1 hour ago, supranatural said:

Written by another liberal college student who is wet behind the ears and knows nothing of the freedoms that have been built upon the shoulders of giants before him.  

Ditto supra. These babies would be better off reading Scalia's opinion in Heller and Alito's in McDonald.

I wonder How many anti-gun folks know that both men that brought the suits were black Americans that both lived in high crime areas.

Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment but also that of transporting property to other areas and states (the Commerce Clause).

23 minutes ago, drjjpdc said:

I wonder How many anti-gun folks know that both men that brought the suits were black Americans that both lived in high crime areas.

Wow. I didn't know that myself!! Thanks for sharing that. That's certainly a tidbit more people should know.

42 minutes ago, drjjpdc said:

Ditto supra. These babies would be better off reading Scalia's opinion in Heller and Alito's in McDonald.

I wonder How many anti-gun folks know that both men that brought the suits were black Americans that both lived in high crime areas.

Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment but also that of transporting property to other areas and states (the Commerce Clause).

agree and something that should be highlighted by NRA and pro gun groups but they never do. 

58 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Wow. I didn't know that myself!! Thanks for sharing that. That's certainly a tidbit more people should know.

Heller is an old white guy. Mc Donald was black. 

The Docket was updated on 11/15/2019 and also looks favorable to our side. The Solicitor General has voiced his opinion on "Mootness" and filed a brief to that effect:

 

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

Favorable only if they seek damages it appears to me.  Solicitor General basically shot down petitioners theories of mootness.

Let us pray for Strict Scrutiny on all 2A matters as a result of this case.

3 hours ago, Spartiati said:

Favorable only if they seek damages it appears to me.  Solicitor General basically shot down petitioners theories of mootness.

It's favorable as it provides a solid a argument against mootness that the plaintiffs failed to provide. 

The notion of mootness because the city says "oh we wouldn't do that, no sir" might be legal tradition, but the fact you had people involved asking if the same restrictions could be implemented using the states law and did so publicly would seem to indicate that have no intention of creating abuses long term.

The only thing we find out tomorrow is maybe if there were oral arguments.

On 11/17/2019 at 9:46 AM, Spartiati said:

Favorable only if they seek damages it appears to me.  Solicitor General basically shot down petitioners theories of mootness.

Being a NYer and holder of such Premises License, I am wishing for damages. The fees NYC charges for this privilege amounts to $340 every three years. Relief from this unfair financial burden is sorely needed!

2 minutes ago, noshow said:

Being a NYer and holder of such Premises License, I am wishing for damages. The fees NYC charges for this privilege amounts to $340 every three years. Relief from this unfair financial burden is sorely needed!

That’s not how it works. 
1) it isn’t that it would not be moot only if they were seeking damages. It would not be moot because damages could be sought. It is the opinion of the solicitor general that they could be sought.

2) the solicitor general shot down the main argument of the plaintiff that without a ruling previous violations could be held against applicants in the future. He shout it down because nyc promised they wouldn’t. Which may not be accepted. If that is the case, put it in the statutes and don’t rely on the whim of administrative decisions. 
 

I wouldn’t hold my breath for a ruling that says they can’t charge you out the wazoo for licensing. Even if the ruling offers a possibility of relief there, it’ll be its own court case. 

This is how I imagine the oral arguments will go today. 

I read somewhere that the ruling is not expected until July,    hopefully the makeup of the court has changed by then. (one way or the other )

anyone know if the oral arguments will be available to listen to or read.

2 minutes ago, revenger said:

I read somewhere that the ruling is not expected until July,    hopefully the makeup of the court has changed by then. (one way or the other )

anyone know if the oral arguments will be available to listen to or read.

Won't matter if the makeup changes, they don't decide then, they just publish then. And if you weren't around for oral arguments, you won't be on the list of people making the ruling. 

Transcripts of oral arguments should be available today for what it is worth. There's lots of people watching this one. 

1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

Won't matter if the makeup changes, they don't decide then, they just publish then. And if you weren't around for oral arguments, you won't be on the list of people making the ruling. 

