Jump to content
Bowling Ball

NYSRPA Ruled Moot by SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

The breakdown demonstrates that the Chief Justice lacks the guts to vote in favor of a 2A case.  Although Kavanaugh supported the outcome of mootness, he did write a concurrence that explicitly stated he wants the Court to grant certiorari in Rogers, Gould or one of the other cases that have been repeatedly subject to conference but not acted on.  And he endorsed Justice Alito's reading of Heller/MacDonald.  So there are clearly enough votes for a grant of certiorari: Kavanugh; Alito; Gorsuch; and Thomas.  Once again, it boils down to CJ Roberts.  The pending 2A cases are far more momentous so I'm afraid that Roberts will punk out again.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Princetonian58 said:

The breakdown demonstrates that the Chief Justice lacks the guts to vote in favor of a 2A case.  Although Kavanaugh supported the outcome of mootness, he did write a concurrence that explicitly stated he wants the Court to grant certiorari in Rogers, Gould or one of the other cases that have been repeatedly subject to conference but not acted on.  And he endorsed Justice Alito's reading of Heller/MacDonald.  So there are clearly enough votes for a grant of certiorari: Kavanugh; Alito; Gorsuch; and Thomas.  Once again, it boils down to CJ Roberts.  The pending 2A cases are far more momentous so I'm afraid that Roberts will punk out again.

 

It's possible that Robert's didn't want NYSRPA to be a political rally point, since he thinks it IS moot at it's core.

Rogers vs Grewal and Worman vs Healey hopefully will provide that political shelter in a sense, since the cases don't involve this unseen level of skullduggery as NYSRPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. Everyone thought this case was going to be the end all of 2a cases. Something, something, strict scrutiny, blah, blah. Whereas, it was only going to benefit about 6,000 NY gun owners. Now, maybe the Supreme Court can take a real 2a case that will actually benefit the whole 2a community.

BTW, this case had nothing to do with NY carry, it was only about transportation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a little off topic but...
 
 
 
 
U.S. SUPREME COURT MOOTS NYC 2A CASE,
COULD HEAR ANJRPC CARRY CHALLENGE
 
April 27, 2020. Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a long-pending NYC Second Amendment challenge was mooted by law changes made after the case was filed. The decision ends speculation that the High Court might use the NYC case to establish new rules applicable to all Second Amendment cases in the future. It also means that ANJRPC’s pending challenge to NJ’s unconstitutional carry law could be the next Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court.
 
ANJRPC’s carry law challenge has been “held” by the Supreme Court for many months, meaning that the High Court did not decline to hear the appeal, but did not agree to hear it either. It was speculated that the Court may have first wanted to create new general rules in the pending NYC case, before either hearing pending Second Amendment cases directly or sending them back down to the lower courts for decision under the new rules. Now that the NYC case has been found moot, new rules are no longer forthcoming anytime soon in that case, and the door has been opened to the possibility that the High Court will directly hear one of the pending Second Amendment cases it has been “holding.” That includes ANJRPC’s challenge to NJ’s unconstitutional carry law, which effectively prevents average citizens from exercising their right to defend themselves with firearms outside the home.
 
ANJRPC is monitoring the situation closely and will issue further alerts as developments unfold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really concerning in context of other recent rulings. I don't think there is a more civil meeting of right and left than in the supreme court of the united states. And you can visibly see it falling apart. In all my recreational court watching, I don't think I have ever seen more names on more distinct opinions on decisions. I haven't seen the court tolerate more disrespect of their authority.  And you have Thomas blatantly advocating the nuclear option of recognizing the privileges and immunities clause. That's basically saying "Screw it, blow up the courts, lets relitigate everything form the last 50 years it's less bad than letting this continue."

I think Roberts has forgotten the point of respecting the law is to protect the constitution. Article III specifically is not meant to repeatedly protect behaviors/disputes that will repeatedly not persist the duration of the legal process. At some point they need to recognize that playing this game of promulgating a clearly infringing law and dragging it throught eh court system relying on time and limited capacity to get away with it for as long as they can it harmful to the law, the constitution, and the people. 

Roberts likes to think that "go to the ballot box" is a functional retort to him making the jury box fail. He fails to see that it says that the ammo box is the only recourse left. 

On a side note, OBRPC and world class steel made it into the dissent 

 

For example, Colantone registered to participate in the 2012 World Class Steel Northeast Regional Championship in Old Bridge, New Jersey—about 20 miles from his home in the City. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of CrossMotion for Summary Judgt. in No. 13–cv–2115 (SDNY), Doc. No. 44 (Plaintiffs’ Memo). But after the hosts of that competition alerted him that his premises license did not allow him to transport his handgun to New Jersey—and after Inspector Andrew Lunetta, the commanding officer of the NYPD License Division, confirmed this—Colantone pulled out of the competition. App. 32, 49–50, 55.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now they can continue to change the laws at whim...at whenever time it suits them.   Then they can change it back again at whim.  We lost.  I vote for tar and feathers to get the result we need.

