Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, WP22 said:

18 years to get redressed.

That's what's infuriating with "let them pass the law, the courts will strike it down" attitude. Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. Regardless, how long will it take an how many people got convicted under that law waiting for the courts to strike it down?

Exactly right!!

The mindset that thinking the S.C. will come to our rescue and reverse a passed law is totally nuts... How's Gorsuch and Kavanaugh working out so far?

Everyone that thinks that way needs to look at how many unconstitutional anti 2A NEW laws have been passed over the last few decades, and how many have been reversed by the higher courts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most recent example is the ban on bump stocks. The ATF now says it lacked the authority to ban them. But they are still banned.

Now what about the people that destroy them? What about the corporations that did the same? And those that misplaced them, is it safe go try to find them? Are they going to be compensated? Or will a ooopsie all they are going to get?

 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-admits-it-lacked-regulatory-authority-to-ban-bump-stocks/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case may get a split ruling.

Mootness is a key element here, and plays a much bigger role than most think. I feel mootness may get a unanimous verdict, and they would split on the 2A.

This will become a landmark case against the government, with the mootness opinion written by RBG.

Voluntary cessation is the cause of this case reaching where it did I think, the court is aware of the games NYS and NYC were/are playing.

Just my opinion

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bowling Ball said:

This case may get a split ruling.

Mootness is a key element here, and plays a much bigger role than most think. I feel mootness may get a unanimous verdict, and they would split on the 2A.

This will become a landmark case against the government, with the mootness opinion written by RBG.

Voluntary cessation is the cause of this case reaching where it did I think, the court is aware of the games NYS and NYC were/are playing.

Just my opinion

Interesting take. 

I think it was going to wind up here regardless because the question at issue isn't fundamental to any pretense that the second amendment is a right. To keep and bear arms I have to be able to own it, use it someplace, and move it around between the two places. 

The fact that the bar of intermediate scrutiny was set and failed to be respected at even that level means that there was a problem in need of addressing. The only reason it wouldn't wind up there is that the court was hostile to the 2nd in general or sufficiently with regards to the question posed. Once again, the question here is not some are of controversy about where the limits on a right are. It's about does it exist at all. 

As for a narrow ruling, the only way for it to truly be narrow is to leave intermediate scrutiny in place and just say this law doesn't meet the standard. If that was all you were going to do, you might as well just have mooted it. 

 If they do put the mootness doctrine on trial, I would not expect a unanimous decision.  Breyer is a shithead who doesn't care what the law or constitution says if he disagrees with it. Sotamayor likes to just make shit up. 

If  RBG really were smart and cared about a liberal legacy and such. She'd rule for strict scrutiny. It would give the DNC the opportunity to drop the gun grabbing and point the finger. If RKBA was not in play, the GOP would be in deep shit. They can't afford to lose a chunk of any of their voting blocks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying SCOTUS could say don't try to play games with us stopping us from hearing a case, but still uphold NYC's original law? Not asking if you are saying that IS what they will do, only you see a way that they COULD. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kc17 said:

Are you saying SCOTUS could say don't try to play games with us stopping us from hearing a case, but still uphold NYC's original law? Not asking if you are saying that IS what they will do, only you see a way that they COULD. 

 

 

No. 

The main issue about the 2A in this case is the lower courts upholding this law.  They claimed to have applied intermediate scrutiny but used a rational basis instead.   

Their rational basis was a joke,  being such it's clear to SCOTUS that there is a rebellion in the lower courts. I feel to correct this  SCOTUS will issue strict scrutiny. 

As far as the voluntary cessation issue,  i feel this could become a landmark case.  

NYS and NYC messed up badly. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bowling Ball said:

Their rational basis was a joke,  being such it's clear to SCOTUS that there is a rebellion in the lower courts. I feel to correct this  SCOTUS will issue strict scrutiny. 

True enough.  Sotomayer said as much.  They are getting increasingly pissed at their rulings not being followed and the divisiveness among the courts. 

Share this post


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

No. 

The main issue about the 2A in this case is the lower courts upholding this law.  They claimed to have applied intermediate scrutiny but used a rational basis instead.   

Their rational basis was a joke,  being such it's clear to SCOTUS that there is a rebellion in the lower courts. I feel to correct this  SCOTUS will issue strict scrutiny. 

As far as the voluntary cessation issue,  i feel this could become a landmark case.  

NYS and NYC messed up badly. 

