Jump to content
Bowling Ball

NYSRPA Ruled Moot by SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, raz-0 said:

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. 

Oh yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princetonian58 said:

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. 

The city can't on its own. The state could permit it. The state could also just enact an executive order and ignore the state. The state would then have to do something about it. They wouldn't other than finding people prosecuted not guilty. 

The process is the punishment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Robert Neville said:

I said from the start that Judge Thomas Hardiman from the Third Circuit was a much more reliable pick. I have no idea why the NRA pushed Kavanaugh so forcefully.

Well , live and learn. Also vote this November, Ginsburg ain’t gonna live forever, and I’m pretty sure she should charge herself with elder abuse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't done the research to confirm this (i.e., I might be wrong), but I suspect the original prohibition against transporting guns was a city administrative regulation, enacted as an "executive order" by the city and/or the NYPD firearms permitting bureau (not a city criminal ordinance). If this is actually the case, NY State's order that the city can't reinstate the prohibition would only apply to reinstating the administrative regulation --   the way NYC could get around this is just to have the city council write it as an actual law under the city criminal code and reinstate the prohibition. It might rile up the Supreme Court, but the fact is there is NO enforcement mechanism for Supreme Court rulings. Everything depends on voluntary "good faith" compliance by the states/cities. And, as mentioned, it could take years to get back in front of the Supremes anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not worried about kavanaugh.  it all comes down to Roberts.  And we should all be very worried about him.  i think the odds of one or more of the carry cases being granted cert is close to 100%.  The 4 conservative justices clearly want a 2A case.  In the long run, if Robert, rules the way he should we will all be much better off.  The NYC case was not ideal to begin with, and if they had ruled expansively on the merits it would have forever been tainted by the mootness issue.  If Rogers v Grewal is taken let's see NJ try to moot that case.  I highly doubt they will.  I still hold out hope that Roberts has some integrity and will rule consistent with Heller.  Or perhaps RBG will finally retire and we get another conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogers v. Grewal supplemental brief just filed by Dan Schmutter, arguing why this case is the ideal vehicle for SCOTUS to address lower courts infringing on 2A rights:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-824/142651/20200429142838818_18-824 2020-04-29 Rogers supplemental brief FINAL.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shepherd9 said:

Well, they took no action on Rogers V. Grewal.  Any news on the other 9 cases that were in conference? 

So its clear that they had no intention of shooting down the NY case to pick up something more substantial... 

Even if this follows normal process "delay delay delay" it show how little of a priority SCOTUS has made this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation comes down to the Chief Justice.  Clearly, Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas want to address the merits.  Kavanaugh in his concurrence has signaled he, too, wants to hear a 2A case on the merits.  The four of them alone could grant certiorari in Rogers or any one of the other 2A cases teed up.  So why haven't they voted to grant cert?  It's because Roberts has been playing his cards too close to his vest and they are afraid that if they force the Court to hear one of these cases, Roberts might vote with the liberals as he did on the Obamacare cases.  The last thing the solid conservative bloc of 4 want is to have a case heard and allow the liberals to enshirne as the law of the land the bogus "intermediate scrutiny" approach now taken in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Circuits among others.

I'm sure there are draft opinions being quietly exchanged among chambers trying to come up with wording that the Chief will go along with.  Until he's firmly on board, expect the can to be kicked down the road some more or even orders denying cert and letting the issue be raised again next term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect they will take the CA microstamping law. No one with any reason can expect a law to survive when the technology does not exist.

It's a safe bet for the conservative 4 but will Roberts agree to send it back to the 9th to be heard under strict scrutiny or will the Supreme Court just declare that law unconstitutional and call it a day.

I think they will stay clear of the carry and AWB cases as Roberts can't be trusted.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I expect they will take the CA microstamping law. No one with any reason can expect a law to survive when the technology does not exist.

It's a safe bet for the conservative 4 but will Roberts agree to send it back to the 9th to be heard under strict scrutiny or will the Supreme Court just declare that law unconstitutional and call it a day.

I think they will stay clear of the carry and AWB cases as Roberts can't be trusted.

It’s truly disgusting that I believe this to be the case. Banana republic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Zeke said:

It’s truly disgusting that I believe this to be the case. Banana republic 

I truly believe if you were a MOD, we would have shall issue CCW in the PRNJ!:)

Seriously though,  if the microstamping case was sent back with STRICT scrutiny,  would that make all the lower courts use strict scrutiny in every 2A case or just that one?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

I truly believe if you were a MOD, we would have shall issue CCW in the PRNJ!:)

Seriously though,  if the microstamping case was sent back with STRICT scrutiny,  would that make all the lower courts use strict scrutiny in every 2A case or just that one?

 Concur. A win is a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS has at best 1 more chance to get this shit right and fixed, in terms of federal enforcement of 2A.  Otherwise, they will be at best considered useless and at worst considered traitors to The People, and said People will then learn the last of the "soft" boxes are worthless, meaning We are left with only one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

I truly believe if you were a MOD, we would have shall issue CCW in the PRNJ!:)

Seriously though,  if the microstamping case was sent back with STRICT scrutiny,  would that make all the lower courts use strict scrutiny in every 2A case or just that one?

If strict scrutiny was specified I don't know that it would be followed in every court, but it would probably not make it to scotus without it being applied correctly. Willfully dismantling strict scrutiny would potentially undermine to many other rulings. 

I think it would be wisest to be explicit and specify a test. You will note in abusing heller, they really haven't contested that handguns are protected. Because it was explicitly stated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2020 at 2:40 PM, raz-0 said:

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 is a colluding and compromised Globalist Statist in his own right with Scalia in the back of his mind.  This is the Leftist, Liberal Democrat, Progressive Disease spreading.

On 4/27/2020 at 2:40 PM, raz-0 said:

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. 

Leftists would rather bend over and support their other pet agendas than worry about the 2nd Amendment.  

 

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...