Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, drjjpdc said:

Here's are the NRA-ILA that explain NYC last hope for refusing to hear the case.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190920/us-supreme-court-schedules-nra-supported-second-amendment-case-for-argument

...

Thanks. From that article:

 

Quote

...Nevertheless, it is not a forgone conclusion that the court will even hear the case in December, much less that it will issue a sweeping ruling on the right to keep and bear arms that will finally bring Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel. The case could still end at the October procedural hearing without being decided on the merits.

Will the Supreme Court hear the case in December en route to a sweeping ruling on arms? It remains unclear. ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some potential good news. The following link show %'s of Supreme Court decisions where they reversed lower court decisions. Regarding NJ  &  NY, They have reversed the 2nd and third court of appeals 60-70 % of the times. That's a pretty percentage for us.

https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In October the court will here the mootness argument

In December the court will hear the merits of the case, assuming the Court has not rendered an unfavorable mootness decision and dismissed the case. The possibility also exists that the court will not decide the mootness issue before Dec and hear the merits argument and then decide the case as a whole addressing both the mootness and merits in one opinion. So just because the case is not dismissed prior to Dec does not automatically mean it is a win but it is a strong indication it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed it - what is recent court precedent if laws are changed or the matter is resolved at a lower level prior to hearing it?

I get the philosophy of it being moot, and also the philosophy that it could be changed and so the protection of the people still requires a decision.  

But do we understand how the court has typically handled situations such as these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

Maybe I missed it - what is recent court precedent if laws are changed or the matter is resolved at a lower level prior to hearing it?

I get the philosophy of it being moot, and also the philosophy that it could be changed and so the protection of the people still requires a decision.  

But do we understand how the court has typically handled situations such as these?

There's the concept of mootness. It exists because cases have been mooted. 

There's talk of them ignoring the mootness issue because there is precedent for that as well. 

Here's a nice quote form scotusblog on mootness and why it is a thing 

Quote

A principal theory behind the case and controversy requirement – and behind the mootness doctrine, as well – is that courts will reach the best decisions when the cases they decide are litigated in a process that is truly adversarial on behalf of parties who have a real stake in the outcome.

When tangible interests are no longer present for the parties in a dispute, a case may become moot. The theory, again, is that parties to a case may not make the best arguments and engage in zealous advocacy if they no longer have genuine, tangible interests in the outcome.

With regard to that it's very clear this case is a focus for a lot of impassioned, zealous arguing, and has not been abandoned to the whims of the court alone. The fact that the state is still hand waving at the ends-means justification says they still care about their position. As do the 8 bajillion amicus briefs on both sides. As does all the attempts to moot it, and then re-moot it even more. 

Additionally, when the state law was promoted, there was public discussion by those people who wanted the city to avoid SCOTUS as to if it could be used to impose the exact same restrictions. To which the answer was yes. Regardless of their intent to affect honest mootness, or to game the system while avoiding the court, the fact that the answer was yes shows that the issue is not in fact truly moot. 

To add to that, NY does not have state preemption laws. The fact that statute exists means NOTHING has changed compared to the day before it existed, and SCOTUS didn't grant their mootness request then. It in fact insisted they stop dragging their ass and get past the mootness bullshit. To which the response was to get the state statute passed and go nah man it's moot yo!  And then pretend they don't have to answer the court. 

I still stand by my opinion that the only way this isn't getting heard is if their was some huge internal shift on how the votes would go, and granting mootness would be defensively advisable. I'm not sure that would happen even then as the implication would be the new majority could keep it in play to screw us. IMO if there were a change to the vote liklihood, it would just turn the case form a big question to a narrow question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

From all the docs I read, argument means they all get together for oral argument. The mootness thing was decided in conference. Even after argument in December, they will continue talking and writing until a vote occurs.

May not have been unless the mootness issue was submitted to the court on the papers without argument and even if not it may take time if there is a written opinion as opposed to an Order on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18-280

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

18-280

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

Nice. 

Given that you have articles by people who told them to moot the case asking if the state law could be used to re-implement the same restrictions, I don't think that is going to go well for them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becoming more cautiously optimistic. Oral arguments scheduled for Dec 2.

Reading up on SCOTUS procedural rules, it could still be Summer 2020 before an opinion/ruling is announced.

"All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court's term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term."

Source for above: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Means nothing for NJ. We can transport out of state anytime.

 

 

 

Just now, diamondd817 said:

Agreed. All this case is, is so the SC can say, see, we took a 2A case. Then there off the hook for the next 10yrs.

Guessing you guys haven't read the thread. Depending how SCOTUS rules, it could open the door for revisiting many rulings supporting anti-gun restrictions and the scrutiny required in readdressing them.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Means nothing for NJ. We can transport out of state anytime.

 

 

If all it concerned was transport out of state the antis, dems and several house members, as well as the media, would not be up in arms about this and running around like Chicken Littles spouting about the end of times.  If SCOTUS rules that the law is not constitutional and that from now on laws like this require Strict Scrutiny it sets precedent to overturn many laws that indeed violates the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is a good take on the situation from a thread on ar15.com about the NY restrictions but applies to N.J. as well: "What you are seeing is what has happened in every other state that has passed shall-issue concealed carry.  Not to the extent NY is going but similar.  The people inconvenienced will complain and changes will be made.  Then lawsuits will happen and then more changes are made.  Then as people adjust to the idea of "people walking around carrying hidden guns" more changes will occur.  My state has had concealed carry for decades and we are still tweaking the law." "Back in 2000 when Michigan was trying to go from may-issue to shall-issue we had a state level pro-gun organization trying to kill the bill for the exact same reasons you mentioned.  The people with connections had permits and very few restrictions.  They threw a fit that going to shall-issue would result in a more involved process, a higher fee, and more restrictions on where they could carry.  They had the "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude that you seem to have.  Shall issue passed, barely.  Counties like Wayne County, where Detroit is, dug their feet in and refused to issue any permits for almost a year.  Multiple lawsuits had to be filed against them.  The legislature has gone back many times to tweak the law, remove restrictions, and make other changes to improve things". "Baby steps, just like how the Dems take away our rights, is how you get the restrictions removed.  The big hurdle is getting shall-issue allowed.  That is still a huge win for NY.  Then you go back and get the restrictions removed".     .  
    • That brisket wasn’t my best. No matter, I’ll use it for chopped brisket sandwiches, or better yet, brisket chili.    Win some, lose some! 
    • Thanks for the info voyager9, but that's what I'm afraid of. Lower courts could give a flip about Bruen if there are no judicial consequences in doing so.
    • He’s certainly trying to.  Yes. It means new lawsuits to challenge the new rules.  They don’t go directly to scotus though.  Start with the lower courts first.  In theory those courts should use Bruen as a guide and nuke them there.  In theory.    
    • The bill states that following under the amendments section: " This act shall take effect 1[immediately] on the first day of the seventh month next following the date of enactment, except the Attorney General may take such anticipatory administrative action in advance as shall be necessary for the implementation of this act1." Is this replacing "immediately" with the underlined text or is it the other way around?
×
×
  • Create New...