Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Bad siderman!!! Bad bad!

stop feeding the sofa kink we Todd’s 

And we may not even get a dissension as it's not really a case with a verdict. Maybe some comments. Also not sure how this affects other 2A pending cases iirc there was some speculation that the outcome of this one may affect the others in some way. Some waiting and seeing....

Share this post


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

And we may not even get a dissension as it's not really a case with a verdict. Maybe some comments. Also not sure how this affects other 2A pending cases iirc there was some speculation that the outcome of this one may affect the others in some way. Some waiting and seeing....

Oh stop!

 

have faith . Don’t go full retard

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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. I am just guessing....

 

Not going to happen, look down

12 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

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. 

 

Share this post


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

Not going to happen, look down

 

 To put the law back on the books first NY State would have to rescind the law and only then can NYC re-instate it. I seem to  recall somewhere in the transcripts the NY lawyer said -on record- that wont happen. Looks like a solid moot on paper and thats how the lib judges will justify their ruling. Would take a lot of balls to embaress the court like that and payback is a bitch. They may not give the next anticase the benifit of the doubt then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of instances of cities in states with preemption laws passing their own restrictions. Sometimes the states fight it and sometimes they don't. Here in FL they can't even punish a town or city that passes restrictions that violate preemption.

Who's to say the state would do anything if the city passes the law after a moot ruling?

Share this post


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

 To put the law back on the books first NY State would have to rescind the law and only then can NYC re-instate it. I seem to  recall somewhere in the transcripts the NY lawyer said -on record- that wont happen. Looks like a solid moot on paper and thats how the lib judges will justify their ruling. Would take a lot of balls to embaress the court like that and payback is a bitch. They may not give the next anticase the benifit of the doubt then.

Yeah because the government has never gone back on their word or anything.

I'n not an attorney, but what about Voluntary Cessation Doctrine? SCOTUS has stated,  "the defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."

It's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts AKA Kennedy 2.0. He's concerned about his legacy, so that will influence his vote. What exactly that means, who knows? 

Share this post


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

Yeah because the government has never gone back on their word or anything.

I'n not an attorney, but what about Voluntary Cessation Doctrine? SCOTUS has stated,  "the defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."

It's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts AKA Kennedy 2.0. He's concerned about his legacy, so that will influence his vote. What exactly that means, who knows? 

It means, the case should be heard as NY or any other state can reinstiti=ute the same law again without a clear ruling. (That's a good thing.

Do not assume anything with ant SCOTUS, they are a very unpredictable bunch.

Share this post


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

Yeah because the government has never gone back on their word or anything.

I'n not an attorney, but what about Voluntary Cessation Doctrine? SCOTUS has stated,  "the defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."

It's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts AKA Kennedy 2.0. He's concerned about his legacy, so that will influence his vote. What exactly that means, who knows? 

Let me clarify that I do not want or like a moot ruling. I'm saying is the scotus has been loathe to take on, much less rule on 2A cases and the moot angle is low hanging fruit, an easy out. That Cessation Doctrine, what's more "reasonable" than the dbl tiered law ending the malpractice, again at least for the lib judjges to make their ruling. Do I trust NY, of course not. Laws are not absolute and are manipulated and changed all the time but as for this case in this point in time moot is a easy out. I agree it comes down to Roberts, again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damages part is interesting as explained upthread. Basically Federal law states that plaintiff can add seeking damages even though it wasn’t sought in their earlier filing.   The court now has to decide if that federal statute applies to scotus or potentially ignore it. If it applies then the case can’t be moot since the damages aren’t addressed in what the city/state did. If it doesn’t then they’ve effectively neutered that law which has much more significant consequences. 
 

That’s how I read it but I’m not a lawyer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they passed a law, that says they cant change the law, but what if they change that law that allows them to change the law?

 

I don't seem to recall they changed the state constitution. 

 

It blows my Fukkin mind that this would even be considered an argument with how quickly and easily laws can be changed with a majority. Are they like totally like, like pinky like swearing to SCOTUS they gonna be good little libbies?

 

There is also the point that even in the absurd chance NY really cant change the law(which is pure BS on its face), any other state could. In fact, the law in NJ is very similar. You can only bring a handgun legally to an FFL or range. Transport out of state is illegal since its NOT an exception. 

