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

[historian]

Scotusblog had a good symposium on the subject. Good reading material for all. Plus, it helps to see how the other side thinks on these matters:

https://www.scotusblog.com/category...-rifle-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/

 

[cbhausen]

...and the resistance is on... in earnest. I would go right to the commonwealth’s statehouse and deploy 2x upturned middle digits personally if I was unfortunate enough to be caught up in this unconstitutional debacle:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...dfather-clause-proposed-by-state-legislature/

 

[Mgderf]

...and the resistance is on... in earnest. I would go right to the commonwealth’s statehouse and deploy 2x upturned middle digits personally if I was unfortunate enough to be caught up in this unconstitutional debacle:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...dfather-clause-proposed-by-state-legislature/

Well, the Dems have the Governors seat, the state house, and the senate.
There is nothing to stop them from enacting any and every archaic gun laws they choose for at least the next two years.
Let's see how the constituents react to the new restrictions against their liberties.

 

[cbhausen]

Oops, post #62 was supposed to go on the Virginia thread... too many pages open on the iPhone, I guess...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS will hear argument this morning

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/...un-ban-and-the-scope-of-the-second-amendment/

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/...-city-gun-rule/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Sounds like Roberts is still jockeying for that coveted "swing vote" mantel.

 

[NyleRN]

Roberts is compromised by the left. They have something on him. He'll probably join the liberals and declare moot. What would be sweet though is if we could get a ruling that 2A needs scrutiny out of this

 

[historian]

It will either be mooted or they will kick it back down for finding/reargument based on the law changes.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Roberts is compromised by the left. They have something on him. He'll probably join the liberals and declare moot. What would be sweet though is if we could get a ruling that 2A needs scrutiny out of this

He likes getting invited to the best parties.

 

[CampingJosh]

Roberts is compromised by the left. They have something on him. He'll probably join the liberals and declare moot.

Not sure why you see those as connected.

It sure seems moot to me. The SCOTUS doesn't get to just issue advice or to rule on cases where there isn't a question. I don't see a remaining question.

 

[T.Lex]

Not sure why you see those as connected.

It sure seems moot to me. The SCOTUS doesn't get to just issue advice or to rule on cases where there isn't a question. I don't see a remaining question.

They've seen places like Chicago (err... Illinois) have draconian limitations also, and may look to use this case, which has already been resolved at a substantive level, to provide further clarity on the scope of the right. The scope of the 2A right remains an issue.

 

[CampingJosh]

They've seen places like Chicago (err... Illinois) have draconian limitations also, and may look to use this case, which has already been resolved at a substantive level, to provide further clarity on the scope of the right. The scope of the 2A right remains an issue.

Choosing not to use this particular case to provide clarity seems far from evidence that "the Left" "have something on" Chief Justice Roberts.

 

[Hohn]

SCOTUS will hear argument this morning

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/...un-ban-and-the-scope-of-the-second-amendment/

I read the transcript. I couldn't believe the good fortune that Paul Clement was arguing for the NYSRP. I'm a total fanboy of his (you should have heard him arguing the Obamacare cases a few years back, SCOTUS released the audio and Clement comes of as being able to manhandle any Justice up there).

Still, they are trying like heck to let the post-Cert changes moot this case. The Notorious RBG did her best, as did the Wise Latina.

I'm not sure this case will end up a win for NYSRP because they somewhat already "won" with the post-Cert concessions intended to moot the case. They knew they overreached and tried hard to scrap the crap they stepped in off the boots before having to go to court.

But indeed, Clement's pivotal point: the Relief granted by the mooting efforts is NOT AT ALL sufficient nor comparable to what an injunction would have delivered, or --even better-- a categorical ruling of unconstitutionality.

Not sure if NYSRP will win this case, but I doubt they could have had more effective counsel than Clement.

 

[T.Lex]

Choosing not to use this particular case to provide clarity seems far from evidence that "the Left" "have something on" Chief Justice Roberts.

Oh. Yeah. I categorically reject any theory that one side "has something" on any Supreme Court justice or any related conspiracy.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh. Yeah. I categorically reject any theory that one side "has something" on any Supreme Court justice or any related conspiracy.

Yeah, the far more probable motivation is ego or vanity. Some people simply value "being on the right (or popular) side of history" more than standing on principle.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, the far more probable motivation is ego or vanity. Some people simply value "being on the right (or popular) side of history" more than standing on principle.

While true with respect to the population at large, I think that philosophy is less attributable to Supreme Court justices when they are deciding cases. In fact, some of them explicitly will say that something is a bad idea or bad policy, but that isn't their decision.

 

[Twangbanger]

I hope the Never Trumpers will reflect that if Merrick Garland is on the Supreme Court, this NY law is likely still on the books.

 

[04FXSTS]

Coming from Illinois, another communist state, I say it should not be mooted. I don't remember the exact anti 2A bill but the sponsor admitted it would never stand up in court he said he didn't care. Because until someone challenged it and it worked it's way through the courts it would be the law. Plus the state would just be spending taxpayer money to defend it in court, nothing out of his pocket.
If this case is declared moot and the USSC does not rule what is to stop NY from passing another similar law and enforcing it until it gets to the USSC and doing the same thing again. Being an Illinois gun owner is a pain because of all the stuff you have to go through but it does give a certain knowledge of all the rotten underhanded tricks the government can and will do. Jim,

 

[Twangbanger]

Coming from Illinois, another communist state, I say it should not be mooted. I don't remember the exact anti 2A bill but the sponsor admitted it would never stand up in court he said he didn't care. Because until someone challenged it and it worked it's way through the courts it would be the law. Plus the state would just be spending taxpayer money to defend it in court, nothing out of his pocket.
If this case is declared moot and the USSC does not rule what is to stop NY from passing another similar law and enforcing it until it gets to the USSC and doing the same thing again. Being an Illinois gun owner is a pain because of all the stuff you have to go through but it does give a certain knowledge of all the rotten underhanded tricks the government can and will do. Jim,

Yep, this is the way the game is played. I do empathize with people in states like NY or IL, because even though this issue is considered moot at this time, the fact is that while that law was on the books, it deprived some people of their civil rights for a period of time. If we were talking about any other civil right besides gun ownership, the Left would not be so sanguine about this.

The analogy the Left can understand, is abortion. There is a nominal right to an abortion recognized by the court, but right wingers in southern states push laws designed to make it almost impossible to get one. They do so knowing that with Trump in office and Kavanaugh on the court, the laws are not super-likely to get reviewed. In states like NY and Mass, the Left does the same thing with guns.

NY could have repealed its law as soon as the Heller decision was handed down in 2008. They kept it on the books, because with Obama in Office and Kennedy on the court, those laws were simply in no danger of getting reviewed. If Merrick Garland were on the Supreme Court today, as I said before, that NY law would remain on the books. With Trump and Kavanaugh in town, things now look different.

The Supreme Court sucks as a way of playing God with humans' lives. But like the Electoral College, we seem to be stuck with it.

 

[Hohn]

Yeah, the far more probable motivation is ego or vanity. Some people simply value "being on the right (or popular) side of history" more than standing on principle.

Not sure how that plays out. They’re already at the pinnacle of legal profession, how does ego lead to one ruling or another?

i suspect it’s much more based on personal ideologies and desired legacy.