Transcripts of oral arguments should be available today for what it is worth. There's lots of people watching this one. 

do you have a link for the transcripts.  

6 minutes ago, revenger said:

do you have a link for the transcripts.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2019

 

The site states that audio from the weeks hearings are posted by end of week.  Check in periodically to see when it hits.  

At least one of the attorneys arguing the case will be on Gun For Hire Radio on Sunday if I remember correctly. I will be listening with a glass of Balvenie in hand (unless we do a do-over for the shotgun meetup.) @Krdshrk

2 hours ago, revenger said:

I read somewhere that the ruling is not expected until July,    hopefully the makeup of the court has changed by then. (one way or the other )

anyone know if the oral arguments will be available to listen to or read.

They "could" announce anytime after today. They "must" announce before they break for summer recess. As per SCOTUS Rules.

If a Justice misses oral arguments, they could still participate in the discussion and ruling based on transcripts. At a minimum RBG has done that before. Any new Justice to join would not be involved.

Some news is trickling out:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html

Quote

While some of the court’s conservatives, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, seemed eager to use the case to address the reach of the Second Amendment, it appeared likely after an hour of arguments that Chief Justice John Roberts would side with the court’s liberals to dismiss the matter altogether as “moot,” or no longer an active controversy.  

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1201533737093214208

( I report on the U.S. Supreme Court and related issues for Reuters; Silver Spring, Md. resident; Herefordshire-born )

Quote

UPDATE: Much of Supreme Court oral argument in gun case focuses on whether the case is moot but conservatives fairly quiet on the subject. Gorsuch & Alito definitely seem to think it's not moot

Quote

Kavanaugh was silent and Chief Justice Roberts wanted assurances from the city that gun owners who challenge since-amended law won't be prejudiced against going forward

Quote

First question today was asked by Justice Ginsburg, of course: "What's left of this case?"

 

Quote

For those wanting to keep the case alive, the focus is on a section of the new law requiring handgun transportation to be "continuous and uninterrupted." NY says coffee breaks are ok and there would need to be a new lawsuit on that issue if other circumstances raised

 

RBG is there, and apparently awake.

Well, I'll just wait for the conclusion before I go out and set my hair on fire.

If this is ruled as moot I believe all hope is lost.

 

14 minutes ago, WP22 said:

Well, I'll just wait for the conclusion before I go out and set my hair on fire.

I think many know how it will go (the ones paying attention)...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to deliver a major win for gun-rights activists during arguments on Monday in the first significant Second Amendment case the justices have heard in nearly a decade.

While some of the court’s conservatives, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, seemed eager to use the case to address the reach of the Second Amendment, it appeared likely after an hour of arguments that Chief Justice John Roberts would side with the court’s liberals to dismiss the matter altogether as “moot,” or no longer an active controversy.    

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html

 

It was posted elsewhere that since the lower courts sided with NYC having SCOTUS agree the case is moot would leave that precedence in place.  Would allow other areas free reign to enact the same rules now with legal air cover. 

1 hour ago, Sniper said:

I think many know how it will go (the ones paying attention)...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to deliver a major win for gun-rights activists during arguments on Monday in the first significant Second Amendment case the justices have heard in nearly a decade.

While some of the court’s conservatives, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, seemed eager to use the case to address the reach of the Second Amendment, it appeared likely after an hour of arguments that Chief Justice John Roberts would side with the court’s liberals to dismiss the matter altogether as “moot,” or no longer an active controversy.    

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html

 

So if this is the case do the other 2A cases get heard?  supposedly waiting in the wings based on this outcome.   I dont remember what they are called now as they are constantly changing.

Also,  what stops NYC from just changing the law right back to unconstitutional status.

blown away if this goes 'moot'

 

remember it's a liberal news agency releasing that

18 minutes ago, RUTGERS95 said:

remember it's a liberal news agency releasing that

This is a lot like what happened with the a aca case. They have stayed campaigning to sway  roberts a their last hope. The question is can they?