oct 7th is the next session so it wont be before that.

Numerous more briefs have been filed. Still no date for arguments as per second link below.

Some question it will be heard at all.

Quote from the first link below: "Last for this overview, and perhaps least, an odd New York City regulation raised significant questions about how Second Amendment gun control laws should be evaluated. But the regulation and a New York state licensing statute have since been amended, and New York has asked that the case be dismissed as moot. Although some justices may be itching for a Second Amendment vehicle, chances are this case will not be it."

Sources:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/overview-of-the-courts-criminal-docket-for-ot-19-sizeable-and-significant/

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

That scotusblog opinion sounds like the wishful thinking of a liberal lawyer.  It sounds like so many liberal comments I've read who (figuratively) shout from the rooftops that the law has been amended so there's no point in the case being heard.  If it's not such a big deal why are they raising such a ruckus about it? If it is such a minor case it wouldn't have garnered so much agitation from NY trying to moot the case.

Should this be a favorable decision does anyone know if the NJ NRA affiliate prepared lawsuits to hand to the AG's office to force them to comply.   We know they will not go down easy,

 

our next ten moves should have already been planned and prepared. 

54 minutes ago, revenger said:

our next ten moves should have already been planned and prepared.

That's a big ask for the NJ NRA. I think you have a lot more faith then most.

2 hours ago, supranatural said:

That scotusblog opinion sounds like the wishful thinking of a liberal lawyer.  It sounds like so many liberal comments I've read who (figuratively) shout from the rooftops that the law has been amended so there's no point in the case being heard.  If it's not such a big deal why are they raising such a ruckus about it? If it is such a minor case it wouldn't have garnered so much agitation from NY trying to moot the case.

I have been reading all the briefs in this case. Paul Clement for the Petitioners has written 2 briefs referring to this silly argument by NYC. Here it is, about 25 pages or so. It's worth reading. Basically just because the state changed the law does not mean NYC did. If the state recent laws disappeared, the city opinions would remain intact. The only way to give the petitioners true relief is to make the court decide on it.

 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/114641/20190904133735900_18-280rb.pdf

1 hour ago, revenger said:

Should this be a favorable decision does anyone know if the NJ NRA affiliate prepared lawsuits to hand to the AG's office to force them to comply.   We know they will not go down easy,

 

our next ten moves should have already been planned and prepared. 

I don't know who did the brief but NJ has it's own case. Rogers v Grewal. The state dragged it's feet but the court made them reply to the petitioners.

Really the whole point of this ridiculous gun case is that if you have a premises license & you can't get into a city range, how the heck are you going to practice? The city giving a license to a resident that can't practice is way more dangerous than someone transporting it!

 

This case in my view will be heard.  Will be scheduled once the court comes back in session.

NYC’s argument was 2nd doesn’t demand strict scrutiny.  Changing the law doesn’t address the issue of how they determine whether or not 2nd amendment laws need to survive strict scrutiny.

Notice NJ case is being held sitting there since May.  They will hopefully hear this case and set the record straight on scrutiny that needs to be applied, then send NJ case back to circuit to reconsider based on NY decision which will hopefully force strict scrutiny.

 

17 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

Notice NJ case is being held sitting there since May.  They will hopefully hear this case and set the record straight on scrutiny that needs to be applied, then send NJ case back to circuit to reconsider based on NY decision which will hopefully force strict scrutiny.

 

I do not see NJ or the circuit courts doing squat until they are flat out forced to do so by SCOTUS.

I hope I'm wrong.

2 hours ago, kc17 said:

I do not see NJ or the circuit courts doing squat until they are flat out forced to do so by SCOTUS.

I hope I'm wrong.

SCOTUS sending a case back to the circuit with direction to re-evaluate based on strict scrutiny would be “forced to”. 

My point exactly.

When you get right down to the nuts and bolts of this case, it's not really about the 2nd Amendment. With a tiny fraction of New Yorker's able to practice at a gun range, how the heck are they supposed to practice when NYC can't accommodate their citizens? 

The case isn't about the ability to practice at a range but rather transport outside of the city, unless I recall incorrectly.  Supposedly there are several ranges in the city where they can transport guns to practice but transportation to anywhere outside of the city, such as a another state's range, any competition event, an owner's second home or any destination outside of city limits.  I think even if someone who lives in the city were to sell their residence move out of state would be prohibited from putting their firearms in a vehicle and drive out of NYC to their new residence.

10 minutes ago, supranatural said:

The case isn't about the ability to practice at a range but rather transport outside of the city, unless I recall incorrectly.  Supposedly there are several ranges in the city where they can transport guns to practice but transportation to anywhere outside of the city, such as a another state's range, any competition event, an owner's second home or any destination outside of city limits.  I think even if someone who lives in the city were to sell their residence move out of state would be prohibited from putting their firearms in a vehicle and drive out of NYC to their new residence.

