Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

I can't see how any rational person can buy their case provided that person doesn't have an agenda.  We know the lib members but Kennedy is not a moron.  We better hope the other justices convince him to not be so stupid and gullable here.

 

I mean at what point will Americans start shooting at these guys as a last resort?  If people feel desperate enough, and there are people like this out there, what is their avenue to vent other than to start shooting justices and lib politicians?  Those shooters will have sympathetic ranks I believe

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RUTGERS95 said:

I can't see how any rational person can buy their case provided that person doesn't have an agenda.  We know the lib members but Kennedy is not a moron.  We better hope the other justices convince him to not be so stupid and gullable here.

 

I mean at what point will Americans start shooting at these guys as a last resort?  If people feel desperate enough, and there are people like this out there, what is their avenue to vent other than to start shooting justices and lib politicians?  Those shooters will have sympathetic ranks I believe

Uh, Kennedy is gone.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some small snippets were posted, if these are true, it sounds like they had to play defense, instead of offense:

....."Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of three gun owners in New York and a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, argued that the case was still active because his clients could potentially seek monetary damages in the future.

Clement, who argued for 20 minutes, had little time to address the merits of New York’s gun regulation. Instead, he spent nearly all of his arguments fielding questions from the court’s liberal wing about why the justices should rule on the case at all.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is known to have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, did not ask any questions.

All in all, the justices spent just a few minutes probing the key constitutional question that gun-control activists feared would be on the table and that gun-rights groups hoped the court would address.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html

It also seems that a lot of time was focused on economic harm and damages, instead of the constitutionality of the law.

Share this post


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

Some small snippets were posted, if these are true, it sounds like they had to play defense, instead of offense:

....."Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of three gun owners in New York and a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, argued that the case was still active because his clients could potentially seek monetary damages in the future.

Clement, who argued for 20 minutes, had little time to address the merits of New York’s gun regulation. Instead, he spent nearly all of his arguments fielding questions from the court’s liberal wing about why the justices should rule on the case at all.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is known to have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, did not ask any questions.

All in all, the justices spent just a few minutes probing the key constitutional question that gun-control activists feared would be on the table and that gun-rights groups hoped the court would address.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html

It also seems that a lot of time was focused on economic harm and damages, instead of the constitutionality of the law.

Read the transcript. It is mostly the wise Latina saying stupid shit like... how could you be harmed by that part not being addressed by the new law? How would they even know if you had a gun in your car? 

Kegan steps in and say NY has a premises permit and a carry permit... if you wanted to transport your firearms why didn't they just get carry permits. 

"Well, transporting is a kind of carrying. You take your gun and it goes with you someplace. That's a kind of carrying."

It's a bunch of bullshit and they should be embarrassed at being a supreme court justice and bringing these bullshit arguments as their A game.  That's some I failed out of forensics class and tanked the LSATs kind of arguing there. 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quickly scanned that transcript. WAY too much focus on "mootness" by the liberal judges to suit me - pages upon pages of (in so many words), "gee, why are we even hearing this?". And there seem to be a LOT of interruptions showing great haste on the part of Sotomayer in particular to PUSH that point of view.

To those of you more familiar with this process, help me understand... is that "issue" (mootness) still on the table? Can the judges merely say "we think it's a moot issue because the state has already tossed out that city law - therefore, we'll do nothing on this case"...? If they're still allowed to do that at this stage... it's seems like such an "easy out" - such a perfect dodge - for a big ol' squish like Roberts. Frankly? gun rights are so controversial these days, I think we need a 6/3 court so Roberts' squishiness is nullified in a sense. But, I guess we'll see what happens!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I quickly scanned that transcript. WAY too much focus on "mootness" by the liberal judges to suit me - pages upon pages of (in so many words), "gee, why are we even hearing this?". And there seem to be a LOT of interruptions showing great haste on the part of Sotomayer in particular to PUSH that point of view.

To those of you more familiar with this process, help me understand... is that "issue" (mootness) still on the table? Can the judges merely say "we think it's a moot issue because the state has already tossed out that city law - therefore, we'll do nothing on this case"...? If they're still allowed to do that at this stage... it's seems like such an "easy out" - such a perfect dodge - for a big ol' squish like Roberts. Frankly? gun rights are so controversial these days, I think we need a 6/3 court so Roberts' squishiness is nullified in a sense. But, I guess we'll see what happens!

 

There is precedent for the mootness run.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

There is precedent for the mootness run.

 

Say that again... in English... not Zeke-speak, pls! Can the judges still "walk away" from this by saying "sorry it's moot"? That's my question. Yes, the lawyer for the plaintiffs is arguing they shouldn't, but "Yes? No?" can they still do it? If so, I think Roberts the Squish will walk away... I hope I'm wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they can walk away from the case by declaring it moot.  There is longstanding doctrine that there must be an actual case or controversy for the SCOTUS to decide.  If they find it moot, they will dismiss the case without a decision on the merits.  There would most certainly be a majority or plurality opinion addressing mootness as well as a dissent by Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and likely Kavanaugh though I can see Kavanaugh vote mootness if he knows the Chief is committed to that position, just to avoid further leftist criticism that he's in the tank for the conservatives.

If they vote mootness, however, they still have to act on the petitions they are holding for Rogers, Gould and Cheeseman.  If they grant cert in any of these cases, there's no way NJ or MA is going to moot the case by suddenly eliminating "justifiable need" for carry permits.

I read the transcript.  In my view, the Chief is going to wimp out and vote with the liberals on mootness and thus kick the can down the road once more.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Say that again... in English... not Zeke-speak, pls! Can the judges still "walk away" from this by saying "sorry it's moot"? That's my question. Yes, the lawyer for the plaintiffs is arguing they shouldn't, but "Yes? No?" can they still do it? If so, I think Roberts the Squish will walk away... I hope I'm wrong. 

It’s been tried before. If I’m not cleaning sewers I’ll try to find it for you, but you’re smert, Garcia it

 

 

soo much hyperboly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Read the transcript.

 

20 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

It's a bunch of bullshit

I read the transcript and it is a bunch of bullshit. They spent WAY too much time dancing around damages and if stopping for coffee was allowed when going to the range. Very little was talked about in the big picture of 2A restrictions. They were more focused on stupid stuff like, "is driving to a range in Staten Island OK, but driving to a range in Westchester not?" Or does a Premise Permit allow you to protect yourself outside your home.

Very little was discussed on the overall infringement of the NY laws, it was all too narrow, focused on bullshit, stupid points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not read the transcripts (yet). I am saddened/angry by the snippets posted here. WTF would they plaintiffs talk financial nonsense?!?

I still have a hard time (wanting to) believe SCOTUS would declare moot and kick the can. If that was the plan, why have oral arguments at all? They had the way out when NYC changed the law and asked SCOTUS to kick the case then.

 

Share this post


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

 

I read the transcript and it is a bunch of bullshit. They spent WAY too much time dancing around damages and if stopping for coffee was allowed when going to the range. Very little was talked about in the big picture of 2A restrictions. They were more focused on stupid stuff like, "is driving to a range in Staten Island OK, but driving to a range in Westchester not?" Or does a Premise Permit allow you to protect yourself outside your home.

Very little was discussed on the overall infringement of the NY laws, it was all too narrow, focused on bullshit, stupid points.

SCOTUS oral arguments are never like a normal court case. The stuff you would see as the normal proceedings in a court case are all taken care of in the submitted paperwork and research. 

Typically it is weird ass antagonistic questioning/commentary usually doing one of three things:

1) Allowing the justices to address the court and state their opinions (this is what Breyer did here, upon further consideration I'm guessing a lot of people told him to sit his stupid ass down and stop it with that shit, and thus this was his way to get on public record). 

2) a justice asking both sides to try and shoot down the justices opinion.

3) a justice asking both sides to shore up their opinion. 

2 and 3 will usually come off very similarly most of the time. 

Share this post


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

If I’m not cleaning sewers I’ll try to find it for you

What an apt description of your posts in the 1A Lounge. 
 

