Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Let's keep this thread focused on the case, pls. Thx.

@Mrs. Peel this should fit the bill...And now a word from our attorney on staff at CNJFO...

 

SCOTUS HEARS CRIES OF MOOTNESS IN NYSR&P CASE!
UNDETERRED, TRUTH TRAIN STILL BARRELS DOWN TRACKS!
by Theresa Inacker, CNJFO Communications Director 12-02-19
www.cnjfo.com/join-us

Keep Calm and Litigate On!

The day for oral arguments finally arrived, as attorneys appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Washington, D.C. to argue disputed matters in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City. At the heart of the matter, it is a challenge to New York City’s firearm transport ban. Both sides—Pro-Second Amendment folks and anti-rights groups like Big Daddy Bloomberg-funded Everytown, Moms Demand and the Brady folks alike, anxiously awaited a long-overdue conversation on the substance of the Second Amendment’s application outside the home.

Disappointing to some, the Court focused on the issue of mootness more than the merits of the Second Amendment’s application outside the home. The issue of mootness seems so academic and theoretical: Well, it is exactly that. Unlike a right to Keep and Bear arms which is tangible and substantive, mootness isn’t very interesting.

You may be asking what is mootness? A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer alive or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the lawsuit.” See www.FedBar.Org March/April 2008. Not very exciting, but extremely critical to American jurisprudence.

Left-leaning media are enthusiastically pushing their articles about how the Court does not seem interested in expanding Second Amendment rights after today’s arguments. They think they’ve found an off-ramp for this 2A train barreling down the tracks. I tell them, do not count your chickens before they’ve hatched. If this train car doesn’t get heard on the merits, the Cheeseman case will, or another thereafter.

My pro-Second Amendment folks: do not lose heart. No one knows how the Court will rule. No one knows why a Justice asks a question or remains silent during oral argument. Justice Clarence Thomas asked his first question in three years back in March of 2019 ---that was after ten years of not asking any questions, from 2006 to 2016. I suggest not judging a Justice by his/her questions.

Keep calm and litigate on!

EDITOR's NOTE:

Theresa Inacker is a lawyer who loves Constitutional law and studied how SCOTUS operates. A former Managing Editor of the Seton Hall Law School Constitutional Law Journal, Inacker was admitted to the Supreme Court Bar earlier this year. While some news sources provide a slanted pro-gun or anti-gun Pablum, we at CNJFO strive to give you, our readers, expert ANALYSIS while others chime-in with half-truths, innuendo, and supposition. SCOTUS will release their opinion on mootness prior to hearing the actual case---IF that is to be our destiny. Stay tuned, and as more SCOTUS news breaks, we'll give Inacker her much-deserved "ink".

---The Editors

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, closeup
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

You can talk about 2A or you can BE about 2A...and we have plenty of room for talented volunteers to help make a difference!

Rosey

 

Bumper_Sticker_No_One_Is_Coming_It_Is_Up

"if you are an adult then no one is coming. No one is coming to save you. You have to take responsibility for your own life and what happens in it."

 

Seems all r getting tired of this bullshit fancy stepping around....i have seen signs on the net that they r ready and waiting for the big dance to start...

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 10 years is enough time. That anniversary is coming up. We've watched the NRA, SAF and others work the courts. SCOTUS has refused to hear a carry case. We can wait around for the two oldest Democrat justices to retire or expire. That could take years. Maybe the best thing to do is make the convention of the states happen. When the people cannot get relief from an out of control government, they have three choices. Election, insurrection and Constitutional amendment. The first hasn't worked. The second did work back in the day but not without a heavy price. The third is already under way. Since the legislators and courts can't seem to figure this out, why not the people?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was and is a shit case -- too narrow and too easy to issue a very limited ruling.  No idea why this is the one the justices granted cert for.  A carry case like Rogers makes a lot more sense for a test case.

But I wouldn't cry doomsday just yet if it is dismissed bc moot.  The justices, even ones that want Heller to have teeth, must consider the legal issues involved now that the law has been repealed.  Even if Roberts and Kavanaugh decide moot, doesn't mean that future 2A cases are dead in the water.  I think it likely that the court will decide its moot and that we will know soon if that is the case.

Breyer is really a POS -- so much for Stare Decisis.  I don't think Ginsburg or Kagan will be so cavalier as to say Heller isn't binding.  They will just limit it as much as possible.  SotoMAYOR probably will go with Breyer.  But completely ignoring Heller opens a whole can of works and bad precedent when abortion cases are heard -- if Heller can be abandoned why not Roe?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I think 10 years is enough time. That anniversary is coming up. We've watched the NRA, SAF and others work the courts. SCOTUS has refused to hear a carry case. We can wait around for the two oldest Democrat justices to retire or expire. That could take years. Maybe the best thing to do is make the convention of the states happen. When the people cannot get relief from an out of control government, they have three choices. Election, insurrection and Constitutional amendment. The first hasn't worked. The second did work back in the day but not without a heavy price. The third is already under way. Since the legislators and courts can't seem to figure this out, why not the people?

