View Full Version : SCOTUS Will Hear NYC Gun Case
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case/2482910002/
I’m wondering the implications.....
Doc Safari
01-22-19, 11:13
This is one case I wouldn't want to speculate about what the outcome might be.
Anybody with some expertise care to predict what will happen?
Voodoochild
01-22-19, 11:18
About time the SC grew a pair and accepted a 2A case.
Will Amy Barrett be conformed by then?
RBG clearly won’t be weighing in on this one, but what if it’s only 8 justices.
^^^then a tie is the worst that is likely to happen
BoringGuy45
01-22-19, 11:35
I have a feeling that this case has the highest batting average of any NY laws thus far. I'm confident this will get ruled the right way. With the exception of Roberts, the 4 conservative justices are pretty reliable on guns, and even Roberts ruled in favor of Heller and McDonald. I'm just not sure how he'll rule on carry outside the home or assault weapons though. This may be a good litmus test to see if the current make up of the court is good for further attempts at challenging anti-gun laws.
I have a feeling that this case has the highest batting average of any NY laws thus far. I'm confident this will get ruled the right way. With the exception of Roberts, the 4 conservative justices are pretty reliable on guns, and even Roberts ruled in favor of Heller and McDonald. I'm just not sure how he'll rule on carry outside the home or assault weapons though. This may be a good litmus test to see if the current make up of the court is good for further attempts at challenging anti-gun laws.
I agree with you. Except that I want to see what Kavanaugh will do rather than speculate. I, like everyone else here, would be more comfortable with a Trump nominee replacing RBG first.
sundance435
01-22-19, 11:40
They can definitely tailor this one narrowly and probably don't even need to address the 2nd Amendment/Heller at all to strike it down if they want, except maybe for the (constitutional) standard of review. Does the city have the right to prohibit you from removing lawfully obtained and owned property from the city? No, if other constitutional conditions generally applicable to tangible property have been met, e.g., paid taxes on it. This probably wouldn't even meet a "rational interest" standard, let alone "strict scrutiny".
BoringGuy45
01-22-19, 11:59
I agree with you. Except that I want to see what Kavanaugh will do rather than speculate. I, like everyone else here, would be more comfortable with a Trump nominee replacing RBG first.
I do as well. If they can get a 6th conservative justice, and one that's reliably conservative, Roberts' flakiness will be less of a factor. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has a pretty pro-gun track record, so I'm not too concerned about him.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-22-19, 12:06
That law seems to be on pretty shaky ground, as some pointed out, it might not even be a 2A case, but in light of McDonald, I don't see hw it can stand. I think it is a good place to start- something on the edge instead of machine-guns for all or something. SCOTUS won't make big cases anyways - but we really have to get this going. People talk about RBG, but real the ticking time bomb is Thomas- and some banal part of a jet engine that carries SCOTUS members, or even a simple traffic accident.
Roberts should be a reliable 2nd Amendment guy but his Obamacare ruling has forever made me skeptical. He seems to VERY concerned with the optics of the court and not appearing “political”.
RBG clearly won’t be weighing in on this one, but what if it’s only 8 justices.
I would not assume that, she may be back in time.
titsonritz
01-22-19, 15:55
There may be more than one going before the court...
https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/
Whiskey_Bravo
01-22-19, 16:11
Man, a ruling in favor of GOA regarding NFA sure would be nice. Think I will send a donation over to help in the litigation cost.
The SC has been looking for a case to rule one carry possession outside the home. This may be a better vehicle than some of the others that have been working or have not made it all the way through the courts. If it falls in our favor I hope it is a broad ruling so that it will affect how states govern carry outside of the home and levels the playing field for people in restricted states such as New York, CA, and other liberal hell holes.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-23-19, 00:39
There may be more than one going before the court...
https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/
That isn't a very good case at this time. Not against it on the merits, but SCOTUS probably won't take it. They aren't going to leapfrog all kinds of possession, mag and AWB and kill off the NFA. If anything, raising the NFA issue just opens it for a fee adjustment and perhaps more restrictions at the state level.
NFA should be one of the last things to get sorted, not the first. That is if you actually want good outcomes and not just decisions that you can complain about and that we won't get a second bite at.
Honestly, I don't see this case as advancing firearms rights much because it is very limited in scope.
The case is about people who have Premise Permits for handguns in NYC being able to take those guns shooting at ranges outside of NY City and to legal residencies elsewhere.
A Premise Permit in NYC allows the owner to keep the handgun loaded at home and take the gun shooting to ranges within NYC's 5 boroughs. It must be transported in a locked box with a trigger lock with the ammo in a separate container.