 

This ^^^^

I'm dumbfounded by the posters who think this will be simply a ruling on about to transport a firearm in NYC and have it apply only in the narrowest way. SCOTUS gets hundreds of not thousands of cases in front of them to choose, why would they choose a case like this if to only help out NYC firearms owners??? It makes no sense. In pretty sure this is to establish level of scrutiny precedent for all the lower kangaroo courts in the land. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

This ^^^^

I'm dumbfounded by the posters who think this will be simply a ruling on about to transport a firearm in NYC and have it apply only in the narrowest way. SCOTUS gets hundreds of not thousands of cases in front of them to choose, why would they choose a case like this if to only help out NYC firearms owners??? It makes no sense. In pretty sure this is to establish level of scrutiny precedent for all the lower kangaroo courts in the land. 

Because this will have the least impact and controversy out of all the real 2A cases out there. This will be the, "see, we took a 2A case", and will not have to touch another 2A case the next 10yrs again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

Because this will have the least impact and controversy out of all the real 2A cases out there. This will be the, "see, we took a 2A case", and will not have to touch another 2A case the next 10yrs again.

I doubt that. 

I feel this is going to be a case where we get a favorable ruling on both issues being presented. 

NYC spent the better part of a decade defending this law as constitutional.  They will be asked for that same argument again,  not on their home turf.  

Instead of attempting to defend this law  as constitutional,  they attempted to defer based on voluntary cessation. 

I feel this will be a landmark case. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, supranatural said:

Kinda like Heller right?

And since Heller, almost every case involving AWB, mag limits, and CCW denial has been upheld. As great as a case everyone thinks Heller was, it really wasn't. Left way too many holes and openings to further restrictions. That was 2008. Mcdonald was 2010. This will be 2020 and change nothing. Next case will be 2030.

And I hope I'm wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

And since Heller, almost every case involving AWB, mag limits, and CCW denial has been upheld. As great as a case everyone thinks Heller was, it really wasn't. Left way too many holes and openings to further restrictions. That was 2008. Mcdonald was 2010. This will be 2020 and change nothing. Next case will be 2030.

And I hope I'm wrong.

All those unconstitutional laws were held up due to intermediate scrutiny of the lower courts. I believe they choose this case specifically to whack the lower courts with the reality bat and send them a message. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

This will be the, "see, we took a 2A case", and will not have to touch another 2A case the next 10yrs again.

That's what I think too. The 2A situation is a WAY too hot subject in the country today. They don't want to touch any cases, even if they have asbestos gloves. If they ruled positively on a 2A case, the judges voting FOR it, would need security guards 24/7, armed with AR15s to protect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sniper said:

That's what I think too. The 2A situation is a WAY too hot subject in the country today. They don't want to touch any cases, even if they have asbestos gloves. If they ruled positively on a 2A case, the judges voting FOR it, would need security guards 24/7, armed with AR15s to 

If that was the case they could have just mooted it and called it a day. 

And why would they need guards and AR15s? Anti Gunners, outside of the Bloomberg elites, would never own something meant to "hunt people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, supranatural said:

And why would they need guards and AR15s? Anti Gunners, outside of the Bloomberg elites, would never own something meant to "hunt people."

Apparently you haven't been following the postings of a few of them here, Greenday and AVB, both have those type of weapons, and are seriously delusional...

I'm sure there are plenty more, wandering loose....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sniper said:

Apparently you haven't been following the postings of a few of them here, Greenday and AVB, both have those type of weapons, and are seriously delusional...

I'm sure there are plenty more, wandering loose....

That's what Red flag laws are for...

Edited by supranatural
error correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 6:08 PM, diamondd817 said:

And since Heller, almost every case involving AWB, mag limits, and CCW denial has been upheld. As great as a case everyone thinks Heller was, it really wasn't. Left way too many holes and openings to further restrictions. That was 2008. Mcdonald was 2010. This will be 2020 and change nothing. Next case will be 2030.

And I hope I'm wrong.

The cases that were upheld at the lower courts were judged using a 'rational basis'.

Based on the Heller ruling,  lower courts must use an intermediate scrutiny.  Virtually all cases claimed to use IS but used a 'rational basis' instead. SCOTUS is aware and I believe judge Thomas has stated his frustration with exactly this. 

Young vs Hawaii,  the 9th circuit court used intermediate scrutiny according to Heller. This allowed open carry, since section 9 of Heller states at least one carry option must be available.  

Needless to say,  California lost their minds since they in essence would be forced to grant open carry, the 9th circuit put it on hold pending NYSRPA. 