I'm no expert on this topic but at first glance, at least in regards to the 2A, it is our state govt that is the problem not the federal govt. The convention is meant to give power back to the states no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article about questioning of the lawyer for NYC, Richard Dearing by Justice Alito.

https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/12/02/alito-nyc-attorney-second-amendment-only-exist-home/

The author of the above article concludes by saying:

"Justice Alito did a superb job in demonstrating the games that gun control activists are playing with the right to keep and bear arms. Let’s hope there are four more justices on the Court who are ready to put a stop to them."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my editorial on the Inacker SCOTUS story I posted yesterday:

GUN OWNERS NEED TO LEARN HOW THE SUPREMES FUNCTION!
WATCHING SCOTUS IN ACTION REQUIRES A CIVICS-101 LESSON!
by Black Wire Media Tuesday Dec. 3, 2019 www.cnjfo.com/join-us

Scanning social media since yesterday's oral arguments in the SCOTUS case NYSR&PA vs. New York City leads us to believe most gun owners were left in the dark in high school by not having a Civics-101 class on how the US Supreme Court functions. As some 2A pundits decry "the other side had paid protestors along the Supreme Court buildings' sidewalk, how come we didn't see a huge crowd of our people?", ignorant gun owners are in holiday shopping and tree-trimming mode while reading & listening to MSM sources foretelling a huge victory for the anti's. Then everybody gets upset! Feeling flummoxed, they pour their souls onto social media stirring the pot, thus recklessly and inadvertently leading others to "spread the bad news like The Plague". Thing is, the news isn't bad at all, it was merely EXPECTED (mootness issue)! So why is everybody so unraveled?

Oh my gosh did an editorial staffer just call gun owners ignorant? YES WE DID! Why? Social media is ablaze with misinformation, pent-up emotionalism, OPINIONS (not FACTS!) and the end result is bewilderment on the part of gun owners seeking a glimmer of hope while reading & listening to a barrage of half-truths, innuendo & outright falsehoods beset upon us as only a well-oiled PROPAGANDA MACHINE can accomplish! In short, we are sometimes our own worst enemy when it comes to social media. Just STOP IT already!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Theresa Inacker, a member of the Supreme Court Bar:

Associate Justice RBG asked a really hard question of the city: why is having TWO guns in TWO houses better than just having ONE brought between them? Leaving the one at the empty house vulnerable to theft".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several 2nd Amendment cases "in the que" waiting for molasses in January (SCOTUS) to do their due diligence and handle this case with the same nit-picking, often misunderstood rules & procedures that have both benefited and plagued this Republic since its inception! Put bluntly, we'll let you know if the ship is sinking, when it's time to protest, and (hopefully) when it's time to REJOICE!

Till then, pass the eggnog, pass the single malt, REMAIN CALM and consider placing some of that emotional energy in a VOLUNTEER ROLE with NJ's busiest 2nd Amendment group, CNJFO! You'll certainly feel better #DoingSomething than being a propaganda puppet. There's real WORK to be done, so JOIN HERE from anywhere in the 50 states: www.cnjfo.com/join-us

----The Editor

 

KEEP CALM & PASS THE BOOZE!

Rosey

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the best analysis I've read.  Seems likely Court will decide moot, arguably rightly so as much as we'd hope otherwise.

But doesn't mean 2A is dead at the Court.  The article points out a distinction between a dismissal of the petition as improvidently granted (a DIG) bc it was moot or a written decision on mootness.  We should hope for the former -- it would enable the Court to hear oral argument on Rogers or another 2A case that is in limbo in the spring.

https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overview-of-oral-arguments-in-nys-rifle-and-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PDM said:

This was and is a shit case -- too narrow and too easy to issue a very limited ruling.  No idea why this is the one the justices granted cert for.  A carry case like Rogers makes a lot more sense for a test case.

But I wouldn't cry doomsday just yet if it is dismissed bc moot.  The justices, even ones that want Heller to have teeth, must consider the legal issues involved now that the law has been repealed.  Even if Roberts and Kavanaugh decide moot, doesn't mean that future 2A cases are dead in the water.  I think it likely that the court will decide its moot and that we will know soon if that is the case.