The whole NYC Premise permit is a confusing thing. It is something the average person can get, after spending over $400 in licensing fees and jumping through more hoops than any place else (more on that later). .
You cannot take the gun out of state, and if you try to fly out of state and present the gun and your license at the airport you will be busted and lose your license and firearms. That and not being able to take it to a range outside of NYC is what they are challenging.
This means that you can't take your guns to some nicer ranges that are just outside of NYC, since there are very few ranges in NYC and they tend to be a pain to get to logistically and with parking (assuming that you live in NYC and have a car).
When I lived in NYC decades ago, I lived on the Queens/Long Island border and would take my guns to an indoor range in Nassau County to shoot since that was the easiest range to drive to (about 30 min) and there was always plenty of parking. At that time NYC had a target permit, which allowed you to take the handgun target shooting with no restrictions as to where; but you were required to keep the gun unloaded and locked up at home. If you wanted to keep a gun loaded at home you had to get a premise permit, which at that time allowed you to keep it loaded at home, but only allowed you to take it shooting twice a year after writing the licensing bureau. So they combined the two into a premise permit, but added the restriction that you could not take the gun to a range outside the city. I had my handguns listed on both permits--so I could legally keep them loaded at home and take them to the range whenever I wanted to. At that time there was no restriction on travelling with the handgun to outside ranges or out of state, as long as the gun in a locked case and not loaded.
Just getting a this type of permit is more of a hassle than anyplace else in the US, and this is what should be challenged. First the application fee is over $400.
You are required to provide 3 letters of recommendation from people who have known you for at least 2 years who are not relatives: https://newyorkcityguns.com/function...nce_letter.pdf This is unreasonable. Because of the nature of our society, you may not have three people who have known you at least 2 years who are willing to sign a notorized statement. If you have just moved there you are SOL, because I don't think they can be people from out of state. This alone should be challenged.
Also, you have to provide them a list of anything greater than a parking ticket that you received, along with the date and I believe court record. Even if you have only received a few speeding tickets in your life, it is an undue burden to have to remember the dates and get court records from different places where you may have lived.
I believe you may also have to provide dates and explanations for any time you took a painkiller or sedative. Do they really expect someone who is over 25 to remember all of the dates when they may have been prescribed tylenol 3 for dental work or other things?
Once you have submitted your application it can take a year or more for it to get approved.
I think the above requirements presents an undue burden and should be challenged.
The whole object of this is to get people to take a look at the information required and say ****-it.
If you do get approved you, get a license and a paper called a purchase document, both of which are needed to allow you to purchase a handgun. Once you buy the gun you have to bring it back to One Police Plaza in NYC within 72 hours after purchase so they can "inspect" it and enter the make and serial number onto your license. If you want to buy a second gun, you have to write them requesting a purchase document and specify some info about the gun that you want to buy. You then get a letter telling you that the purchase document has been approved and have to travel to One Police Plaza to pick up the purchase document. You can only get one purchase document every 90 days, and if you want to own more than 3-4 handguns you must buy a safe and show them a receipt for it and pictures of it.
Getting a carry permit is a whole different deal. You have to show that you have a business that makes large bank deposits and provide a tax return for the business six months of of bank deposit or withdrawal slips that show a large amount of cash. Even then, you will typically be limited to carrying the gun only at certain times--like when you are making deposits to the bank or picking up money. You can get a premise permit for your business, but then you are not allowed to carry the gun outside of your business.
There are special Carry permits that famous people, celebrities, and people who can demonstrate some special may be able to get. Retired cops from NYC can get their permits comparatively easily as part of their retirement process.
What the flying **** did I just read? All of that is real? And people put up with that shit?
What the flying **** did I just read? All of that is real? And people put up with that shit?
People put up with outrageous taxes, living expenses and traffic to live there as well.
It makes me want to crank up Sweet Home Alabama on the way to work this morning.
Andy
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-23-19, 07:22
Sweet Home Anywhere Else, more like it.
Honestly, I don't see this case as advancing firearms rights much because it is very limited in scope.
I’m not sure about a limited scope. I’m not sure they would have taken the case then.
The 14th Amendment has the left in a conundrum. The left loved how it eroded state sovereignty until it impacts something they are against...civilians bearing arms. The Bill of Rights was originally accepted as a restriction on only the FEDERAL government from interfearing with the natural rights of the citizens. The 14th has been interpreted to incorporate the states.
Scalia’s opinions in Heller provided an accurate and much needed historical context of the origins of the 2nd Amendment and the concept of natural rights. If the court finds that your natural and individual right of self defense extends to wherever you are physically, this challenges all state carry laws and could possibly lead to national reciprocity.