I agree it seems Roberts is leaning moot but maybe the conservatives can convince him during internal deliberations of the consequences to the court if they go that route. 

Share this post


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

Have not read the transcripts (yet). I am saddened/angry by the snippets posted here. WTF would they plaintiffs talk financial nonsense?!?

I still have a hard time (wanting to) believe SCOTUS would declare moot and kick the can. If that was the plan, why have oral arguments at all? They had the way out when NYC changed the law and asked SCOTUS to kick the case then.

 

My understanding is that originally the plaintiff were not seeking damages. The government submission last week mentioned it. If there were damages then it means the case is not truly moot.  All the questions from the liberal side focused on if the plaintiffs could add the damages argument even though it wasn’t part of their original case. 
 

I do agree that I don’t understand why they went to oral arguments at all. If they were leaning toward mootness it could have been decided a month ago. 

Share this post


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

I do agree that I don’t understand why they went to oral arguments at all. If they were leaning toward mootness it could have been decided a month ago. 

Ah, but who knows what political pressures can be brought to bear over the course of one month? I'd imagine a lot. Let's see what happens though... we don't know until we know.

In the meantime, I can see that a steady, never-ending trickle of new lawsuits will be critically important to keep the pressure on and to increase the chances of one of them going to SCOTUS (particularly if they ever replace another justice and skew MORE even pro-2A - dare to dream!) So, in this season of giving... donate to your 2A orgs!! :)

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Have not read the transcripts (yet). I am saddened/angry by the snippets posted here. WTF would they plaintiffs talk financial nonsense?!?

I still have a hard time (wanting to) believe SCOTUS would declare moot and kick the can. If that was the plan, why have oral arguments at all? They had the way out when NYC changed the law and asked SCOTUS to kick the case then.

 

My interpretation?

The talk of financial damages are due to the fact a significant portion of the court does not want to moot the case and believe it deserves a ruling.  However, if you ask the court if they want to rewrite the law and precedent on mootness, you will not get a differing alignment of numbers and opinion on what could be perceived as justified. It is my opinion that what you saw here was a significant throwdown on that issue and it revolves around that 54c law they mention. 

Basically one side said it's moot, and if you find it isn't moot, you are saying that there is very little room to moot a case by altering a law rather than fully repealing it. The other side said no, this requires no expansion of the doctrine on mootness because they could seek financial damages and since 54c says that financial damages are no inherently tied to your initial request for relief, that it is still in play. To which the other side basically said than anything with conceivable damages attached can never be ruled moot. 

So there is now a conundrum. Essentially declare that 54c thing null and void, make it's application arbitrary and capricious, or essentially say that an argument of mootness very limited in the scope in which it can succeed. All of that hinges on those financial damages issues. 

Upon further reflection I think this really is the big fight. Outside of Breyer's bullshit statement that heller was and is wrong, none of the liberal justices argued the law was constitutional. They argued, at best, that travel restrictions could be placed without infringing on the 2nd amendment. Not that those that were placed were constitutional. They want to avoid that question. I suspect that given the way in which gun control has been treated by lower courts, the right side of the court is like... fuck it, you are going to bring every case in front of us anyway because you don't abide by our rulings, so lets turn this shit up to 11 and make every portion of case law start looking like how the 2nd has been treated. I think a lot of what you saw today was people posturing about what they ware willing to blow up to get their way. 

At the end of the day I think, somewhat surprisingly, that the issue isn't going to just be how Robert's feels about the above, but how Ginsberg feels about it as well. 

Also, unlike a lot of people whining about this, I don't think mootness would provide any cover for similar laws being enacted elsewhere. If anything it makes laws like this the third rail. What it does potentially do is give gun grabbers a new tool to fuck with us. We have all seen them pass laws they know won't stand so they can get a window of harassment. Mootness arguments like this, if they succeed, give them a lot of ammo to move the goalposts repeatedly on bad legislation and potentially extend that window of harassment forever. 

Which might be our key to winning. If the grabbers see this as easier than winning a case, it will be the go to move. If that is the case, then we have 4 very solid votes to hear every damn RKBA case and watch it happen over and over and over again. I can't see Roberts accepting that that is the future of how the court works. Of course every RKBA case going forward will attach claims for damages at step one, even if the claim is minor. 