I believe to avoid circuit splits and further confusion,  a 'strict scrutiny' would be applied to NYSRPA. It gives the lower courts much less wiggle room.

On 10/10/2019 at 5:45 PM, diamondd817 said:

Because this will have the least impact and controversy out of all the real 2A cases out there. This will be the, "see, we took a 2A case", and will not have to touch another 2A case the next 10yrs again.

There are a total of 5 2A cases being held by SCOTUS at this moment,  a sixth possibly next week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bowling Ball said:

 I believe to avoid circuit splits and further confusion,  a 'strict scrutiny' would be applied to NYSRPA. It gives the lower courts much less wiggle room.

There are a total of 5 2A cases being held by SCOTUS at this moment,  a sixth possibly next week. 

Where did SCOTUS say they were taking this case to apply "strict scrutiny" to 2A cases? This is all pure speculation.

 

There are always multiple 2A cases being held by Scotus. This means absolutely nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, diamondd817 said:

Where did SCOTUS say they were taking this case to apply "strict scrutiny" to 2A cases? This is all pure speculation.

 

There are always multiple 2A cases being held by Scotus. This means absolutely nothing.

You're correct,  it is speculation to assume scrutiny being applied,  although I did preface that statement with 'I believe'.

I do not recall a recent 2A case being granted certiorari.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

Where did SCOTUS say they were taking this case to apply "strict scrutiny" to 2A cases? This is all pure speculation.

 

There are always multiple 2A cases being held by Scotus. This means absolutely nothing.

We haven't had a 2a case get cert in a long time. We've also had similar cases to ones that they keep kicking the can on get dropped and thus upheld. 

So why? 

The new court composition could be willing to play referee on every minute firearms law in total contradiction to their previous statements that they didn't want to do that. I don't see the court composition shift making that kind of change. Therefore when having granted cert, they must have been intending to provide a ruling that would alter the status quo.  

But how? 

1) The unthinkable has happened, and they are going to nullify the second with a totally shitty decision by officially lowering the bar to rational basis.  For this, you need Roberts, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh to side with the lefties on the bench. To which you will probably go "don't trust Roberts, obamacare... grumble grumble."  Yeah, he's the least hard to envision flipping, but I don't see that happening. The 2nd is an amendment, and the core tenants of obamacare are established case law, namely that the government can tax you, that they can regulate industries, and that they can provide health insurance to the public. Essentially eliminating  an amendment wholesale is not his shtick. This is possible but not probable. For it to be probable, you would have had to have Kennedy being solidly aligned with the right side of the court in previous events, and every legal scholar being wrong about him. 

2) Fully endorse the dressing up of rational basis as intermediate scrutiny. NY wins, and wins more than accepting mootness would do. This is basically a slightly different version of #1. You'd have to have events since granting cert flip someone. I would argue this is the more probably version of bad news than #1. I still consider it unlikely as I'm pretty sure there is enough dislike of how the court was treated in this case and with the lower courts thumbing their nose that you could build coalitions to grant mootness. I honestly don't see the left side of the court wanting to do this because it undermines the law and can be used against the rulings they like. If they can't get #1, I'd see them preferring #3  Whoever caved from what appears to be a solid 2a 5 vote block would probably prefer #3 too as it would have all the effect they want and much less chance for backlash.

3a) Tacitly endorse the dressing up of rational basis as intermediate scrutiny, but only for the 2nd amendment. Basically this would be that coalition building from #2 to avert disaster. We "win" small but lose big in the long run because they accept mootness at oral arguments. The 2nd would be dead absent resorting to the ammo box in dealing with an out of control government. 

3b) They will leave the bar where it is at intermediate scrutiny, and just decide this case without moving the bar at all. Except why do that? You could have just upheld it or accepted mootness.  I regard this as the much more likely outcome of a judge flipping and needing to mitigate crisis. They vote for a win, but a very, very small win. One can argue that this is how Kennedy fucked RKBA in the past. To wind up here you have to flip someone or it was really Roberts fucking us. Either way we are screwed long term except in the most egregious of cases. Those will likely never go to court but be pushed back saying wrong conclusion try again. 

4) We win. They hold the line on intermediate scrutiny, but to avoid endorsing the ongoing fuckery of the lower courts they provide a legal test. This could swing anywhere from a mild win to a big win. It all depends on the test. IMO this occupies the middle of the bell curve of probable outcomes. Worst case we get a test that really only provides strong protections "within" the home. So lots of ammo for purchasing and possessing, but not carrying. Bigger win is it would clearly and soundly apply to bearing arms outside the home in a positive way in addition to purchasing and possessing. 