Another outcome of this could be to challenge how burdensome gun laws can be. I would love to see the court opine that there must a very high bar to prove any gun law (or any law impacting natural rights) will have a measurable impact on crime and that impact must be prortinate to the burden put on law abiding citizens. For example, you can’t ban tens of millions of civilians from owning common firearms based on cosmetics because those firearms are used in .0001% of crimes.
Honestly, I don't see this case as advancing firearms rights much because it is very limited in scope.
The case is about people who Premise Permits in NYC being able to take the guns shooting at ranges outside of NY City and to legal residents elsewhere.
A Premise Permit in NYC allows the owner to keep the handgun loaded at home and take the gun shooting to ranges within NYC's 5 boroughs. It must be transported in a locked box with a trigger lock with the ammo in a separate container.
The whole NYC Premise permit is a confusing thing. It is something the average person can get, after spending over $400 in licensing fees and jumping through more hoops than any place else (more on that later). .
You cannot take the gun out of state, and if you try to fly out of state and present the gun and your license at the airport you will be busted and lose your license and firearms. That and not being able to take it to a range outside of NYC is what they are challenging.
This means that you can't take your guns to some nicer ranges that are just outside of NYC, since there are very few ranges in NYC and they tend to be a pain to get to logistically and with parking (assuming that you live in NYC and have a car).
When I lived in NYC decades ago, I lived on the Queens/Long Island border and would take my guns to an indoor range in Nassau County to shoot since that was the easiest range to drive to (about 30 min) and there was always plenty of parking. At that time NYC had a target permit, which allowed you to take the handgun target shooting with no restrictions as to where; but you were required to keep the gun unloaded and locked up at home. If you wanted to keep a gun loaded at home you had to get a premise permit, which at that time allowed you to keep it loaded at home, but only allowed you to take it shooting twice a year after writing the licensing bureau. So they combined the two into a premise permit, but added the restriction that you could not take the gun to a range outside the city. I had my handguns listed on both permits--so I could legally keep them loaded at home and take them to the range whenever I wanted to. At that time there was no restriction on travelling with the handgun to outside ranges or out of state, as long as the gun in a locked case and not loaded.
Just getting a this type of permit is more of a hassle than anyplace else in the US, and this is what should be challenged. First the application fee is over $400.
You are required to provide 3 letters of recommendation from people who have known you for at least 2 years who are not relatives: https://newyorkcityguns.com/function...nce_letter.pdf This is unreasonable. Because of the nature of our society, you may not have three people who have known you at least 2 years who are willing to sign a notorized statement. If you have just moved there you are SOL, because I don't think they can be people from out of state. This alone should be challenged.
Also, you have to provide them a list of anything greater than a parking ticket that you received, along with the date and I believe court record. Even if you have only received a few speeding tickets in your life, it is an undue burden to have to remember the dates and get court records from different places where you may have lived.
I believe you may also have to provide dates and explanations for any time you took a painkiller or sedative. Do they really expect someone who is over 25 to remember all of the dates when they may have been prescribed tylenol 3 for dental work or other things?
Once you have submitted your application it can take a year or more for it to get approved.
I think the above requirements presents an undue burden and should be challenged.
The whole object of this is to get people to take a look at the information required and say ****-it.
If you do get approved you, get a license and a paper called a purchase document, both of which are needed to allow you to purchase a handgun. Once you buy the gun you have to bring it back to One Police Plaza in NYC within 72 hours after purchase so they can "inspect" it and enter the make and serial number onto your license. If you want to buy a second gun, you have to write them requesting a purchase document and specify some info about the gun that you want to buy. You then get a letter telling you that the purchase document has been approved and have to travel to One Police Plaza to pick up the purchase document. You can only get one purchase document every 90 days, and if you want to own more than 3-4 handguns you must buy a safe and show them a receipt for it and pictures of it.
Getting a carry permit is a whole different deal. You have to show that you have a business that makes large bank deposits and provide a tax return for the business six months of of bank deposit or withdrawal slips that show a large amount of cash. Even then, you will typically be limited to carrying the gun only at certain times--like when you are making deposits to the bank or picking up money. You can get a premise permit for your business, but then you are not allowed to carry the gun outside of your business.
There are special Carry permits that famous people, celebrities, and people who can demonstrate some special may be able to get. Retired cops from NYC can get their permits comparatively easily as part of their retirement process.
My god, that is a ton of nonsense that needs to be struck down and never allowed again!
