post
                  Here is my only issue with the moot point deal. What is to stop the city from enacting the ban after it gets thrown out and then we have to go threw it all over again only to have them change the law once again. I'm getting very sick of this tyrannical way of government and running to another state isn't going to change the problem. Look at Virginia for Christ sake. All Democrat led and now counties are sandbagging their borders with 2nd amendment sanctuaries.
                  That's my biggest issue, too, and what the city was hoping would happen.
                  Old enough to know better, still too young to care

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by blackpowdershooter30 View Post
                    Here is my only issue with the moot point deal. What is to stop the city from enacting the ban after it gets thrown out and then we have to go threw it all over again only to have them change the law once again. I'm getting very sick of this tyrannical way of government and running to another state isn't going to change the problem. Look at Virginia for Christ sake. All Democrat led and now counties are sandbagging their borders with 2nd amendment sanctuaries.
                    On the flip side, what's to keep them from finding another way to enact a similar travel ban under a slightly different premise if SCOTUS doesn't declare the case moot? In reality, that has been the name of the game for 2A cases. As soon as a ruling strikes down one way of limiting the RTKBA, the jurisdictons that are so inclined just come up with another way to restrict things. Lather, rinse, repeat.
                    NRA Life Member
                    NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
                    www.unconvictedfelon.com
                    www.facebook.com/blackcoyotesrt

                    I was thinking of his cannon.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X