Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

Apparently there is precedent with this kind of situation with SCOTUS I’ve read. I jus don’t feel like looking it up.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf

Quote

Held:
1. This case is not moot. Although the SEIU offered a full refund to
all class members after certiorari was granted, a live controversy re- mains. The voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordi- narily render a case moot because that conduct could be resumed as soon as the case is dismissed.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal team for NYC already tried to ask SCOTUS  that they are changing the law and to postpone the conferences/hearing and SCOTUS said no way,  Here is the request NYC made on April 23 and it was denied by the Court on April 29.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/97431/20190423180458659_NYSRPA v CNY Letter to Supreme Court.pdf

Share this post


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

The legal team for NYC already tried to ask SCOTUS  that they are changing the law and to postpone the conferences/hearing and SCOTUS said no way,  Here is the request NYC made on April 23 and it was denied by the Court on April 29.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/97431/20190423180458659_NYSRPA v CNY Letter to Supreme Court.pdf

That request was “we may change the policy, please delay”... I believe now it would be “we DID change the policy, please drop the case”

Share this post


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

That request was “we may change the policy, please delay”... I believe now it would be “we DID change the policy, please drop the case”

I'm pretty sure that won't fly with the court.  It's believed that SCOTUS took this case not as a case to strictly defend NYC gun owners' right to transport outside of the home to other than the seven ranges but instead to set precedent for strict scrutiny for 2A laws. They know that if NYC changes the law there's nothing to stop them from changing it back after the case is dropped from the docket. The only way to keep NYC from gaming the judicial system is to set precedent via strict scrutiny. That's why the already told NYC that they weren't going to delay the case...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure that won't fly with the court.  It's believed that SCOTUS took this case not as a case to strictly defend NYC gun owners' right to transport outside of the home to other than the seven ranges but instead to set precedent for strict scrutiny for 2A laws. They know that if NYC changes the law there's nothing to stop them from changing it back after the case is dropped from the docket. The only way to keep NYC from gaming the judicial system is to set precedent via strict scrutiny. That's why the already told NYC that they weren't going to delay the case...

And when strict scrutiny is applied? Then......

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure that won't fly with the court.  It's believed that SCOTUS took this case not as a case to strictly defend NYC gun owners' right to transport outside of the home to other than the seven ranges but instead to set precedent for strict scrutiny for 2A laws. They know that if NYC changes the law there's nothing to stop them from changing it back after the case is dropped from the docket. The only way to keep NYC from gaming the judicial system is to set precedent via strict scrutiny. That's why the already told NYC that they weren't going to delay the case...

I agree, and hope you’re right. I’m just pointing out that NYC’s argument is different. There is a difference between “the case might be moot, soon” and “the case is now moot”. The court may give the later more thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

I agree, and hope you’re right. I’m just pointing out that NYC’s argument is different. There is a difference between “the case might be moot, soon” and “the case is now moot”. The court may give the later more thought. 

Of course there's always the possibility that could happen. I'm just of the opinion that with a conservative majority on the court that they took this case for a specific reason... To add to the Heller ruling and prevent lower courts from subverting that case over and over again. The justices are not stupid, they know exactly why NYC is doing all this...To prevent what the court majority feels needs to be done. I think the conservatives on the bench feel that the 2A has been given short strict as one of our rights and it's time to address that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

And when strict scrutiny is applied? Then......

I've quoted from another website (thefirearmblog.com) :

Strict scrutiny, if applied to all 2nd Amendment cases, would entail all gun laws being subject to three tests. Once the court determines that strict scrutiny should be applied, the challenged law or policy is presumed to be unconstitutional. The government has to prove it passes the strict scrutiny tests. First, the law or policy must serve a compelling government interest. Secondly, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Thirdly, it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

 

High capacity magazine bands, assault rifle bands, May Issue would all fail this test...

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

I've quoted from another website (thefirearmblog.com) :

Strict scrutiny, if applied to all 2nd Amendment cases, would entail all gun laws being subject to three tests. Once the court determines that strict scrutiny should be applied, the challenged law or policy is presumed to be unconstitutional. The government has to prove it passes the strict scrutiny tests. First, the law or policy must serve a compelling government interest. Secondly, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Thirdly, it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

 

High capacity magazine bands, assault rifle bands, May Issue would all fail this test...

...thank you.....  that is the path i was offering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New York is trying again to moot the case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/107174/20190703170251906_Letter to Supreme Court.pdf

 

...

When an intervening change in law entitles plaintiffs to everything they seek, the Court has long recognized that the litigation is rendered moot. ... It does not matter whether the defendant previously defended the now-defunct law. Nor does it matter whether this Court’s grant of review contributed to the government’s decision to take a fresh look at its legal regime. ... These precedents control here. There is no longer an Article III case or controversy because the new city regulation gives petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit. The new state law, upon signature by the Governor, will make the case doubly moot.

You hear that plebes?  DOUBLY MOOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYSRPA lawyer responds:

https://www.scribd.com/document/416211187/NYSRPA-Response-Letter-2019-7-8

 

Quote

...

Moreover, a party asserting that its own actions have mooted a case has “the ‘heavy burden of persua[ding]’ the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again.”


... That heavy burden should be heavier still where, as here, a defendant’s about-face is unabashedly motivated by a desire to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to review the defendant’s actions.


... There are particularly strong reasons to doubt the sincerity of any claim that the City has forever changed its errant ways here given respondents’ declaration that they have no intention of taking any position before this Court on the constitutionality of the rules that they have changed. Indeed, the procedural irregularity of respondents’ actions to date makes plain that their goal is not  just to try to moot this case, but to do everything they can to avoid ever having to take a definitive  position on those issues. It is hard to understand why respondents are so reluctant to take any  position on the questions on which this Court granted certiorari if they have no intention of resuming the challenged conduct or materially similar conduct in the future.

...

 

Share this post


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

It's painfully obvious they knew the law was unconstitutional, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it. 

Let SCOTUS official opinion so they cant reinstitute these absurd laws a few years down the road

They also defended it tooth and nail for the last 7 years or so. They didn’t decide to change it until SCOTUS granted cert. 

  • Like 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.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information