I'm sure the people shooting other people are following those laws...:rolleyes:
It was late when I was wrote my previous post, which covers a very confusing topic--NYC handgun laws.
There were some things that I did not write clearly. The case is about people who in New York City who have Premise Permits for handguns in NYC being allowed to take those guns shooting at ranges outside of NY City and to legal residencies elsewhere.
There are also some things that I did not cover. There is plenty of ground for legal challenges because the laws make it overly difficult to own or possess a handgun that I suspect would be considered overly restrictive by the supreme court.
The entire NYC Pistol licensing system is now an online process where you register by email and fill it out online. This has been the case since 1998.
Here is a link I found to a PDF copy of a NYC handgun license application: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf
There were some things that I did not include in my previous post regarding NYC and NY State pistol permits and applying for them.
In NY City and NY State you cannot own a handgun without a license. In NY State you typically need 3-4 people to write you notarized letters of recommendation as part of the application process. These people cannot be relatives and have to be from the county that you reside in. Again, in today's ever moving society and political atmosphere, it is hard to get 4 people who have known you for several years who may be willing to write you these letters of recommendation. Plus they will have to take time off from work to have these letters notarized unless they have a notary present at work. If you have just moved there you are out of luck because by definition you don't know anyone. This requirement needs to be struck from the licensing requirements and should be challenged in court.
You also need to have someone who is willing to safeguard the firearms in the event of your death or incapacity, and they need to fill out and sign a form as part of your application process.
Another dinger is many other counties of NY State is that you can be denied or lose your handgun license if you have or come down with certain medical conditions which they consider to endanger your ability to safeguard the gun. Some of these are overly broad and outdated. There was a case where a retired Police officer who had dealt with dangerous people on the job had his handgun license revoked because he had some type of electronic heart device. My bottom line is that if the physical condition does not disqualify you from having a driver's license, it should not stop you from having a handgun license. And many people who may be unable to drive from whatever reason can still safely manage firearms.
From the Nassau County, NY, pistol license guide as for reasons to remove a license: "The presence or occurrence of a disability or condition that may affect the licensee’s handling of a firearm, including but not limited to epilepsy, diabetes, fainting spells, blackouts, temporary loss of memory or nervous disorder."
Prohibiting people who have Diabetes from getting or maintaining a pistol permit? This is grossly outdated nonsense that needs to be challenged under the Americans With Disabilities Act. According to the CDC, almost 1/3 of the US population has diabetes or pre-diabetes. Over 10% of the US population has diabetes. Most diabetes is controllable, and if you feel your blood sugar is dropping you can simply consume some fast acting carbs like a class of non-diet soda or orange juice, or consume some candy or glucose tablets that can be easily carried with you, or is easily available everywhere.
Someone with diabetes needs to apply for a NY city or NY State permit and be denied, and then legally challenge it. Or someone with a permit needs to have their permit revoked because they have come down with diabetes and challenge the decision as discriminatory against someone who has a disability. Honestly, the police don't have access to the general public's medical records, so some people could hide some disqualifying medical conditions. But if the police ever did find out, you would have your license revoked for withholding information.
Anyway, my point is that there is a lot of ****ery regarding getting a pistol permit in NT City and NY State that needs to be challenged. As much as I dislike the rabid anti-gun governor governor Cuomo, much of this existed before Cuomo.
Another note on NY City gun laws. In New York state you can buy a longarm without requiring a permit. However, in NYC you are required to have a permit to own or buy a longarm. At least with longarms you are not restricted from taking them outside of NYC. However, NYC restricts the possession of a lot of longarms, including any long arm that has more than a 5 round magazine (I will get into this in a follow-up post).
Under the Heller decision the right of the government to regulate and license firearms is upheld, but I think if brought to court many aspects of NYC and NY State law would be ruled overly restrictive.
Here is the passage that I am referring to: "Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion cautioned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-23-19, 14:59
If the level of scrutiny and difficulty get whacked for state laws, that could end up being a huge win if we can't get AWB nulified. If you end up with the 'right' to guns, but that there can be rules about owning them- making sure that those rules aren't defacto bans, or so overreaching as to make possession impossible- getting decisions like these could be important. I hope that they don't end up being, but they could. We do need some base hits to get the ball rolling.
Now unto ****ery with longarms in NYC.
Handgun licensing in NYC and NY State dates back to the passage of the Sullivan act in 1911.
In 1967 New York City, under then Mayor John Lindsey, required a license to possess all longarms. I believe the licensing fee was set at $3.00 and a NYC councelman was supposed to be set at that amount. City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. The licensing fee for longarms is now $140.00.
