Jump to content


Photo

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#181 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 14 August 2019 - 01:08 PM

Anyone is as long as they've paid $100 for admission to the bar. Or whatever it costs now. It doesn't mean he should be allowed to intervene on behalf of a municipal respondent and contradict the party's filed briefs.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

When I lived in Illinois I shared a driveway with a Navy JAG officer. He said there was some sort of credentialing that had to be done. I'm going off of that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#182 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:50 PM

Supreme Court of the United States

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

 

Attached is the application form for your personal statement, as required by Supreme Court Rule 5.2, including space for endorsement by two sponsors. The sponsors must be members of the Bar of this Court who know you personally and are not related to you by blood or marriage. One of the sponsors or another member of the Bar, including a relative, may move your admission. ... You must obtain a certificate of good standing from the presiding judge, clerk, or other authorized official of the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, Territory or Possession, or of the District of Columbia, evidencing the fact that you have been a member of the Bar of such court for at least three years and are in good standing. ...   To qualify for admission to the Bar of this Court, an applicant must ... not have been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action pronounced or in effect during that 3-year period; and must appear to the Court to be of good moral and professional character.

 

2. Each applicant shall file with the Clerk (1) a certificate from the presiding judge, clerk, or other authorized official of that court evidencing the applicant’s admission to practice there and the applicant’s current good standing, and (2) a completely executed copy of the form approved by this Court and furnished by the Clerk containing (a) the applicant’s personal statement, and (B) the statement of two sponsors endorsing the correctness of the applicant’s statement, stating that the applicant possesses all the qualifications required for admission, and affirming that the applicant is of good moral and professional character. Both sponsors must be members of the Bar of this Court who personally know, but are not related to, the applicant.

 

3. If the documents submitted demonstrate that the applicant possesses the necessary qualifications, and if the applicant has signed the oath or affirmation and paid the required fee, the Clerk will notify the applicant of acceptance by the Court as a member of the Bar and issue a certificate of admission.  ...

 

4. Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation: I, ........................................................ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States. All original signatures must be on one page together.



#183 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 14 August 2019 - 03:15 PM

So there is a credentialing process Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#184 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,080 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 August 2019 - 01:54 PM

Not really. The rules are boilerplate that's required by every Article III court for bar admission. This isn't any different as far as I can tell since the rules for admission to district and circuit courts are the same (last I checked). Two unrelated sponsors, check. I ignore that good moral character nonsense because of how many scumbag lawyers I know of who have never had any disciplinary actions taken against them despite clear evidence of fraud perpetrated on the court. Or they have but it's been several years since then. In fact, I have personal knowledge of two lawyers who have been to federal prison for tax crimes, who still practice law, licenses in good standing, stipulated to have licenses suspended while in prison, and both of whom would qualify for admission to the Supreme Court Bar if they have their two SCOTUS-admitted sponsors. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#185 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 15 August 2019 - 07:54 PM

Not really. The rules are boilerplate that's required by every Article III court for bar admission. This isn't any different as far as I can tell since the rules for admission to district and circuit courts are the same (last I checked). Two unrelated sponsors, check. I ignore that good moral character nonsense because of how many scumbag lawyers I know of who have never had any disciplinary actions taken against them despite clear evidence of fraud perpetrated on the court. Or they have but it's been several years since then. In fact, I have personal knowledge of two lawyers who have been to federal prison for tax crimes, who still practice law, licenses in good standing, stipulated to have licenses suspended while in prison, and both of whom would qualify for admission to the Supreme Court Bar if they have their two SCOTUS-admitted sponsors. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I know of a lawyer who "was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension..." 

 

He was subsequently admitted to the SCOTUS bar.

 

Paying a small filing fee, and getting two references ain't much of a hurdle.


Concealed carry is of no use to me because I don't carry a purse or wear a dress, and I'm not into secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

 

"Should the Open Carry movement become successful it will result in the greatest dissolution of government power since the collapse of the Soviet Union." - Charles Nichols
 
"If a monkey looks into a book, a sage cannot look out." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
 
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas." - Charles Baudelaire 
 
"God doesn't want me and the devil isn't finished with me." - Raymond Reddington
 
"When you lift the last veil, you might discover that your bride is an ignorant, illiterate child living in a world of fear and superstition." - Charles Nichols.* 
 
* I posted this on my Facebook page on May 20, 2011.  Unable to find its origin, I claim to be its creator.

#186 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 19 August 2019 - 04:09 PM

Update in the Cheeseman case, "Aug 19 2019 Response Requested. (Due September 18, 2019)"

 

The Respondents can ask for an up to sixty day extension to file the Response.  One would think they would simply boilerplate one of their previously filed responses.