I'm sure this very day, the NJ magazine ban case has people discussing attaching monetary damages on the appeal to avoid this shit and having NJ put back the 15 round restriction to render the suit against 10 round mags as moot. Well no.. we paid for blocks, or destroyed mags, or paid for storage out of state.. so that would not make us whole. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Say that again... in English... not Zeke-speak, pls! Can the judges still "walk away" from this by saying "sorry it's moot"? That's my question. Yes, the lawyer for the plaintiffs is arguing they shouldn't, but "Yes? No?" can they still do it? If so, I think Roberts the Squish will walk away... I hope I'm wrong. 

Yes mootness is on the table as far as I know. They aren't required to do anything until June. 

I'm digging my way through the transcript, and I'll try to summarize what I've read:

So you have the liberal court and the city of NY arguing that it is moot because they got what they asked for in the form of the repeal of the law. 

You have the NYSRP lawyer arguing that they there is still an issue to decide because the state law only preempts the specific statute, thus leaving the possibility that past violations could prejudice the defendants in future dealings with regards to licensing and transport. They also left untril rebuttal stating that they sought unrestricted access to ranges and second homes and that is not what they got. 

Then you have the Solicitor general arguing pretty solidly that unless you want to rely on precedent that pre-dates current laws, that the defendants have the right to seek monetary damages on the line and thus mootness is off the table. 

Then you have the conservative justices arguing that what the defendants sought was not just the repeal of the law, but the nullification that a finding on the constitutionality would bring, and thus  the results of such a finding would grant them differing legal relief than the law that the state of NY passed. The liberal side of the court is arguing that that would have to be a new case because that is an issue with the new law, not the old one. Despite the fact that the issue was present in both versions of the law. 

Then you have roberts sounding a bit pissed off at everyone insisting that the right parties answer the right dman part of the questions without a bunch of bullshit glued on. 

Then you have alito heading into the territory of asking questions about the constitutionality and narrow government interest.  Gorsuch also engages in such questions. RBG is the only lefty that asks anything meaningful about the law other than mootness questions.

RBG: "So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?"

Alito and gorsuch basically ask what would and would not be legal transport. They ask about specific examples. When confronted with this, the lawyer assuring them that yes things like stopping for the bathroom, or food, or a half dozen other things would of course be reasonable and alito wanted to know how anyone would know what would be reasonable. 

To which the NYC lawyer replies that you they couldn't know the limitations of legal transport because it hasn't gone to court and been ruled on. So... they then proceed to have a mental fit when they have to confront that if you can't possess a firearm transporting it from a  place of purchase to your home, then you can't have a firearm within the home, so yes the 2nd must extend outside the home at least minimally in some circumstances. 

At that point Kegan and Sotamayor jump back in clearly not liking that answer and do a really shitty job at trying to fix it for them. 

Roberts calls for the rebuttal from the NYSRP lawyer and sotamayor starts eating up his limited time saying the same shit and roberts shuts her down. 

NYSRP guy gets in a nice one at the end which is stating that what they sought was unrestricted travel between second homes and ranges, and what they got is not only NOT unrestricted, but the restrictions are not defined. 

Somewhere in that back half Breyer jumped in and wanted to make it known that he really won the heller ruling and there is no 2nd amendment right. And that historical precedent is garbage unless it suits him. He cites the fact that in colonial times the kings men in mass made them store their arms centrally... and that's history, so which history do we look to. (You would think if you weren't a dipshit, you';d look to the history of the nation that decided bullshit like that justified shooting people in the face.. just saying)

 

So, overall:

Left wing says MOOT and that curtailing the state in any way from regulating RKBA is bad and that they got everything they sought if you squint hard enough and that there is no amendment not subjected to squinting. 

Right wing says not moot and not constitutional and that the right extends outside the home. They really focused on that "reasonable deviation" type language and railed on NYC to tell them what that means and their lawyer eventually said that that would have to be decided by courts. 