NYC bans all longarms that have a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. They do this by deliberately misinterpreting an admin code and have gone as far as to send letters to people who have leverguns in the city with 6 round magazines, telling them that they must either dispose of the gun or have it modified by a gunsmith so it holds no more than 5 rounds. Here is the admin code:
§ 10-306 Disposition, purchase and possession of ammunition and ammunition feeding devices.
b. No person may possess an ammunition feeding device which is designed for use in a rifle or shotgun and which is capable of holding more than five rounds of rifle or shotgun ammunition, unless such person is exempt from subdivision a of section 10-303.1 pursuant to section 10-305, provided that a dealer in rifles and shotguns may possess such ammunition feeding devices for the purpose of disposition authorized pursuant to subdivision a of this section.
The definition of "ammunition feeding device" for purposes of these rules can be found in § 10-301 paragraph 17 of the NYC Admin code:
17. "Ammunition feeding device." Magazines, belts, feedstrips, drums or clips capable of being attached to or utilized with firearms, rifles, shotguns or assault weapons."
The key words are "Capable of being attached to or utilized with." It suggests a separate device. However they are not interpreting it as such.
The law banned separate magazines or feeding devices like detachable magazines for longarms that held in excess of 5 rounds and semiauto longarms that held in excess of 5 rounds.
This is not the same as banning all longarms that had magazine capacities in excess of 5 rounds. However, it is now being interpreted by the NYPD licensing division to mean any longarm with a magazine capacity with an excess of 5 rounds. This is them putting their own draconian spin on it.
This is another thing that needs to be legally challenged.
If the level of scrutiny and difficulty get whacked for state laws, that could end up being a huge win if we can't get AWB nulified. If you end up with the 'right' to guns, but that there can be rules about owning them- making sure that those rules aren't defacto bans, or so overreaching as to make possession impossible- getting decisions like these could be important. I hope that they don't end up being, but they could. We do need some base hits to get the ball rolling.
This is a good point and exactly what I am thinking. I think many of the aspects of NY City's and NY State's laws regarding handguns are draconian in that they make the process of being able to get a license to own a handgun deliberately complex, bundensome, time consuming, and expensive. I don't want to sidetrack this useful topic, but imagine if a woman wanting to get an abortion needed to get three letters of recommendation or references that would attest why having a child would be a medical, financial and logistical problem for them.
On another note, it turns out that I was incorrect when I previously wrote: "I believe you may also have to provide dates and explanations for any time you took a painkiller or sedative." I had read that somewhere online, but I found a recent version of an NYC handgun application and did not see any question along these lines. Here is a link to it: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf
I find myself wondering if this case was chosen deliberately to avoid a ruling on capacity and feature laws. I agree that NYC's license requirements are ridiculously burdensome and unconstitutional. At the same time, a victory in this case will only benefit the people who live in municipalities with burdensome license requirements.
I want to see a magazine capacity or a "scary features" law thrown out with extreme prejudice.
Of course, I would still love to see NYC's citizens victorious here.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-24-19, 09:17
SCOTUS has a history of, and Roberts is a huge fan of, taking cases where there are differing views in the Circuits, decisions that are narrow in scope and are 'adjacent' to other settled law. I think the mag ban is just too far out there for them to take, for now. I wish they would- and that is why we need RBG to kick the bucket and make Roberts a full fledged member of the left side of the court. I think that if we were to press the AWB and mag bans now, we would get a decision that would leave a lot to be desired.
sundance435
01-24-19, 14:05
I’m not sure about a limited scope. I’m not sure they would have taken the case then.
With the exception of Obergfell and Obamacare, all the Roberts' Court takes is cases with limited scope, which is probably closer to original intent in the Constitution, anyway. Even Obergfell and the Obamacare case were narrowly tailored legally (particularly Obamacare through "creative" reasoning by Roberts), it just seems like they weren't because of the political ramifications. This ain't the Warren Court that will write abortion into the Constitution as a protected right. Big difference between that and discriminating against an easily identifiable class in relation to a government-created "right" with almost no rational basis. It seems to me that Roberts is hyper-sensitive to the public's perception of the Court, which is alarming.
I find myself wondering if this case was chosen deliberately to avoid a ruling on capacity and feature laws. I agree that NYC's license requirements are ridiculously burdensome and unconstitutional. At the same time, a victory in this case will only benefit the people who live in municipalities with burdensome license requirements.
I would guarantee that is exactly why it was chosen. The law is unconstitutional on its face (for many reasons that don't even implicate the 2nd Amendment) and provides no basis for delving into things like mag capacity and features. It will be an ever-so-slight advancement beyond McDonald.