Concealed carry is of no use to me because I don't carry a purse or wear a dress, and I'm not into secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

 

"Should the Open Carry movement become successful it will result in the greatest dissolution of government power since the collapse of the Soviet Union." - Charles Nichols
 
"If a monkey looks into a book, a sage cannot look out." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
 
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas." - Charles Baudelaire 
 
"God doesn't want me and the devil isn't finished with me." - Raymond Reddington
 
"When you lift the last veil, you might discover that your bride is an ignorant, illiterate child living in a world of fear and superstition." - Charles Nichols.* 
 
* I posted this on my Facebook page on May 20, 2011.  Unable to find its origin, I claim to be its creator.

#187 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 04 September 2019 - 07:43 PM

Reply of NYSRPA filed.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#188 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,504 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 04 September 2019 - 08:52 PM

Reply of NYSRPA filed.

Cue applause.gif.

Extra kudos to breaching the door of restrictions on non-residents as well.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#189 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:11 PM

SCOTUSblog

...
Last for this overview, and perhaps least, an odd New York City regulation raised significant questions about how Second Amendment gun control laws should be evaluated. But the regulation and a New York state licensing statute have since been amended, and New York has asked that the case be dismissed as moot. Although some justices may be itching for a Second Amendment vehicle, chances are this case will not be it.
...


IMO New York City's law was so wrong that I don't think it would need a very strict standard to be struck down. Perhaps that's what the author of the blog meant, but I suspect he means that the court will indeed rule the case moot. I don't think it will. If/when it doesn't, it's still a start at addressing the "bear" part of "keep and bear" at the US Supreme Court level, even if it's only transport. Heller and McDonald were just about the "keep" part.

Edited by Euler, 11 September 2019 - 11:13 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#190 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 13 September 2019 - 04:52 PM

Oral argument calendared for December 2nd.


Concealed carry is of no use to me because I don't carry a purse or wear a dress, and I'm not into secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

 

"Should the Open Carry movement become successful it will result in the greatest dissolution of government power since the collapse of the Soviet Union." - Charles Nichols
 
"If a monkey looks into a book, a sage cannot look out." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
 
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas." - Charles Baudelaire 
 
"God doesn't want me and the devil isn't finished with me." - Raymond Reddington
 
"When you lift the last veil, you might discover that your bride is an ignorant, illiterate child living in a world of fear and superstition." - Charles Nichols.* 
 
* I posted this on my Facebook page on May 20, 2011.  Unable to find its origin, I claim to be its creator.

#191 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:32 PM

IL-GUNLOBBY
Being reported by one of the NRA attorney's Chuck Michel

...BREAKING: the United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the NYSRPA v NYC 2A "bear arms" case for Monday December 2, 2019. So the Court will not immediately dismiss the case on mootness grounds as NYC requested after it repealed the challenged laws. However, the Court will probably hear argument on both the mootness issues AND the 2A issue on 12/2/19, and could decide to dismiss the case on mootness grounds after that. Otherwise we will likely get a ruling at the end of the Supreme Court's session in June 2020. NRA is supporting this vital and potentially game changing case. JOIN NRA (and CRPA)!...
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#192 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:58 PM

The cert petition had already been accepted before all this mootness crap started flying. The case probably got scheduled for oral arguments based on that alone.

The court could still choose to dismiss it in the "long conference" on October 1, which we'd find out on October 7. Personally, I doubt it. As long as at least 4 justices want to hear it, the show will go on. Plus I think the amicus brief by the Becket Fund is on point: allowing voluntary cessation by a large, powerful repeat-litigator like NYC invites government abuse of power. I'd go farther and say that the court might announce that they have disposed of the mootness option and will not entertain any time on it in orals.

Edited by Euler, 13 September 2019 - 09:00 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#193 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,152 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 13 September 2019 - 09:48 PM

The cert petition had already been accepted before all this mootness crap started flying. The case probably got scheduled for oral arguments based on that alone.

The court could still choose to dismiss it in the "long conference" on October 1, which we'd find out on October 7. Personally, I doubt it. As long as at least 4 justices want to hear it, the show will go on. Plus I think the amicus brief by the Becket Fund is on point: allowing voluntary cessation by a large, powerful repeat-litigator like NYC invites government abuse of power. I'd go farther and say that the court might announce that they have disposed of the mootness option and will not entertain any time on it in orals.

 

That will certainly make 5 Democrats very unhappy. :rofl: 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users