It's possible they decided to punt on this one because they're going to make a more thorough ruling on another case (hey, dream big, right?).

Tomorrow they are considering whether to hear Worman v. Healey, which is about Massachusetts' assault weapon and magazine ban.

https://www.scotusblog.com/cas...ses/worman-v-healey/

The problem with the ruling in this case is any other case that SCOTUS decides in favor of the 2a rights will have no bearing on NY\NYC. This was a direct chance to put some serious holes in NYC\NYS gun control.

A decision on the Massachusetts ban wouldn't necessarily mean immediate change in New York, but I think "no bearing" is a stretch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding. Let's take as a hypothetical example SCOTUS issuing a narrow ruling, say, striking down Massachusetts' magazine ban on the basis that restricting magazine capacity is unconstitutional. That might only have an immediate impact in Massachusetts, but that decision would still be binding on lower courts and provide a pretty iron-clad basis for judicial challenge of magazine bans in other states.

It could certainly take a lot longer to work through the judicial process than an immediate decision, though.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
The problem with the ruling in this case is any other case that SCOTUS decides in favor of the 2a rights will have no bearing on NY\NYC. This was a direct chance to put some serious holes in NYC\NYS gun control.

Huh?

NYC and NY will take aggressive stances on their own laws vis a vis any Supreme Court rulings, but the federal judges in those states will be stuck with Supreme Court law on those points. Of course rulings on Massachusetts cases has bearing on NY. And California, and Hawaii, and every other state in the union.

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
So if I follow this correctly they rendered this "moot"!

Only Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas on the dissenting side.

F Me, what do we have to have a 8-1 "strict constitutionalist" majority for sanity to prevail?

Disappointing to say the least.

HK Ag

The debate in the court on this point is about mootness. That isn't a strict construction issue at all. It is fairly arcane appellate law point about when the Court can hear cases.

Criticising the justices who thought this was moot as not being pro 2A, just means: 1) you don't know what the mootness debate is about, or 2) you want judges who ignore the mootness issue to vote your way. Those would be activist judges. Activism is no better when it goes your way.

I read Alito's opinion - he had good points about mootness, but so did the other side. It may be better to get one where the issues are squarely presented with no distractions.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
The problem with the ruling in this case is any other case that SCOTUS decides in favor of the 2a rights will have no bearing on NY\NYC. This was a direct chance to put some serious holes in NYC\NYS gun control.

Huh?

NYC and NY will take aggressive stances on their own laws vis a vis any Supreme Court rulings, but the federal judges in those states will be stuck with Supreme Court law on those points. Of course rulings on Massachusetts cases has bearing on NY. And California, and Hawaii, and every other state in the union.

The easiest way I have to illustrate just how NYS\NYC ignores SCOTUS decisions is the application, or lack there of, of the Heller decision. In Heller SCOTUS found that you have the absolute right to possess an operating handgun in your domicile. This sounds pretty similar to the concept of shall issue handgun licensing since you can't possess a handgun in NYS without a license. NYS is still a may issue state, and you can be denied for almost any reason the issuing authority can come up with. You would think that a SCOTUS decision recognizing an absolute right would carry some weight, but not in NY. If we want that applied here, we'll have to file suit and fight it out for three to five years at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. Hell, NYS lost the lawsuit against 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine, and they still haven't changed the wording of the SAFE act.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
So if I follow this correctly they rendered this "moot"!

Only Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas on the dissenting side.

F Me, what do we have to have a 8-1 "strict constitutionalist" majority for sanity to prevail?

Disappointing to say the least.

HK Ag

The debate in the court on this point is about mootness. That isn't a strict construction issue at all. It is fairly arcane appellate law point about when the Court can hear cases.

Criticising the justices who thought this was moot as not being pro 2A, just means: 1) you don't know what the mootness debate is about, or 2) you want judges who ignore the mootness issue to vote your way. Those would be activist judges. Activism is no better when it goes your way.

I read Alito's opinion - he had good points about mootness, but so did the other side. It may be better to get one where the issues are squarely presented with no distractions.

I agree that there a better cases in the pipe line, but the outcome of this one was pistol license holders in NYC got relief, and the same license holders in NYS got more restrictions.

OPINION REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Whitehouse Effect at the Supreme Court
Democrats think they’ve found a way to move John Roberts to the left.
By The Editorial Board
April 29, 2020 6:56 pm ET


Our editorial Tuesday on the Supreme Court’s gun-rights ruling has inspired a letter nearby from four Senate Democrats led by Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. We recommend it to readers as it amounts to a victory lap and perhaps a sign of what it is come on the High Court.

Some readers may recall the Supreme Court phenomenon known as the Greenhouse Effect. That was how Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals described in 1992 the impact on the High Court of former New York Times legal reporter Linda Greenhouse.

The Supreme Court is Still Gun-Shy


She applied a carrot-and-stick approach to the Justices in her coverage of Court decisions depending on whether they pleased or offended her political preferences. Justices are human and want to be admired, and over time the Greenhouse Effect influenced John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to move left.


Well, now it looks like we have a Whitehouse Effect in which Chief Justice John Roberts can be moved by political threats to judicial independence. The Chief joined the four liberal Justices in remanding as moot a case challenging a New York City regulation barring people with a legal gun permit from carrying those guns outside the city to a shooting range or second home (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York).

Justice Samuel Alito clearly believes in the Whitehouse Effect, as he makes specific reference in his dissent to the amicus brief filed by Mr. Whitehouse and other Democrats that threatened the High Court with restructuring if it didn’t toe their line on the New York gun case. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Justice Alito’s dissent shredded the short, unsigned majority opinion on the mootness point. New York changed its rule but not enough to eliminate all of the burdens it put on the plaintiffs in violation of the Second Amendment. Yet the Court majority didn’t even attempt to rebut the dissent’s arguments.

Note, too, how the Whitehouse letter to us treats all of this as entirely political, as if there is no matter of law at stake. Because the National Rifle Association supports the New York plaintiffs, he suggests their case is illegitimate. Does he think plaintiffs backed by Planned Parenthood should be disqualified on abortion cases?

Lower-court judges are flagrantly disregarding the High Court’s Heller precedent as they uphold new gun laws, yet the Court has stood idly by for a decade. No wonder Mr. Whitehouse and his mates are chortling. They think they can turn the Chief Justice their way whenever they whip up the Whitehouse Effect.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...rticle_copyURL_share

^^^ That would really be something, except that (1) Democrats constantly pretend to power and control that they don't actually have - and often fool themselves with their own BS, (2) Democrats think that Democrat politicians are getting their asses whipped, and (3) oh, yeah, the Democrats are gearing up for an election this November.

May I suggest taking this whole article with a five-pound bag of rock salt?

I'll bet that Roberts is not moved by such threats to judicial independence. One thing that federal judges do not cotton to is a threat to their power, even down to the lowliest of magistrates.

Roberts may be more deferential to the legislative power, structurally speaking, than you might like, but the legislators won't have much luck pushing him around. Besides, without the Senate, and probably without a super-majority in the Senate, they can't do anything but threaten.