I would guarantee that is exactly why it was chosen. The law is unconstitutional on its face (for many reasons that don't even implicate the 2nd Amendment) and provides no basis for delving into things like mag capacity and features. It will be an ever-so-slight advancement beyond McDonald.
I don't live there but would welcome any advance however small, but these days it seems like everything is a crap shoot. I trust half of the SCOTUS to -always- make the wrong call regarding the 2A. The other half is a 50/50 guess. So basically the odds are pretty bad. Honestly I would be stunned and amazed if the SCOTUS every said.... yep,,, the 2A should be handled just the way most right wingers say. There should be no NFA and only the very slightest of regulations overall.
I would more likely expect to see the 2A abolished.
With the exception of Obergfell and Obamacare, all the Roberts' Court takes is cases with limited scope, which is probably closer to original intent in the Constitution, anyway. Even Obergfell and the Obamacare case were narrowly tailored legally (particularly Obamacare through "creative" reasoning by Roberts), it just seems like they weren't because of the political ramifications. This ain't the Warren Court that will write abortion into the Constitution as a protected right. Big difference between that and discriminating against an easily identifiable class in relation to a government-created "right" with almost no rational basis. It seems to me that Roberts is hyper-sensitive to the public's perception of the Court, which is alarming.
I would guarantee that is exactly why it was chosen. The law is unconstitutional on its face (for many reasons that don't even implicate the 2nd Amendment) and provides no basis for delving into things like mag capacity and features. It will be an ever-so-slight advancement beyond McDonald.
It’s the recent comments from Thomas that are encouraging me. The right of self preservation has been long ignored.
Encouraging article...though it is of interest that some anti gunners are actually asking that NYC change the law so the case can’t be heard.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-courts-conservatives-appear-poised-to-expand-second-amendment-gun-rights/ar-BBSZi0c?ocid=ientp
sundance435
01-31-19, 15:57
Encouraging article...though it is of interest that some anti gunners are actually asking that NYC change the law so the case can’t be heard.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-courts-conservatives-appear-poised-to-expand-second-amendment-gun-rights/ar-BBSZi0c?ocid=ientp
That thought had occurred to me, and it's still possible since they haven't heard oral arguments. Even if a challenged law is repealed, a court can still rule from a precedential standpoint, especially on matters of Constitutional law, but that's rare and courts will usually dismiss. I wouldn't take anything for granted with this Court.
An update.
The New York City Police Department has decided to loosen its rules to now allow NYC Handgun owners who have a Premise Permit to take the gun to a second home or business and to take the gun to ranges and competitions outside of New York City--as long as the handgun is legal to own in that location. The gun must be transported unloaded with a trigger lock in a locked box with ammo transported separately.
It is obvious that they did this to head of the Supreme Court challenge to the previous laws which limited the Premise permit owner to taking the handgun to ranges inside of the NYC's 5 boroughs or to second homes. Also, they are proposing to do this after a public comment period and a hearing hearing on the proposed rule, which will take place at 10:00 am on May 17, 2019, in the Press Room located at One Police Plaza, Second Floor, New York, New York 10038.
Another important point made by the NRA-ILA is: "Again, New York hasn’t changed its ridiculously restrictive law yet. They’re just claiming that they might do so in the future and asking the Court to delay for now. " https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190412/nra-statement-on-nycs-desperate-attempt-to-avoid-supreme-court-review
However, in order for the case to not go to the supreme court the plaintiffs have to decide to drop it, which I don't think they will do.
According to the article there are 16,600 people in NYC's 5 boroughs with Premise pistol permits out of a population of 8.6 million. I think that figure is a bit low. This does not include people with carry permits, which I imagine is a lower number since they are harder to get because the person must demonstrate and document a reason that the pistol licensing bureau finds acceptable. And then the permit will likely be limited to specific circumstances, with the days and hours you are allowed to carry printed on the permit. Full carry permits are almost impossible to get and limited to famous people who might be targets of violence and threats. Some New York City residents or people who have full carry permits are Robert De Niro, Donald Trump, and Howard Stern. Other people who have full carry permits are retired cops. Armed guards have a special type of carry permit that allows them to carry on the job and carry to and from work. In 2011 I remember seeing a figure that stated that a total of 37,000 New York City residents had some type of pistol permit.