More specifically

Roberts seems kind of annoyed and was doing his usual trying to run the court without seeming biased. Although he did seem to basically tell them to ignore sotamayor's continued intrusion into their rebuttal and get on with the business of the court. 

Alito and Gorsuch clearly do not think it is moot and do not think it is constitutional. 

Sotamayor thinks it is moot and could be constitutional

Kegan seems to think it is moot and the new law is constitutional.

Breyer thinks his dissenting opinion in heller is really what's binding and further holds the notion of history and tradition in contempt despite leaning on it in other cases and wanted to point that out a couple of times in the arguments. He just sort of pontificated to the other justices. 

RBG seems to be toeing the line on mootness, but her only real question is basically asking what possible standard the law could have met. Possibly because she is the only one on the left who thinks laws mean anything and would like at least some ammunition to argue  the merits in a non-mootness scenario. 

Roberts kept things very formal with the exception of reigning in sotamayor.  We have no new ideas on how he might vote. 

I didn't see Thomas or Kavanaugh in there. Based on past court cases, Thomas is likely safe on both mootness and constitutionality. Kavanaugh's previous rulings are in line with accepting Alito's arguments for unrestricted transport of an unloaded firearm as being unfettered. 

Honestly, I think the only thing in the whole transcript that really stands our is RBG's question. Which was asking the NYC lawyer about the point of the law and asking how the law made NYC safer if it required a gun owner with multiple residents to purchase one gun per residence and expose more guns to more time in unsupervised storage and thus potentially more theft. As asked and with the limited reply it got, it boils down to " what is the states narrow interest in this law that is specifcally served by it?" Her own argument implies she doesn't accept the safety argument if it means more guns at more risk of being stolen. 

Standing out to a lesser degree is that Alito seemed to allude to the fact nobody could tell what the law might cover without some sort of test. 

Reading between the lines both Keegan and Sotamayor both essentially contradicted themselves. They said that the case is moot because they got what they wanted and that if they wanted AND that they would have to essentially go right back to court because they couldn't foresee this particular brand of bullshit being dropped at the last minute and didn't phrase their argument exactly right to avoid it five years ago. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

RBG is the only lefty that asks anything meaningful about the law other than mootness questions.

RBG: "So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?"

 

 

 

 

A good summary and mostly how I read it too.  Just one minor correction.  That wasn't RBG, that was Alito that said that. Page 53, Line 2 of the transcript. 

JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hired hands protesting in front of SCOTUS today, not prepped very well, couldn't answer basic questions. Hang on while I prepare my shocked face.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/12/02/nra-asked-anti-gunners-the-name-of-the-scotus-case-they-were-protesting-their-re-n2557367

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Hired hands protesting in front of SCOTUS today, not prepped very well, couldn't answer basic questions. Hang on while I prepare my shocked face.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/12/02/nra-asked-anti-gunners-the-name-of-the-scotus-case-they-were-protesting-their-re-n2557367

I bet most people, regardless of stance on 2A, couldn't actually name the case off-hand.

Honestly, I'm confused as to why so many people think there will be a huge change in history from this case. It sounds like Roberts wants to punt this down the road so it doesn't get blown out of proportion. But even if they hear it, what landmark ruling are people expecting to happen? This is a case on whether or not you can carry guns outside the city and between your own properties. I have a hard time believing it would even be a close vote. But it's not like we'll suddenly gain an abundance of new freedoms. 

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


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

I bet most people, regardless of stance on 2A, couldn't actually name the case off-hand.

Honestly, I'm confused as to why so many people think there will be a huge change in history from this case. It sounds like Roberts wants to punt this down the road so it doesn't get blown out of proportion. But even if they hear it, what landmark ruling are people expecting to happen? This is a case on whether or not you can carry guns outside the city and between your own properties. I have a hard time believing it would even be a close vote. But it's not like we'll suddenly gain an abundance of new freedoms. 

I suggest you skim the previous parts of this thread. It goes into why it may (or may not) be important for gun rights. Specifically if it sets the precedence of requiring strict scrutiny for 2A cases. 

  • 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.



×
×
  • Create New...