Correct. Or if they have a second home upstate they can’t bring it there either. 

And the number of ranges in the city are extremely limited. 

20 minutes ago, supranatural said:

The case isn't about the ability to practice at a range but rather transport outside of the city, unless I recall incorrectly.  Supposedly there are several ranges in the city where they can transport guns to practice but transportation to anywhere outside of the city, such as a another state's range, any competition event, an owner's second home or any destination outside of city limits.  I think even if someone who lives in the city were to sell their residence move out of state would be prohibited from putting their firearms in a vehicle and drive out of NYC to their new residence.

I should have explained it better. There are only seven ranges in NYC but you have about 16,300 premises licenses. That's about 2500 folks per range. You couldn't get all those people into what's available. The range question is not THE REASON but just one of them. You are correct in your last point. There are only 2 permits in NYC, a carry permit and the premises permit which limits you to your home. That's also why one of the questions the justices will ask is why doesn't the Commerce clause apply in this case?

https://www.wnyc.org/story/visit-nyc-firing-range-hear-gun-owners/

Edited September 12, 20197 yr by drjjpdc
add some material

Edit: It still may be up in the air:

”It's on the calendar because it was granted cert in January. It's being distributed for conference on October 1st because NYC changed the law and now says the case is moot. SCOTUS may not hear it based on that. It's up in the air still until their conference to consider mootness.”

 

 

SCOTUS is hearing the case!  12/2/2019!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2019.pdf

Just now, DirtyDigz said:

SCOTUS is hearing the case!  12/2/2019!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2019.pdf

Not only that, it is the very first case they are going to hear!!

I wish I could see Bloomberg’s and Feinstein’s faces when they get the news.  Cuomo’s too.

Early Christmas?

28 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

Not only that, it is the very first case they are going to hear!!

Maybe it’s just so they can gavel it “moot” right it way and pad their numbers..

4 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:

I wish I could see Bloomberg’s and Feinstein’s faces when they get the news.  Cuomo’s too.

And De bozo

Was at the U.S. LawShield seminar tonight with Nappen and he announced that SCOTUS would hear the case on 12/2/2019.  So maybe that is the date after all.  Will look for some more confirmation.

8 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Was at the U.S. LawShield seminar tonight with Nappen and he announced that SCOTUS would hear the case on 12/2/2019.  So maybe that is the date after all.  Will look for some more confirmation.

there's your confirmation

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2019.pdf

 

9 hours ago, WP22 said:

there's your confirmation

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2019.pdf

 

The same link I posted earlier, which someone else is arguing isn’t definite because:

16 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:

”It's on the calendar because it was granted cert in January. It's being distributed for conference on October 1st because NYC changed the law and now says the case is moot. SCOTUS may not hear it based on that. It's up in the air still until their conference to consider mootness.”

 

The 12-2 date is for oral arguments. Even scotusblog says so. They seem to think it could still be mooted in October, but that's not how scotus usually works. Getting on the oral arguments schedule is hard. The only way I could see that happening is if there was a major shift of opinion and it was defensively mooted.

That seems unlikely as the law is so restrictive that a very narrow ruling would always be on the table. 

1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

The 12-2 date is for oral arguments. Even scotusblog says so. They seem to think it could still be mooted in October, but that's not how scotus usually works. Getting on the oral arguments schedule is hard. The only way I could see that happening is if there was a major shift of opinion and it was defensively mooted.

That seems unlikely as the law is so restrictive that a very narrow ruling would always be on the table. 

Thanks Raz-O.

SCOTUSblog (emphasis added):

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/court-issues-december-calendar/#more-289141

Quote

The Supreme Court issued its calendar for the December sitting today. The justices are scheduled to kick off the sitting, which begins on Monday, December 2, with the oral argument in the challenge to New York City’s ban on transporting guns outside the city’s limits. ***But it’s not clear that the oral argument will actually take place: On October 1, the justices will consider whether to dismiss the case because the city has amended its regulations (and the state has also changed its gun licensing laws).*** Between December 2 and December 11, the justices will hear oral arguments in a total of 15 cases over 12 hours, addressing a wide variety of issues.

So the case needs to clear the 10/1 conference.

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

What people have a hard time in understanding the reasons. Any time a law is passed that conflicts with the Constitution, then a judicial decision is required. It is not enough for the municipality to cancel the law. That is because they can always re-instate that law.

1 hour ago, drjjpdc said:

What people have a hard time in understanding the reasons.

They understand completely.