Breyer is really a POS -- so much for Stare Decisis.  I don't think Ginsburg or Kagan will be so cavalier as to say Heller isn't binding.  They will just limit it as much as possible.  SotoMAYOR probably will go with Breyer.  But completely ignoring Heller opens a whole can of works and bad precedent when abortion cases are heard -- if Heller can be abandoned why not Roe?

Here's your answer:

They granted CERT for this case because the NYC law that created this case tramples 3 or 4 Amendments, NOT just a single Amendment.

Interstate Commerce Clause

Transportation of tangible personal property both intrastate & interstate

Restraint of Trade

Second Amendment

If you wanted to transport your toaster to make toast in Albany, you wouldn't risk arrest for a felony.  In order for one to FULLY understand ALL the implications from this case, one must open one's mind and discover that all firearms really boil-down to is PROPERTY.  A TOOL if you will.  Wanna fix your toaster outside of the 5 Boroughs?  Wanna sell your used toaster?  Wanna inscribe "I love you" on a gift toaster?  Wanna repair your toaster?  Only 7 places to take it in the 5 Boroughs...and THAT ladies & gents is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by & of itself :) 

~R

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Here's your answer:

They granted CERT for this case because the NYC law that created this case tramples 3 or 4 Amendments, NOT just a single Amendment.

Interstate Commerce Clause

Transportation of tangible personal property both intrastate & interstate

Restraint of Trade

Second Amendment

If you wanted to transport your toaster to make toast in Albany, you wouldn't risk arrest for a felony.  In order for one to FULLY understand ALL the implications from this case, one must open one's mind and discover that all firearms really boil-down to is PROPERTY.  A TOOL if you will.  Wanna fix your toaster outside of the 5 Boroughs?  Wanna sell your used toaster?  Wanna inscribe "I love you" on a gift toaster?  Wanna repair your toaster?  Only 7 places to take it in the 5 Boroughs...and THAT ladies & gents is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by & of itself :) 

~R

Fantastic.

 

Now I need a cerakoted toaster.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Here's your answer:

They granted CERT for this case because the NYC law that created this case tramples 3 or 4 Amendments, NOT just a single Amendment.

Interstate Commerce Clause

Transportation of tangible personal property both intrastate & interstate

Restraint of Trade

Second Amendment

If you wanted to transport your toaster to make toast in Albany, you wouldn't risk arrest for a felony.  In order for one to FULLY understand ALL the implications from this case, one must open one's mind and discover that all firearms really boil-down to is PROPERTY.  A TOOL if you will.  Wanna fix your toaster outside of the 5 Boroughs?  Wanna sell your used toaster?  Wanna inscribe "I love you" on a gift toaster?  Wanna repair your toaster?  Only 7 places to take it in the 5 Boroughs...and THAT ladies & gents is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by & of itself :) 

~R

Well if that's the case it didn't work out too well for the justices who granted cert on that basis.  Not one of those issues came up during oral argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it occurred to anyone that they spent so much time on the mootness question because the decision on the merits is too obvious?

I think they are being careful with regard to setting precedent on mootness.

The choices are 1. Slam NYC or 2. Do nothing

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PDM said:

Well if that's the case it didn't work out too well for the justices who granted cert on that basis.  Not one of those issues came up during oral argument.

"No one knows why a Justice asks a question or remains silent during oral argument. Justice Clarence Thomas asked his first question in three years back in March of 2019 ---that was after ten years of not asking any questions, from 2006 to 2016. I suggest not judging a Justice by his/her questions."  ----Theresa Inacker, Former Editor of the Seton Hall Law School Constitutional Law Journal, member of the Supreme Court Bar

Just because it doesn't come up in oral arguments has little meaning.  The 9 Black Robes that sit at the scale weighing the overall minutia can use everything from life experience to ancient dissent in another case as a reason for their voting a certain way.  Some of those 9 Black Robes like to make toast at their 2nd homes. 

Even RBG was quoted as saying:

Why is having TWO guns in TWO houses better than just having ONE brought between them? Leaving the one at the empty house vulnerable to theft".

There's more going on here than meets the eye.  Second guessing the Supremes is often a fool's errand :) 

Rosey

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

Has it occurred to anyone that they spent so much time on the mootness question because the decision on the merits is too obvious?

I think they are being careful with regard to setting precedent on mootness.

The choices are 1. Slam NYC or 2. Do nothing

Here is an article from a great writer who explains why if the case is ruled moot it's a very bad thing.

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-supreme-court-flirts-with-a-serious?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0MjgyMjY4LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxODY3MjksIl8iOiJxUWRwRyIsImlhdCI6MTU3NTQxNTY2MywiZXhwIjoxNTc1NDE5MjYzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjE3NjUiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.y_xhDsdP7pRmSnELA2ZZiqF-7xRMrYQyQ0CuI2yhdrg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

Has it occurred to anyone that they spent so much time on the mootness question because the decision on the merits is too obvious?