Here is a link to the article on the change of law in NYC for people with Premise permits:
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-nypd-loosens-rule-on-transporting-firearms-for-licensed-gun-owners-20190412-fxzsge25srhmzdd2olsntnwxca-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1-rJTp0hhkhXBgj4q5x8Q6IIQ3Oy4VPOQRM7k3PdOYYXUQVFWWqL0lwqs%22]https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-nypd-loosens-rule-on-transporting-firearms-for-licensed-gun-owners-20190412-fxzsge25srhmzdd2olsntnwxca-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1-rJTp0hhkhXBgj4q5x8Q6IIQ3Oy4VPOQRM7k3PdOYYXUQVFWWqL0lwqs
However, in order for the case to not go to the supreme court the plaintiffs have to decide to drop it, which I don't think they will do.
That's a good thing though right? Or am I misreading something. We never get permanent and somewhat full satisfaction from lower courts. I would think anyone bringing a case these days wants it to go all the way to SCOTUS. Or am I missing something..... I mean I know the SCOTUS is still a crap shoot but at some point we just have to go for it.
Yes, it is a good thing.
The case is going to be heard by the supreme court and it doesn't look like the plaintiffs are going to withdraw it despite NYC seeming to change their laws to allow what is being challenged. A supreme court decision creates a legal precedent.
Diamondback
04-15-19, 00:34
The worry is, I wouldn't trust Roberts if he had a stick of dynamite shoved up his ass with a polygraph wired to the blasting cap. And since he and Kavanaugh have close ties...
One or more of the Justices will turn on the second amendment.
One or more of the Justices will turn on the second amendment.Yes. And Hillary had a 98% chance of winning the last presidential election, and probably by a landslide.
Yes. And Hillary had a 98% chance of winning the last presidential election, and probably by a landslide.
That is what I heard also...........
Bringing this back up. Oral arguments kicked off today and it’s sounding like those that predicted Roberts folding will be proven correct.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-02-19, 14:36
I didn’t see it but I’ve heard the same analysis come back. Roberts is going to buddy fudge us. My dream is that these anti-civil rights states get slapped with the same kind of court oversight that the southern states did when it came to voting rights. Their old laws get struck down, and They can’t change their laws and any new laws have to get passed directly by the Supreme Court.
I can dream.
Just another variation on the lefts use of courts saying that people don’t have standing.
I hope somebody can pull Roberts aside and explain to him that he needs to cut the crap out now and get the freedoms restored, before things go ugly.
Otherwise governments will just use the same trick of rescinding laws just enough to pass muster to get cases they are going to lose thrown out. That’s protecting all the other laws and then they’ll just go back and change them anyways. This BS that they passed a law saying that you can’t change the law is sophomoric legal sophistry.
All civil rights are equal, but some civil rights are more equal than others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
12-02-19, 15:43
Bringing this back up. Oral arguments kicked off today and it’s sounding like those that predicted Roberts folding will be proven correct.
Probably, but then again, the same thing was said in the DC v. Heller case. This entire site was almost unanimous in the prediction that the 2nd Amendment would be ruled to only protect states having militias. So, we'll see what happens.
Probably, but then again, the same thing was said in the DC v. Heller case. This entire site was almost unanimous in the prediction that the 2nd Amendment would be ruled to only protect states having militias. So, we'll see what happens.
I don’t remember the run up to heller as much. It would seem odd that they let it go all the way to oral arguments just to call it moot when they had that opportunity up to this point (which NY state pushed for). Makes sense that the media is going to hang on any negatives in this case.
So now we wait another half year for their decision - wonderful.
SeriousStudent
12-02-19, 17:26
I swear, Roberts just baffles me.
Keeping my fingers crossed on this one, it could be very good for us.
Quote the Zen Master, “We’ll see”
Some quotes from the link
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/784220252/all-for-naught-supreme-court-indicates-gun-case-may-be-moot
[/QUOTE]
But suppose that, in addition to stopping for a cup of coffee, the gun owner stops to visit his mother for a couple of hours, posited Justice Samuel Alito. "Would there be any law that would violated?"
Dearing replied that those kinds of questions were never at issue when the old law was challenged.
"So then why is this case moot?" wondered Alito. "Because [the plaintiffs] didn't get all that they wanted," he insisted. "They wanted a declaration that the old law was unconstitutional, period."
Only once on Monday did any justice directly address the question posed by the original New York case: whether the city's justification for its regulations were constitutional. Alita asked, "Are the people of New York City and state less safe now" under the new law than they were under the previous law that was challenged?
"No, I don't think so," replied Dearing. "We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule."
Alito pounced. "So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?[/QUOTE]
Some good, some bad. Don’t like how much is being framed by the mootness argument. But like they said above. We’ll see.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Coal Dragger
12-02-19, 19:30
Weak case, plaintiffs are as observed arguing over a moot point/law that has been rescinded.
