SCOTUS Will Hear NYC Gun Case

[Coal Dragger]

At which point the plaintiffs would immediately have standing.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

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]

Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule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/a...city-gun-rule/

[Exiledviking]

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.

[marco.g]

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By a 6-3 vote, the justices said the case was moot because the law was repealed.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.nbc...mp/ncna1193286

[Diamondback]

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.nbc...mp/ncna1193286

Anyone wanna place bets on how long before NY Shitty changes the rules BACK now that they've avoided a court spanking?

[marco.g]

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.

[chuckman]

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]

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]

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.