5) Kennedy was a bigger problem than we knew, and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were bigger wins than we thought, and Roberts isn't being blackmailed and is a bigger friend to the 2nd than was previously clear, and we get strict scrutiny. 

Technically any of them is possible.  Like I said, I believe some variant of 4 is most probable. I believe that if we get a decision that puts forth strict scrutiny that the licensing and regulation of carry outside the home will be explicitly stated as a compelling state interest. Even if that is so, I suspect that will end the argument of "less guns on the street is best" as it is not narrowly tailored. 

Will it benefit NJ? We have crap gun laws, thus in theory even a legal test at the less stringent end of the spectrum, if the test is not garbage, should provide us some relief. In 4 and 5, we still have to contend with the garbage that is the NJ court system. However it may rain in our circuit court some. If it doesn't it effectively puts them on a fast track to being smacked by scotus as they can now just hand it back down saying your conclusion is incorrect based on precedent without having to go to oral arguments.

 

things I see as potential mitigating factors even though some of them probably shouldn't be: 

- the mass shootings between when this started and oral arguments. 

-the proliferation of red flag laws. 

-SCOTUS being threatened by congress. 

-the health of RBG

-The sentiment behind the slow  demise of cheveron deference. 

-BATFE playing fast and loose with administrative interpretations of things. 

-the desire to shut a future court out of defining RKBA

-the desire to preserve a future court's ability to define RKBA

-the fact that large swaths of DNC controlled state governments are pushing laws that ignore explicit rulings in Heller. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9th Circuit is holding Young vs Hawaii pending this case...

Ask yourself, what does Open carry have to do with locked and unloaded transport in NYC?

Even the 9th is thinking they will set a strict scrutiny. 

I'm overly optimistic, but we've been a long way since coming this close to a win!

NYC doesn't stand a chance in oral arguments, they defended this law for almost a decade as constitutional.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kc17 said:

Best case scenario, SCOTUS orders lower courts to apply strict scrutiny; how long before we see real changes impacting NJ?

 

 

Case heard in December. Results announced in June. Potentially immediately ramifications for the cases already in the courts (3 from NJ I think).  So maybe those are resolved by this time next year. Other will take significantly longer as they work through a lower court that doesn’t want to abide by this ruling. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I was fearing years while the lower courts, politicians, and their connected lackeys continued to find ways to fight tooth and nail. Based on site linked below there is one NJ originated case currently in the 3rd circuit and three awaiting/pending Cert. Which I understand many people believe will be sent back down after this ruling.

https://www.notion.so/3075afe18c7742178cb127cffdba0a68?v=779b59e5f1c3436da5fbad0c031b1129

I also read that a ruling could be issued prior to June if the Justices can reach an agreement sooner. That typically happens in less controversial cases though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Case heard in December. Results announced in June. Potentially immediately ramifications for the cases already in the courts (3 from NJ I think).  So maybe those are resolved by this time next year. Other will take significantly longer as they work through a lower court that doesn’t want to abide by this ruling. 

I’d have to suspect that since these people won’t go quietly, they’ll slow roll any process. 

Not an expert, but I’d have to suspect that they won’t just wipe every law from the books - they’ll wait for each and every one to be scrutinized however it is, and require each one to have a costly assessment, even if scrutiny is applied correctly and implemented at the lowest possible level. 

Its like suing an at-fault party that is insured - they’ll work to make everyone bleed. They’re trained to get to the jury trial, because they know it’s the most costly approach and not worth it to most to invest the effort. In this case the rights grabbers will try to make everyone bleed because their backers have deep pockets. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JHZR2 said:

I’d have to suspect that since these people won’t go quietly, they’ll slow roll any process. 

Not an expert, but I’d have to suspect that they won’t just wipe every law from the books - they’ll wait for each and every one to be scrutinized however it is, and require each one to have a costly assessment, even if scrutiny is applied correctly and implemented at the lowest possible level. 

Its like suing an at-fault party that is insured - they’ll work to make everyone bleed. They’re trained to get to the jury trial, because they know it’s the most costly approach and not worth it to most to invest the effort. In this case the rights grabbers will try to make everyone bleed because their backers have deep pockets. 

Agreed,

The sad part is, while we're fightingin upper courts for scrutiny to be applied to laws on the books already, Murphy will keep signing more laws in, just worded differently.

It's a fight, make no mistake.

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...