Share this post


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

Good. Everyone thought this case was going to be the end all of 2a cases. Something, something, strict scrutiny, blah, blah. Whereas, it was only going to benefit about 6,000 NY gun owners. Now, maybe the Supreme Court can take a real 2a case that will actually benefit the whole 2a community.

BTW, this case had nothing to do with NY carry, it was only about transportation.

This kind of made sense, but I don't know.  They could have used this case to set a precedent over whether the 2A is allowed in the public, basically.  But there are at least 2 other concealed carry cases being brought up to the court so maybe they can only punt so many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Princetonian, it has nothing to do with guts, Roberts is a Deep State Activist and incumbent Washington elite with either collusion or compromied.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was on that plane with Klinton, or on the other one with Menendez.  Treacherous, just like with Obamacare.  That was why the Schmuckster allowed him clear sailing when he become Chief Justice.  The Globalist Fix is in.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no faith in this SCOTUS, specifically Roberts. 

There was absolutely no reason to silence the case Moot. The law was was there and people had to live under it, and they got rid of it knowing it was a civil rights violation.. Instead of making a quick ruling to ensure no law ever goes into effect of the same, they decided to do nothing.. this was literally a case where their ruling could have had no impact on any existing law... just a prior.. 

this tells me there is not a single gun law case they will take up and vote in our favor.. 

27 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

This kind of made sense, but I don't know.  They could have used this case to set a precedent over whether the 2A is allowed in the public, basically.  But there are at least 2 other concealed carry cases being brought up to the court so maybe they can only punt so many times.

They can punt as many times they want.. if history tells us anything

  • Agree 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We basically have Gorsich and Thomas who support the Constitution.   Once RBG bounces and Trump puts in that woman he had with Kavanough then it MIGHT be 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way we'll ever get a 5-4 slim victory on a transforming 2A case is if the entire bench is appointed by republicans. I don't know if you ever noticed but it's always the republican appointed judges that "evolve" their positions into the liberal camp. It's never the other way around.

To this day I still don't know how we ever got Heller.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Then there is this

Worman v Healy (I think CT AWB?) up for review. 

Healy is MA. She issued a freaking memo completely redefining the AWB. MA has had their ban in place since 98 and it mirrored the federal ban. In July 2016? She decided to completely reinterpret the laws and banned all sale of AR and AK rifles. No actual law behind her but everyone has fallen to their knees. The fact a court hasn’t knocked this BS down is amazing. I mean, literally 10+ years of federal and state precedent and interpretation and she switched it on a dime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is even worse than I thought. Not only Roberts punted, he send it down to a hostile court.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/opinion-analysis-court-sends-new-york-second-amendment-case-back-to-lower-courts-without-ruling-on-the-merits/

There were at least two guys here on the forum that said Kavanaugh was NFG and Trump made a mistake nominating him. 

Quote

 The court’s two-page opinion – which was unsigned but apparently joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh – explained that, as a result of the changes to state law and the city’s rule, the gun owners have gotten exactly what they had asked for: They can now take their guns to a second home or a shooting range outside the city.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WP22 said:

This is even worse than I thought. Not only Roberts punted, he send it down to a hostile court.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/opinion-analysis-court-sends-new-york-second-amendment-case-back-to-lower-courts-without-ruling-on-the-merits/

There were at least two guys here on the forum that said Kavanaugh was NFG and Trump made a mistake nominating him. 

 

He also joined Alito in the part of his dissent where he says lower courts have been misinterpreting Heller and McDonald and that they should pick up another case soon. 
 

there are three 2A cases up for cert review Friday.  Including NJ “Justifiable need”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Came across this on Reddit - excellent tracker for 2A cases in SCOTUS, District, Circuit and State courts:

https://airtable.com/shrcrC5FsedZqIi3T/tblMclNyymYiklOOg/viwM47ZZsFWQo69Vf?blocks=hide

6 carry, 2 AWB, and 1 interstate rights cases distributed for conference on May 1.

Which will be the next infringement SCOTUS will allow to carry on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Wondering if NY can now just say, "Ha, ha!  Changed our minds.  The law is now back in effect, so we guess you are going to have to start the judicial process all over again."

No, it cannot.  NY State, working hand in hand with Bloomturd/Everytown, adopted a law that prohibits the City from simply reinstating its restriction.  It did so precisely to enable the mootness argument; if the City could at any time reimpose the restriction, the controversy would be on-going and enable SCOTUS to review. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Wondering if NY can now just say, "Ha, ha!  Changed our minds.  The law is now back in effect, so we guess you are going to have to start the judicial process all over again."

What's stopping them? The supremes?

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...