SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    SCOTUS Grants Certiorari in NYC Gun Rights Case NYSRPA V NYC Title 38
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
SCOTUS Grants Certiorari in NYC Gun Rights Case NYSRPA V NYC Title 38 Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
NYC is attempting to render this case moot by advancing to reverse the rules which were the initial subject of the Supreme Court petition.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/D...YMJpVfVtjwvZ8Rz96VXg
 
Posts: 334 | Location: NYC | Registered: October 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Yeah I read that on TTAG. Their take and the NRA.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....upreme-court-review/

"Once the Supreme Court granted cert in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York it began to dawn on the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex just how much the case puts their ever-growing web of Second Amendment infringing gun control laws at risk.

The Heller and McDonald decisions had been openly flouted by lower courts for a decade and SCOTUS was taking the opportunity to, uh, clarify those precedents and the limits on Second Amendment rights restriction.

As friend of TTAG and attorney LKB noted, the potential for applying strict scrutiny to laws which affect the right to keep and bear arms — basically treating the Second Amendment as an equal to other civil rights — could topple gun control laws all over the country. That’s a threat gun grabbers finally had to take very seriously. The last thing they want to see is Americans exercising the RKBA, willy-nilly, without appropriate supervision and control.

That’s why there’s now a move on in New York to render the case before the Court moot by changing the law. It’s a painfully obvious attempt to avoid what they see as a very good chance of an adverse ruling. And the city has asked the Court to delay further action on the case while they maybe, possibly, do something to the law in question.

Here’s the NRA’s statement on the city’s maneuver . . .

Fairfax, Va. – Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued the following statement in regards to today’s attempt by the City of New York to dismiss the NRA-supported Supreme Court case N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, et al. v. City of N.Y., et al.:

“The City of New York clearly knows that its current restrictions on the carrying and transportation of lawfully owned firearms are unconstitutional and will fail under any standard of constitutional review, as the NRA has been saying for years.

“Today, it asked the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and allow the City to slow walk a narrow expansion of its current policy through a lengthy bureaucratic process — the result of which, even if adopted, would still unduly infringe upon the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

“That is not how things work in the Supreme Court; the Court does not put its review on hold while the government embarks on a journey that at best might fix only a limited part of the constitutional defect.

“This is nothing more than a naked attempt by New York City to resist Supreme Court review of policies that even New York must recognize as inconsistent with the holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“The City of New York did not respect its citizens’ Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court granted review in this case and it will not respect them going forward. We are confident that the Court will reject New York’s desperate attempt to avoid review of its blatantly unconstitutional laws.”

Again, New York hasn’t changed its ridiculously restrictive law yet. They’re just claiming that they might do so in the future and asking the Court to delay for now. But according to LKB, there are exemptions to the mootness doctrine that the Court could invoke to allow the case to go forward even if New York City does actually rush through a change in the law.

And the fact that the proposed law change is so clearly intended to sidestep the pending case is an obvious, cynical move that won’t win them any friends on the Court.

Keep your eyes on this."


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
― Margaret Thatcher
 
Posts: 8921 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
This case is in limbo, yet again.

NYC in seeming cohorts with NYS has amended in large part the contested clauses within its Penal Law. NYC now moved to have this case dismissed as one which is moot.

The Supreme Court has distributed this case for its October 01 conference during which it will most probably rule on the raised mootness question. The court has also held additional three Second Amendment cases, absent comment, in what may be a hold until they decide this NYSRPA case.

In the interim, all of the anti-gun activists have pulled out the heavy hitting large law firms with former SCOTUS clerks in order to file Amicus Briefs in opposition.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has also filed a brief warning the court that:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people
know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the
public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce
the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent
issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to
heal.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/D...heldonWhitehouse.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/d...l/public/18-280.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...r-face-restructuring
 
Posts: 334 | Location: NYC | Registered: October 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
I read Whitehouse's brief. It reads like a flat out threat to the justices. Basically don't dare take this case and rule in a way we don't like or there will be consequences.
 