I think they are being careful with regard to setting precedent on mootness.

The choices are 1. Slam NYC or 2. Do nothing

^^^^THIS!!

The Chief Justice is nobody's fool.  He would consider it a major slap in the face to the sanctity of the Court itself if motion for mootness was granted and then NYC decided to alter its' rules/laws right back to the "old ways" in a "GOTCHA" move.  The Chief's job is to ensure utmost respect given to both the written word AND the intent of the USCON as a whole.  Decisions don't get handed down in a vacuum.  Instead, they're much like pieces of a puzzle that need fitted (interpreted) into the American landscape.

~R

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

^^^^THIS!!

The Chief Justice is nobody's fool.  He would consider it a major slap in the face to the sanctity of the Court itself if motion for mootness was granted and then NYC decided to alter its' rules/laws right back to the "old ways" in a "GOTCHA" move.  The Chief's job is to ensure utmost respect given to both the written word AND the intent of the USCON as a whole.  Decisions don't get handed down in a vacuum.  Instead, they're much like pieces of a puzzle that need fitted (interpreted) into the American landscape.

~R

I’d tend to agree; the concept that “there’s no such thing as a dumb question” may apply here, and thus they need to ask the questions all the same to justify a ruling based upon weak or unacceptable basis. 
 

The challenge to that is that my take aways were that the city got rid of the law, and the state apparently set forth a law that prevented cities from enacting similar regulations going forward.  If my take-away is accurate, then there is an intrinsic limitation on the ability of the city to escape on mootness and then re-apply the law at a later time, which to me is a concern.  The state law prevents it, and thus it would also have to be overturned. Stranger things have happened of course, and I have no doubt that the city was in kahoots with the state when the new law was written. But it does create the potential of mootness based not upon the city’s actions, but the interlock that “assures” reoccurrence.  
 

If determined to be moot based upon that premise, it does create a higher standard, even if that standard is fragile.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Even RBG was quoted as saying:

Why is having TWO guns in TWO houses better than just having ONE brought between them? Leaving the one at the empty house vulnerable to theft".

There's more going on here than meets the eye.

I read that, and wondered where she was going with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sniper said:

I read that, and wondered where she was going with it.

She was trying to weigh the "public safety & welfare" on transportation of your firearm WITH YOU IN A VEHICLE leaving the city vs. leaving a firearm UNATTENDED upstate for extended periods of time.  Interest balancing.  What is the best answer / outcome after applying common sense in this scenario?  Is the health, safety & welfare of the public threatened by unattended firearms more than it would be threatened by mere legal transportation in a vehicle?

She's known for liberal opinions, but merely asking this question proved she's taking input from all sides.  That's why second guessing the Supremes is never cut & dry :) 

~R

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the Reason.com article SCOTUS has an opportunity to moot the case on Fri 12/6.  We should know by Mon 12/9 if they decide to do that:

...If a majority of the Court agrees that the case is moot, there are two options going forward. First, the Court could simply dismiss the petition as improvidently granted at the December 6, 2019 conference. (This move is known as a DIG.) We would learn of the dismissal with the next release of orders, probably on December 9, 2019. These sorts of dismissals are unsigned. Justices can register their dissents from the DIG....

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Per the Reason.com article SCOTUS has an opportunity to moot the case on Fri 12/6.  We should know by Mon 12/9 if they decide to do that:

 

 

If we win, most likely according to what I’m reading as late as June. If we lose, we will know soon, not likely. Everyone knows the mootness can be undone and this would be a historical blunder and actually diminish scotus.  I think they will side with liberty on this. And it’s an informed hypothesis.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

If we win, most likely according to what I’m reading as late as June. If we lose, we will know soon, not likely. Everyone knows the mootness can be undone and this would be a historical blunder and actually diminish scotus.  I think they will side with liberty on this. And it’s an informed hypothesis.

I'm not expressing an opinion on the *likelihood* of mooting this Friday, just pointing out the possibility is there.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said:

I'm not expressing an opinion on the *likelihood* of mooting this Friday, just pointing out the possibility is there.

Possible, but unlikely.   The court doesn't want to look stupid if say, they call the case "moot" and in a year the law is again put on the books.  Which means NYC went around the SCOTUS.  They will likely hear the case and move forward. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, siderman said:

Mooted and booted. NY has dbl tiered the law opening up the transport so problem solved says 5 Robed Ones. The best thing to come out of this case will be the dissensions.

Are you saying this has already happened, or you are guessing?

  • 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...