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

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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.

You're close to swerving into my point with your last "desired legacy" phrase.

 

[historian]

Dismissed as Moot:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas Dissented. Kavenaugh Concurred with a twist.

 

[historian]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/...to-lower-courts-without-ruling-on-the-merits/

 

[MCgrease08]

Dismissed as Moot:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas Dissented. Kavenaugh Concurred with a twist.

Once again, a government blatantly violates 2A knowing any challenges will take years to work through the lower courts and then tweak the violation at the 11th hour to skate without facing any repercussions.

 

[Twangbanger]

Once again, a government blatantly violates 2A knowing any challenges will take years to work through the lower courts and then tweak the violation at the 11th hour to skate without facing any repercussions.

This exactly.

States and Cities aren't voluntarily going to vacate their anti-2A laws without outside pressure from the courts. It was the perceived, credible threat of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court that prompted New York to vacate this law. Now, with Kavanaugh rolling over, they know that threat isn't really very concrete.​

This is the real reason why there is no 2A, without 4 more years of Trump. You may find his "ignorance disgusting," and it's true that Kavanaugh screwed us here. But it takes 4 votes to hear a case, and the unfortunate fact remains that we're still one short.

​

Arguments that "Congress isn't likely to pass gun control" under Biden similarly don't hold water. As we see above, Congress doesn't really determine what gun rights you have at the granular level. Courts do.

One more Justice is needed to keep the threat credible. If you think Biden will give you that Justice, you better have a lifetime supply of 20-round magazines stashed away.

If you feel you cannot tolerate 4 more years of Trump immigration policies to get the chance at one more vote...ditto.

 

[historian]

Had they asked for damages first, SCOTUS would have had to ruled. The states changed at the last minute, but they have every right to do so. I believe that Kavanaugh (and Roberts) ruled correctly here. I also believe that this case has the ability to bubble back up as it was remanded to the lower courts to potentially add damages and change the scope.

I'm not happy about it, but it is the way these things work. If you don't agree with it, then I guess you do like legislating from the bench (which, don't get me started on that Maui case).

 

[snowwalker]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/...to-lower-courts-without-ruling-on-the-merits/

State passes law, suit is filed, state changes law before SCOTUS hearing so case dismissed as moot. Tell me how this is not a win for the 2A?

 

[Twangbanger]

State passes law, suit is filed, state changes law before SCOTUS hearing so case dismissed as moot. Tell me how this is not a win for the 2A?

It's only a win for NYC'ers who want to transport a gun in their cars.

It's a loss for everybody in a Blue State or City that isn't New York.​

New York only rescinded their law because of the implied threat of Kavanaugh/Gorsuch. Other states and cities _now_ know that threat doesn't really exist. Since 2 "conservative" SCOTUS justices (Roberts / Kavanaugh) have indicated they're not overly interested in this subject, a message has been sent loud and clear to other states and cities, that they don't need to take any further action to repeal any gun laws. They can "hold pat" for now. If you're a victim of one of the 1,000+ other cases where a local jurisdiction infringed on the 2A, it's open-season on your rights again.
​

​

Had they asked for damages first, SCOTUS would have had to ruled. The states changed at the last minute, but they have every right to do so. I believe that Kavanaugh (and Roberts) ruled correctly here. I also believe that this case has the ability to bubble back up as it was remanded to the lower courts to potentially add damages and change the scope.

I'm not happy about it, but it is the way these things work. If you don't agree with it, then I guess you do like legislating from the bench (which, don't get me started on that Maui case).

I'm not a legal scholar, so would just like some instruction and clarification from you. If the entire SCOTUS had found NY infringed the 2A for the period this law was in effect (as 3 of the justices apparently did), how would that be "legislating from the bench?" I realize there is a "tradition" that things don't get heard when the underlying wrong has been legislatively righted. But I still don't understand how ruling on that, even after it has been addressed, amounts to usurping the legislature's authority. You can say it's a waste of time. You can say it's a violation of legal tradition. But I don't see how agreeing with what the legislature did, after it did it, somehow violates the legislature's prerogative?

Again, just good-natured conversation here. I'm not a lawyer and really don't understand where you're coming from.

Also, I would stress that NY didn't do this voluntarily, in sober and well-reasoned reflection upon the interaction between legislation and liberty. They did it out of fear, and only _after_ higher-court review appeared imminent. It was an obvious attempt to preclude that review. That indicates "bad faith" negotiation and a general disinterest in civil liberties. Justice delayed is justice denied, or so we have been told. If you are SCOTUS, you have to know that other similarly-2A-hostile Blue States and Cities are watching this case. Does SCOTUS really want to rule on those other cases one-by-one? I really don't know, which is why I'm asking.

 

[IronsKeeper]

Kavanaugh also says that Heller and McDonald are NOT being followed and should be addressed soon. That's more than a tepid response compared to what we didn't know about him.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Gunuser17]

I believe that the big problem for the plaintiffs in this case, and what led to the mootness finding, is that they did not ask for damages. They were basically just seeking to have the law found unconstitutional and to enjoin NYC from enforcing the law. Once the law was changed by NYC, there was no relief that could be granted to the plaintiffs. The law litigatied didn't exist any longer. Put on top of that much of the prior SCOTUS decisions mooting cases and the reluctance to set a new path on the non-mooting of cases and enough Justices did not want to make the leap. I am hoping that the pro-2nd Amendment justices also saw several other cases that would be more appropriate to use to get their point across. We should find out fairly quickly if one or more other cases are granted cert.

 

[IronsKeeper]

I am hoping that the pro-2nd Amendment justices also saw several other cases that would be more appropriate to use to get their point across. We should find out fairly quickly if one or more other cases are granted cert.

Big SCOTUS fan here, but we seem to say this over and over and over again. They've been punting.

Now, again, Kavanaugh being on board is a new ball game. So that is nice.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[historian]

I believe that the big problem for the plaintiffs in this case, and what led to the mootness finding, is that they did not ask for damages. They were basically just seeking to have the law found unconstitutional and to enjoin NYC from enforcing the law. Once the law was changed by NYC, there was no relief that could be granted to the plaintiffs. The law litigatied didn't exist any longer. Put on top of that much of the prior SCOTUS decisions mooting cases and the reluctance to set a new path on the non-mooting of cases and enough Justices did not want to make the leap. I am hoping that the pro-2nd Amendment justices also saw several other cases that would be more appropriate to use to get their point across. We should find out fairly quickly if one or more other cases are granted cert.

Yup. This. Once again, you can't expect to change your mind and ask damages during appeals (especially on the highest appeal). SCOTUS really was forced to punt on this on. But, in punting, they pushed it back down to the district court so the NYSRPA could ask for damages. It is much better than a pushing it down for dismissal.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Still need an RBG replacement while there is hope for a younger constitutionalist to go on the court.

Personal opinion, but I still don't believe the court is anywhere near a balance which overcomes 90 years of a left leaning court.

 

[historian]

I was thinking about this again. How dumb did NYSRPA have to be to not ask for $1. I mean...ugh...