Diamondback
12-02-19, 21:18
Weak case, plaintiffs are as observed arguing over a moot point/law that has been rescinded.
That can be UN-mooted and UN-rescinded at any time they feel like, though... nothing says this law has to or will stay buried if NYC gets its way.
Coal Dragger
12-02-19, 21:37
At which point the plaintiffs would immediately have standing.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-02-19, 22:28
At which point the plaintiffs would immediately have standing.
And you spend how much of your money and how long do you lose your rights. And they'll word it differently so that you have to start at square one. Maybe make it so that you can't move ammo... So basically you let the gun grabbers file all the laws that they want, and if they get to SCOTUS and they know they'll lose, the trim back the law and bid their time until they get the court that they want to get them the decision that they want. Sure, let's play that game....
platoonDaddy
12-03-19, 05:10
Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule
The justices will meet this week to vote on the case. Even if a majority believes that the case is moot, we may not know for some time, because a ruling on mootness would almost certainly be accompanied by an opinion (and a dissent) explaining the justices’ views. If the justices don’t reach the Second Amendment question this time around, there are several other cases waiting in the wings.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/argument-analysis-justices-focus-on-mootness-in-challenge-to-now-repealed-new-york-city-gun-rule/
Exiledviking
12-03-19, 11:27
And you spend how much of your money and how long do you lose your rights. And they'll word it differently so that you have to start at square one. Maybe make it so that you can't move ammo... So basically you let the gun grabbers file all the laws that they want, and if they get to SCOTUS and they know they'll lose, the trim back the law and bid their time until they get the court that they want to get them the decision that they want. Sure, let's play that game....Just like they have done and continue to do here in California.
Update - the high priests have decided to abdicate and kick the can (big surprise)
“WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday disappointed gun rights advocates who were hoping for a major decision on Second Amendment freedoms when it declined to rule on the merits of a New York City gun restriction that is no longer on the books.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices said the case was moot because the law was repealed. But the ruling gave opponents a chance to go back to the lower courts and argue that the city nonetheless imposed new restrictions on gun owners who want to take their weapons outside the city to second homes or to practice at a shooting range.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1193286
Diamondback
04-27-20, 13:46
Update - the high priests have decided to abdicate and kick the can (big surprise)
“WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday disappointed gun rights advocates who were hoping for a major decision on Second Amendment freedoms when it declined to rule on the merits of a New York City gun restriction that is no longer on the books.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices said the case was moot because the law was repealed. But the ruling gave opponents a chance to go back to the lower courts and argue that the city nonetheless imposed new restrictions on gun owners who want to take their weapons outside the city to second homes or to practice at a shooting range.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1193286
Anyone wanna place bets on how long before NY Shitty changes the rules BACK now that they've avoided a court spanking?
Anyone wanna place bets on how long before NY Shitty changes the rules BACK now that they've avoided a court spanking?
Probably already via corona emergency powers.
Anyone wanna place bets on how long before NY Shitty changes the rules BACK now that they've avoided a court spanking?
I believe Alito basically dared them, saying the plaintiff's could sue for damages because of the city and state infringing on their rights. It wasn't 'open and shut,' they left the door open if the lower courts don't fix it.
sundance435
04-28-20, 09:00
I believe Alito basically dared them, saying the plaintiff's could sue for damages because of the city and state infringing on their rights. It wasn't 'open and shut,' they left the door open if the lower courts don't fix it.
Alito's dissent was encouraging. It's clear we have 4 solid pro-2A votes, but that just makes Roberts even more of a wild card. He very well could've authored the per curiam opinion.
Diamondback
04-28-20, 10:05
Alito's dissent was encouraging. It's clear we have 4 solid pro-2A votes, but that just makes Roberts even more of a wild card. He very well could've authored the per curiam opinion.
Which is why we need at least one more... though I don't trust Kav not to drift left as we shore up the right flank.
Which is why we need at least one more... though I don't trust Kav not to drift left as we shore up the right flank.
And don’t think this isn’t further motivation for the lefties to keep the economy shut down as long as possible. They will do anything to keep Trump from winning and prevent “one more”. They know Ginsburg can’t make it another 4 years.
And the press is hailing this as a victory.
Andy
P2Vaircrewman
04-29-20, 11:09
https://reason.com/2020/04/28/after-nys-rifle-pistol-is-dismissed-scotus-distributes-6-second-amendment-cases-for-5-1-2020-conference/
https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/04/28/wsj-on-justice-roberts/
I can't wait for Trump to get re-elected and RBG is gone, maybe, just maybe, we can get some laws lifted by the Supreme court.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.