SCOTUS Relists NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc v City of NY

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    That's not really what "relisted" means in this context.

    If you click on the case, you're taken to the docket.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-fil...-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

    There, you'll see that it has been "distributed for conference" a couple times. That's what it means, its been "relisted" to be discussed at the conference meeting of the Supremes. You are correct that it is not unusual for big cases to have multiple conferences.

    Although not a sure thing, the more conferences, the more likely it is to result in an actual opinion. (IMHO)

    Every case that will actually be considered gets "listed" to be distributed at the conference. There, the justices can discuss the cases amongst themselves, get a feeling for where people are on it, and see who might be writing opinions.

    Most often, if no one wants to actually hear the case, it gets listed once and certiorari is denied.

    ETA:
    It doesn't get "relisted" because it was rejected. Rather, it is more just in limbo, with ongoing conferences, until a decision is made about what to do with it.

    ETA 2:

    Heller was distributed for conference ("listed") twice.
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/07-290.htm

    Also, it looks like the NY case is relisted for conference on the 18th.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html
     
    Last edited:

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    Ok thanks, But I’m not seeing a huge difference here?

    In any case good to know it’s still in the hopper
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I just wanted to make clear that getting re-listed doesn't mean it was rejected, then came back.

    Rather, getting re-listed is proof that it wasn't rejected... yet. :)

    The routine cases only get listed once, then certiorari is denied. So this case is definitely getting some extra attention.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    I just wanted to make clear that getting re-listed doesn't mean it was rejected, then came back.

    Rather, getting re-listed is proof that it wasn't rejected... yet. :)

    The routine cases only get listed once, then certiorari is denied. So this case is definitely getting some extra attention.


    In simple, broad brush terms does this mean they are mulling it over, trying to figure out if it is something that needs to be addressed? Basically tabled for awhile, think about it, then get back to it?

    Thanks,

    Doug
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113


    In simple, broad brush terms does this mean they are mulling it over, trying to figure out if it is something that needs to be addressed? Basically tabled for awhile, think about it, then get back to it?

    Thanks,

    Doug
    Yeah, that's one reading of the tea leaves.

    Basically, enough of them think there may be something interesting there that they don't want to get rid of it yet. It is still too soon to say what "there" might be there, though.
     

    SwikLS

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 26, 2015
    1,172
    113
    The Bunker
    so on the merits of the case....state preemption for every state? possible national reciprocity? abolishing "may issue"?
     
    Last edited:

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    I'm glad the supreme court has decided to hear a 2A case. This one seems like a slam-dunk. But of all of the gun-rights restrictions in NY and elsewhere, this seems like small potatoes. Why are SC 2A cases covering such narrow questions when much larger infringements are easy to find?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    so on the merits of the case....state preemption for every state? possible national reciprocity? abolishing "may issue"?

    My hot take is that this will delve into what restrictions on carrying outside the home are "reasonable." The NY ones strike me as patently unreasonable.

    The result will probably be a recognition that there's a spectrum between the NY laws and constitutional carry everywhere. They don't have to say what is "reasonable," they only have to strike down the unreasonable.
     

    historian

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    3,301
    63
    SD by residency, Hoosier by heart
    My hot take is that this will delve into what restrictions on carrying outside the home are "reasonable." The NY ones strike me as patently unreasonable.

    The result will probably be a recognition that there's a spectrum between the NY laws and constitutional carry everywhere. They don't have to say what is "reasonable," they only have to strike down the unreasonable.

    Yeah. SCOTUS has been very much less sweeping as time goes on. The incrementalists have won the day. This will be a 5-4 decision (you don't want to be sweeping unless it is 6-3 or 7-2) and the 4 will make a very good case for Federalism and the rights of the states. The 5 will make an argument that while the state has a right to regulate, they can't make regulations that are a de facto ban.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I don't think the 4 will get all up in a states' rights tizzy ;) but, yeah, the majority will say that the right is useless if you can't do anything with it.

    (I think there's a possible analogy to avoiding a ban on certain medical procedures, but banning anyone from going to a place that provides that medical procedure in order to get that medical procedure.)
     

    SwikLS

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 26, 2015
    1,172
    113
    The Bunker
    Yeah. SCOTUS has been very much less sweeping as time goes on. The incrementalists have won the day. This will be a 5-4 decision (you don't want to be sweeping unless it is 6-3 or 7-2) and the 4 will make a very good case for Federalism and the rights of the states. The 5 will make an argument that while the state has a right to regulate, they can't make regulations that are a de facto ban.

    don't be so sure about that 5-4 decision. RBG is dealing with a 3rd go round on cancer and we don't know what her health is right now. she could go tomorrow and then we'll all sit back and watch the left go even more bonkers for the next 3 months. that might also end the govt shutdown since the SCOTUS nom would immediately be front and center in the news cycle.

    but as far as the federalism argument goes, McDonald already put that to rest or at least with this court make up its put to rest.
     
    Last edited:

    miguel

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Oct 24, 2008
    6,614
    113
    16T
    Borowitz-RGB.jpg
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,628
    149
    My hot take is that this will delve into what restrictions on carrying outside the home are "reasonable." The NY ones strike me as patently unreasonable.

    The result will probably be a recognition that there's a spectrum between the NY laws and constitutional carry everywhere. They don't have to say what is "reasonable," they only have to strike down the unreasonable.
    Has there even been an established right by SCOTUS to bear arms outside the home? Did'nt Heller stop short of establishing that right? Would a ruling on this be considered as a Constitutional affirmation?

    After all how can one delve into restrictions on carrying outside the home if there has'st been an established 2A interpretation of the right to do so?

    What am I missing here?
     
    Last edited:

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Has there even been an established right to bear arms outside the home? Did'nt Heller stop short of establishing that right? Would a ruling on this be considered as a Constitutional affirmation?

    After all how can one delve into restrictions on carrying outside the home if there has'st been an established right to do so? What am I missing here?

    Not really missing anything. :)

    Heller did reserve that question, as have some cases since then. We're kinda waiting - and the court was probably waiting for their earlier precedent to be adopted - for some signal about how far they want to go down that path. This case appears to be a step toward that.

    The court may say that states (and localities) can regulate it as much as they want. Or, that they can't restrict it at all. Those are the 2 ends of the spectrum. (I don't think anyone expects either of those results.) This case will probably explain how to evaluate whether any particular restriction is reasonable or not.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,628
    149
    Not really missing anything. :)

    Heller did reserve that question, as have some cases since then. We're kinda waiting - and the court was probably waiting for their earlier precedent to be adopted - for some signal about how far they want to go down that path. This case appears to be a step toward that.

    The court may say that states (and localities) can regulate it as much as they want. Or, that they can't restrict it at all. Those are the 2 ends of the spectrum. (I don't think anyone expects either of those results.) This case will probably explain how to evaluate whether any particular restriction is reasonable or not.
    An affirmation of a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms outside the home is what I've been waiting for ever since Heller appeared to stop short of extending that right.

    Maybe this one will.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom