Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Darrenf said:

This case can pave the road though.

I win is always good. And the Cheeseman case might have perfect timing. May issue to must issue.

Only thing I’ve read is NY city could change its laws in the interim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I win is always good. And the Cheeseman case might have perfect timing. May issue to must issue.

Only thing I’ve read is NY city could change its laws in the interim.

Yep, that could happen, and is pretty likely actually, because it is part of the coward's playbook NY and NJ is known for, if they are going to lose, they relent in order to not set precedent. That's why Cheeseman's case is so important, because that move is out of play, they boxed NJ in.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

Yep, that could happen, and is pretty likely actually, because it is part of the coward's playbook NY and NJ is known for, if they are going to lose, they relent in order to not set precedent. That's why Cheeseman's case is so important, because that move is out of play, they boxed NJ in.

 

Werd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

Aside from potentially being a part of history, is there a benefit to NJ gun owners from filing an Amicus curiae brief? Could SCOTUS use any of our terrible gun laws as an example that would trigger a review? I will contribute either way, but I'm curious if there is a potential bonus. @Smokin .50

We would most probably see some relief of the "Directly To & From" law that we all currently live under here in NJ.  Once Pandora's Box gets pried open (as far as overreaching / unconstitutional transportation restrictions goes), the Court could clearly establish a "no restriction policy" or a "very limited restriction policy" that would eliminate both NYC & State of NJ (and anywhere else this type of BS is currently enforced) vague overreach.  Not allowing someone to use their legally acquired personal property (which is what a firearm is at its' simplest level) in a common use (crossing state lines to shoot a match, hunt, sell, collect, etc., etc.) is easily struck down.  How narrow or far-reaching the majority opinion goes still remains to be seen.  raz-0 already laid-out some of the possible interpretations we could see as a result of this.

We all need to keep in mind the totality of the circumstances here.  SCOTUS rules on what's legal in the entire country, NOT only what's legal in NYC and/or NY state.  Any law struck down regarding excessive rules & prohibitions of transportation could come from literally any clause in the USCON including, but certainly not limited to the interstate commerce clause.  Restricting matches, practice, competitions, gunsmithing (as well as any other "normal & customary use") of personal property to only be available within a specific geographic region (in NYC's case the 5 boroughs) is blatantly discriminatory.  Put bluntly, IMHO, when this gets FIXED, a NYC gun owner won't be overburdened with "Directly To & From" cause one traffic jam could cause a gun owner to fall victim to being automatically guilty of a gun crime (SOUND FAMILIAR NJ gun owners?)!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, leahcim said:

Does anyone know if NYC transport law only applies to transport within the state or would it also apply to transport to a match in another state?

And does FOPA come into play for interstate?

If you live in NYC and have a permit and a gun, you cannot transport that gun out of the city, no matter what reason you have for wanting to take it out of the city.  That is the law being challenged here.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darrenf said:

If you live in NYC and have a permit and a gun, you cannot transport that gun out of the city, no matter what reason you have for wanting to take it out of the city.  That is the law being challenged here.

 

How does FOPA "safe passage" clause not override the local statute if you are doing interstate transport?

In fact, in the language below (other than in the section title) I do not even see a need for interstate travel, as long as it is legal at start and destination.

"18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearmto any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leahcim said:

How does FOPA "safe passage" clause not override the local statute if you are doing interstate transport?

In fact, in the languauge below, I do not even see a need for interstate travel, as long as it is legal at start and destination.

"18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearmto any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."

What makes you think any lawmaker under the 2nd circuit cares one iota about federal laws?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the way things are happening today I see states blatantly defining fed law as they already are in so many cases. I don’t, for the life of me, understand how they get away with it but they are. Now, you can sit and scream it’s your right or rights all day but you’d be in the same boat of spending all your kids college money and a 2nd mortgage trying to defend them in this life. I believe beyond good decisions from the SCOTUS enforcements of these rulings must follow. When Gav. Wallace blocked the school entrance from a black girl Robert Kennedy sent US Marshals to move or arrest him. Today the feds aren’t even bringing suit to the states defying them. Too much is cared about votes and not enough about the voter.  If it gets decided we can carry in our glove compartments and stop at the mall and Murphy and his troops roll over and say “sure” I’ll buy the first round. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

What makes you think any lawmaker under the 2nd circuit cares one iota about federal laws?

Understood.  And no one wants to defy the law because--even if you ultimately win--it'll cost you a lot.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Zeke said:

I win is always good. And the Cheeseman case might have perfect timing. May issue to must issue.

Only thing I’ve read is NY city could change its laws in the interim.

DiBlasio had vowed to "vigorously defend" the law.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the issue with Heller is “the right is at its zenith in the home”.  Courts have been using this to mean the right is limited to the home.  New York’s argument is almost entirely predicated on this, thus the transport law doesn’t significantly impact the core right of having a gun in the home for protection.  The petitioners in this case are not arguing against this faulty premise directly though they do touch on the type of scrutiny used to get to the fact that NY has presented no data to support there assertion that the law will protect the public and is therefore constitutional restriction.  We really need a case that expands upon the core right and concludes definitively that the right extends beyond the home as Scalia alludes to with his review of the the word “bear” which he concluded means to carry which in my view, and I believe his view includes outside the home, otherwise the framers would have used a word like posses.  Of course he did say that is to be determined at another time which the courts have also used to argue in home only.  If this case is decided based on the narrow argument presented I fear it will do little for us and given SCOTUS has not taken any other cases in the last ten years I feel it could be a waste of a review.  We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following quote from the slate article Peel linked provides some clues why Heller stopped short of recognizing the right to bear arms outside the house.

 

Quote

Despite this circuit split, the Supreme Court has declined to take a public-carry case and resolve the matter once and for all. The main reason appeared to be Justice Anthony Kennedy, who compelled Justice Antonin Scalia to add limiting language to the Heller decision establishing an individual right to bear arms. Given Kennedy’s wobbly support of gun rights, the conservative justices avoided taking a case that might result in a 5–4 decision upholding public-carry bans. Now Kennedy is gone, replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a gun-rights enthusiast who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment. With a firmly pro-gun majority in place, the conservative justices finally seem ready to supercharge Heller.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2019 at 9:39 AM, WP22 said:

The following quote from the slate article Peel linked provides some clues why Heller stopped short of recognizing the right to bear arms outside the house.

 

 

This is the full article.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

Despite not agreeing with the premise, I must say, it is very well written and presents the situation well.   Much better than that CNN bs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Maksim said:

This is the full article.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

Despite not agreeing with the premise, I must say, it is very well written and presents the situation well.   Much better than that CNN bs.

They continue to try to make it about carrying when I thought all the guy wants is to throw it in his trunk and leave the city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BobA said:

They continue to try to make it about carrying when I thought all the guy wants is to throw it in his trunk and leave the city. 

True, the intention is that NYC law... BUT it does have implications, which to us as gun people should be great news.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BobA said:

True of course. But the press is making it out like “terror in the streets”. 

Of course they are, that always do. If all the predictions came true, we all should have died  in the past two years.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...