Posts: 9055 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
quote:
Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”
That sounds remarkably like a veiled threat to me. Whitehouse is trash so I wouldn't put it past him to attempt to threaten SCOTUS. Maybe the people of RI could pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and replace this buffoon before he further embarrasses them.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 28443 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigdeal:
quote:
Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”
That sounds remarkably like a veiled threat to me. Whitehouse is trash so I wouldn't put it past him to attempt to threaten SCOTUS. Maybe the people of RI could pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and replace this buffoon before he further embarrasses them.

Not "veiled" anything. The POS is clear as day with that statement.


Q


2016 MAGA ---> 2020 KAG
* P228 factoids *


 
Posts: 18047 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Be prepared for loud noise and recoil
Picture of sigalert
posted Hide Post
Unbelievable. They can’t win, so change the rules. Scum.




"Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order." Gene Hoffman - Calguns Foundation
 
Posts: 2752 | Location: California | Registered: March 23, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Administrator
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigalert:
Unbelievable. They can’t win, so change the rules. Scum.


They can't force the court to drop the case. The court ultimately decides whether the case is in fact, moot.

Though rare, if SCOTUS really wants to tackle this issue, they can find that it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

This is the same reason why Roe v. Wade didn't disappear for reasons of mootness (Roe. v. Wade took longer than 9 months to make its way through the courts).

If the Justices think this issue will come up again (and they have no reason to believe someone else won't try, or NYC itself won't try at a later date), they can go ahead with proceedings.

The Justices are not stupid or easily threatened. The resistance of political pressure is exactly why federal judges are appointed for life. Whitehouse can bark, but he's a Chihuahua yapping at a Galapagos Tortoise--the court will be there for far longer than he will, and likely can't even hear him.
 
Posts: 17629 | Registered: August 12, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
NYC claims that New-York State has changed its rules with preemption precluding the City of repeating its behavior.
The timing of the NYS rule change is suspect, yet on its face NYC may have a winning argument for mootness.


Now, if SCOTUS moots this case in order to grant Certiorari for NJ CCW "Good Cause" case "Rogers V Grewal," it will not be such a bad outcome either.
 
Posts: 334 | Location: NYC | Registered: October 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
As usual, having a lop sided court was fine, as long as it was stacked in the right direction. With “wise latinas” and the like.

I hate to say it, but this only puts us a step closer to civil war.


_______________________________________________________________________
www.opspectraining.com

"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011



 
Posts: 32877 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
If the SCOTUS reads Whitehouse's brief, and decides it is intimidation, is the SCOTUS then more likely to rule against NYC/NYS?


-c1steve
 
Posts: 2656 | Location: West coast | Registered: March 31, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by c1steve:
If the SCOTUS reads Whitehouse's brief, and decides it is intimidation, is the SCOTUS then more likely to rule against NYC/NYS?


SCOTUS's justices are not bionic mechanisms, and they most definitely have human emotions making Whitehorse's brief, in turn, not overly helpful for NYC's cause. Nevertheless, I do expect the justices to suppress any such conscious biases.

However, Chief Justice Roberts is famously averse to political controversy and the corresponding damage to the court's image. Hopefully this political outburst will not persuade him to avert this minefield.
 
Posts: 334 | Location: NYC | Registered: October 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by werzjon229:
quote:
Originally posted by c1steve:
If the SCOTUS reads Whitehouse's brief, and decides it is intimidation, is the SCOTUS then more likely to rule against NYC/NYS?


SCOTUS's justices are not bionic mechanisms, and they most definitely have human emotions making Whitehorse's brief, in turn, not overly helpful for NYC's cause. Nevertheless, I do expect the justices to suppress any such conscious biases.

