10 hours ago, drjjpdc said:

Here's are the NRA-ILA that explain NYC last hope for refusing to hear the case.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190920/us-supreme-court-schedules-nra-supported-second-amendment-case-for-argument

...

Thanks. From that article:

 

Quote

...Nevertheless, it is not a forgone conclusion that the court will even hear the case in December, much less that it will issue a sweeping ruling on the right to keep and bear arms that will finally bring Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel. The case could still end at the October procedural hearing without being decided on the merits.

Will the Supreme Court hear the case in December en route to a sweeping ruling on arms? It remains unclear. ...

 

Here is some potential good news. The following link show %'s of Supreme Court decisions where they reversed lower court decisions. Regarding NJ  &  NY, They have reversed the 2nd and third court of appeals 60-70 % of the times. That's a pretty percentage for us.

https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)

John

 

In October the court will here the mootness argument

In December the court will hear the merits of the case, assuming the Court has not rendered an unfavorable mootness decision and dismissed the case. The possibility also exists that the court will not decide the mootness issue before Dec and hear the merits argument and then decide the case as a whole addressing both the mootness and merits in one opinion. So just because the case is not dismissed prior to Dec does not automatically mean it is a win but it is a strong indication it will be.

Maybe I missed it - what is recent court precedent if laws are changed or the matter is resolved at a lower level prior to hearing it?

I get the philosophy of it being moot, and also the philosophy that it could be changed and so the protection of the people still requires a decision.  

But do we understand how the court has typically handled situations such as these?

20 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

Maybe I missed it - what is recent court precedent if laws are changed or the matter is resolved at a lower level prior to hearing it?

I get the philosophy of it being moot, and also the philosophy that it could be changed and so the protection of the people still requires a decision.  

But do we understand how the court has typically handled situations such as these?

There's the concept of mootness. It exists because cases have been mooted. 

There's talk of them ignoring the mootness issue because there is precedent for that as well. 

Here's a nice quote form scotusblog on mootness and why it is a thing 

Quote

A principal theory behind the case and controversy requirement – and behind the mootness doctrine, as well – is that courts will reach the best decisions when the cases they decide are litigated in a process that is truly adversarial on behalf of parties who have a real stake in the outcome.

When tangible interests are no longer present for the parties in a dispute, a case may become moot. The theory, again, is that parties to a case may not make the best arguments and engage in zealous advocacy if they no longer have genuine, tangible interests in the outcome.

With regard to that it's very clear this case is a focus for a lot of impassioned, zealous arguing, and has not been abandoned to the whims of the court alone. The fact that the state is still hand waving at the ends-means justification says they still care about their position. As do the 8 bajillion amicus briefs on both sides. As does all the attempts to moot it, and then re-moot it even more. 

Additionally, when the state law was promoted, there was public discussion by those people who wanted the city to avoid SCOTUS as to if it could be used to impose the exact same restrictions. To which the answer was yes. Regardless of their intent to affect honest mootness, or to game the system while avoiding the court, the fact that the answer was yes shows that the issue is not in fact truly moot. 

To add to that, NY does not have state preemption laws. The fact that statute exists means NOTHING has changed compared to the day before it existed, and SCOTUS didn't grant their mootness request then. It in fact insisted they stop dragging their ass and get past the mootness bullshit. To which the response was to get the state statute passed and go nah man it's moot yo!  And then pretend they don't have to answer the court. 

I still stand by my opinion that the only way this isn't getting heard is if their was some huge internal shift on how the votes would go, and granting mootness would be defensively advisable. I'm not sure that would happen even then as the implication would be the new majority could keep it in play to screw us. IMO if there were a change to the vote liklihood, it would just turn the case form a big question to a narrow question.

On 9/21/2019 at 1:14 AM, BobA said:

They understand completely. 

Not around here they don't, otherwise why all the questions on mootness?

So tomorrow is OCT 1st,  what is a good website to watch to see if SCOTUS hears the case in December.

3 hours ago, revenger said:

So tomorrow is OCT 1st,  what is a good website to watch to see if SCOTUS hears the case in December.

Maybe here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

10 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

Maybe here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

This is the last line, does that mean it's a go?

Sep 13 2019

SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 2, 2019.

 

11 hours ago, Bklynracer said:

This is the last line, does that mean it's a go?

Sep 13 2019

SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 2, 2019.

 

Please go back and read the previous ~20 posts to catch up on what that means.

We might have more certainty after today.

Worst case, we will know 12-2-2019. 

 

I’m reading we might know tomorrow (Thu 10/3) as to whether it’s passed the “mootness challenge”.

1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said:

I’m reading we might know tomorrow (Thu 10/3) as to whether it’s passed the “mootness challenge”.

Sauce?

From all the docs I read, argument means they all get together for oral argument. The mootness thing was decided in conference. Even after argument in December, they will continue talking and writing until a vote occurs.

9 hours ago, raz-0 said:

Worst case, we will know 12-2-2019. 

 

The court does not issue opinions immediately after oral argument.

3 hours ago, drjjpdc said:

From all the docs I read, argument means they all get together for oral argument. The mootness thing was decided in conference. Even after argument in December, they will continue talking and writing until a vote occurs.

May not have been unless the mootness issue was submitted to the court on the papers without argument and even if not it may take time if there is a written opinion as opposed to an Order on the issue.

56 minutes ago, SJG said:

The court does not issue opinions immediately after oral argument.

Sounds like my wife...

2 hours ago, SJG said:

The court does not issue opinions immediately after oral argument.

I meant mootness. Oral arguments can't be kept secret. No arguments, then it was mooted.

Mootness denied!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

18-280

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

It’s on!

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

1 hour ago, njJoniGuy said:

18-280

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

Nice. 

Given that you have articles by people who told them to moot the case asking if the state law could be used to re-implement the same restrictions, I don't think that is going to go well for them. 

 

Becoming more cautiously optimistic. Oral arguments scheduled for Dec 2.

Reading up on SCOTUS procedural rules, it could still be Summer 2020 before an opinion/ruling is announced.

"All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court's term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term."

Source for above: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

Phase one complete!

 

 

 

 

I hope Justice Thomas is back when this hits. He's not in the session now.

Means nothing for NJ. We can transport out of state anytime.

 

 

7 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Means nothing for NJ. We can transport out of state anytime.

 

 

Agreed. All this case is, is so the SC can say, see, we took a 2A case. Then they're off the hook for the 2A for next 10yrs.

7 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Means nothing for NJ. We can transport out of state anytime.

 

 

 

Just now, diamondd817 said:

Agreed. All this case is, is so the SC can say, see, we took a 2A case. Then there off the hook for the next 10yrs.

Guessing you guys haven't read the thread. Depending how SCOTUS rules, it could open the door for revisiting many rulings supporting anti-gun restrictions and the scrutiny required in readdressing them.

21 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Means nothing for NJ. We can transport out of state anytime.

 

 

If all it concerned was transport out of state the antis, dems and several house members, as well as the media, would not be up in arms about this and running around like Chicken Littles spouting about the end of times.  If SCOTUS rules that the law is not constitutional and that from now on laws like this require Strict Scrutiny it sets precedent to overturn many laws that indeed violates the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A.