 

IMO, SCOTUS should rule that these laws are illegal, that the state cannot provide for vague exemption, but rather outline explicitly what is NOT permitted. at the VERY least. my hope is obviously for MUCH more.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 5:27 PM, drjjpdc said:

What blew my mind was when Sotomayor said why don't they just get a carry permit if they want to carry a gun somewhere?  Even if you are anti-gun didn't one of her clerks tell her that's the whole point of the lawsuit!

"They" aren't in touch with reality.  I guarantee "they" don't know how much a gallon of gas costs these days.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, noshow said:

I'm only guessing that if the Supremes were going to rule it mute, they would already have done so. That said, the chances of getting a further review and decision seem likely, but I am a dreamer not a lawyer.

I hope you are correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jm1827 said:

I hope you are correct

I hope so too. Because if they don't, they might as well not bother being the highest court in the land. Just wait out cert and then alter the law slightly and call it moot. You just do it for even the mildly risky cases because it's a free chance to not lose.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

so did anything happen yet,  are we still waiting.

On a positive note, the case did survive the opportunity for SCOTUS to DIG* it after the oral argument.

*DIG - dismissed as improvidently granted -

Quote

... After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation.[27]  ...

10 hours ago, noshow said:

...rule it mute...

*Moot.

71930e9ea00a94c6a695b59e1441fc3cf451d3ab

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here was a link from a Heritage article (granted they are conservative).

Ginsburg balked at the city’s suggestion that under the prior regulations, residents with a second home should simply buy a second gun and leave it unattended. 

“What public safety or any other reasonable end is served by [having one gun] in a place that is often unoccupied and … more vulnerable to theft?” she asked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2019 at 6:57 PM, DirtyDigz said:

On a positive note, the case did survive the opportunity for SCOTUS to DIG* it after the oral argument.

*DIG - dismissed as improvidently granted -

Well.. There is always the possibility that it was DIG'd.. and now Thomas, etc.. are writing their objections to it being DIG'd..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 29, 2019 at 2:18 AM, drjjpdc said:

Here was a link from a Heritage article (granted they are conservative).

Ginsburg balked at the city’s suggestion that under the prior regulations, residents with a second home should simply buy a second gun and leave it unattended. 

“What public safety or any other reasonable end is served by [having one gun] in a place that is often unoccupied and … more vulnerable to theft?” she asked. 

And by extension of that samevsaner argument....if one gun is bad, two guns is....?

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.



  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • The Senate Law and Public Safety (LPS) Committee has a meeting scheduled for later today (Thursday 1/23) Currently, nothing is listed on the agenda The Assembly LPS Committee has a meeting scheduled for Monday 1/27 There are 4 bills on the agenda right now, none 2A related These agendas of these committees are ultimately controlled by the Speaker of the Assembly and the President of the Senate This is where the bad sh!t will start at the behest of Gov Gopher and the Swarmi  
    • The pot continues to heat up in VA But the frogs know what is happening I expect bloodshed is coming
    • I'll eat 'em raw if it keeps them from voting Democrat!
    • Apparently, the rally Monday had ZERO effect on the politicians.. Richmond- The Virginia Senate approved legislation Wednesday that would allow authorities to take guns away from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others, as the state moves closer to joining a growing number of states enacting so-called “red flag” gun laws. SB 240 passed on a party line vote, 21-19, on Wednesday. The move came just two days around 22,000 people crowded Richmond's Capitol Square and surrounding areas to support the 2nd Amendment and protest proposed gun laws, like the 'red flag' law. The bill is one of several gun-control measures the new Democratic majority at the General Assembly is set to pass this year. Also on Tuesday, the Democratic-led House killed several pro-gun measures in a subcommittee meeting. Those GOP-backed measures included a bill to allow people to carry concealed handguns without a permit and to repeal a limit on carrying weapons in churches and other places of worship. https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Virginia-Senate-passes-red-flag-law-day-after-massive-gun-rights-rally-567172341.html
    • The London MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease is estimating there could already be 4000 cases in Wuhan, based on their calculations on how it's spread so far and the reporting by China: ...."Using the number of cases detected outside mainland China with who had disease onset by 18th January, it is possible (see Report 1 [14]) to infer the number of clinically comparable cases within Wuhan City that may have occurred thus far. Here we update our estimates to account for the additional international exported cases (7 cases). Summary We estimate that a total of 4,000 cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan City (uncertainty range: 1,000 – 9,700) had onset of symptoms by 18th January 2020 (the last reported onset date of any case) https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/
×
×
  • Create New...