However, Chief Justice Roberts is famously averse to political controversy and the corresponding damage to the court's image. Hopefully this political outburst will not persuade him to avert this minefield.
A better reply might have been that regardless what Whitehouse wrote, four Justices have already decided how they will rule on 'any' firearms cases brought before them. The question then becomes, would Whitehouse's comments force the the five conservative justices to act a certain way. I think the answer to that is...No.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 28443 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by werzjon229:
NYC claims that New-York State has changed its rules with preemption precluding the City of repeating its behavior.
The timing of the NYS rule change is suspect, yet on its face NYC may have a winning argument for mootness.


Now, if SCOTUS moots this case in order to grant Certiorari for NJ CCW "Good Cause" case "Rogers V Grewal," it will not be such a bad outcome either.


NYC is free to administer their pistol permit license system with no preemption from NYS. It's been that way for almost 100 years. Regardless of what the current law is in NYC/NYS, SCOTUS needs to rule on this case to prevent either entity from changing the law back to what it once was. At any rate, the rest of NYS is screwed regardless of the outcome of this case.


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 6235 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
[/QUOTE]

NYC is free to administer their pistol permit license system with no preemption from NYS. It's been that way for almost 100 years. Regardless of what the current law is in NYC/NYS, SCOTUS needs to rule on this case to prevent either entity from changing the law back to what it once was. At any rate, the rest of NYS is screwed regardless of the outcome of this case.[/QUOTE]

This litigation pertains to "Premise," possession only permits with its transport restrictions. The statutory carve-outs for NYC lies in its carry permit framework. The litigation does not address "directly" the larger constitutional question of public carry. The case may touch upon that when and if SCOTUS examines the "two step" approached utilized by the lower circuit court while also dictating an appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny to be applied to governmental firearm licensing schemes.

Now whatever pertains to the rest of NYS, yes; the state legislature has now enumerated a new class of possession only permit with streamlined transport restrictions. A deviation from such restriction is a felony unlike an administrative violations of administrative CCW restrictions of the likes issued, at least until now, in the rest of the state. Anti-gun counties will most certainly start issuing these premise permits never issued outside of NYC.
 
Posts: 334 | Location: NYC | Registered: October 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
Someone needs to challenge the basic NYS gun control laws, not just some obscure corner of it.
 
Posts: 19037 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Someone needs to challenge the basic NYS gun control laws, not just some obscure corner of it.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachalsky_v._Cacace

Tried and lost in Federal circuit and appeals courts. SCOTUS, in turn, denied Cert. at the time absent any comment.
 
Posts: 334 | Location: NYC | Registered: October 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
The court has changed since then. It may be time for another attempt.

quote:
Originally posted by werzjon229:
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Someone needs to challenge the basic NYS gun control laws, not just some obscure corner of it.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachalsky_v._Cacace

Tried and lost in Federal circuit and appeals courts. SCOTUS, in turn, denied Cert. at the time absent any comment.
 
Posts: 19037 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by c1steve:
If the SCOTUS reads Whitehouse's brief, and decides it is intimidation, is the SCOTUS then more likely to rule against NYC/NYS?


No, they wouldn't base their decision because of a threat by a third party.

But they won't pay much or any attention to Whitehouse anyway. He can't do much, if anything, to them.

Whitehouse is probably mostly posing for the benefit of his constituents.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 47963 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
The court has changed since then. It may be time for another attempt.

quote:
Originally posted by werzjon229:
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Someone needs to challenge the basic NYS gun control laws, not just some obscure corner of it.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachalsky_v._Cacace

Tried and lost in Federal circuit and appeals courts. SCOTUS, in turn, denied Cert. at the time absent any comment.


There are presently at least two right- to -carry cases now pending Cert. which are attempting exactly that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/s...l/public/18-824.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/S.../public/18-1272.html
 
Posts: 334 | Location: NYC | Registered: October 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    SCOTUS Grants Certiorari in NYC Gun Rights Case NYSRPA V NYC Title 38

© SIGforum 2019