Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,269 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:47 PM

 

 

I agree, I think every anti-gun judge will keep the same decision and just change intermediate scrutiny to strict scrutiny. It will take one case at a time like Heller & McDonald to invalidate each and every unconstitutional gun law...

 

 

Any Judge that rules intermediate or rational basis as strict scrutiny will be hosed and made to wear a dunce hat by the higher courts that will fall in line...

 

The test for strict scrutiny is well defined by the courts, and most of the gun control laws will never stand the test...

 

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
 
1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
 
2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
 
3. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

 

I think eacala is right, and judges will simply arrive at the same conclusion and claim it to be strict scrutiny,

 

Take an AWB ruling for example:

 

1: Saving lives and preventing mass shootings is a compelling government interest (we know that mass shootings are a tiny fraction of overall crime, but the defense will bring up this point to defend a ban, so the judge will be able to use it in their decision)

 

2: An AWB is narrowly tailored in that it only targets the "weapons of choice of mass shooters" (again we know this to be false, both in that AWBs are much broader than that, and that even most mass shootings are committed with handguns not generally considered to be "assault weapons" but again this is what the defense counsel will say, so the judge can rule based off it)

 

3: The ban is least restrictive in that it doesn't require owners to give up any "assault weapons" they already own, just bans the sale of new ones, and that is the least restrictive way to keep them from proliferating on our streets

 

 

The only saving grace is that if SCOTUS uses this case to say lower courts must do a better job of applying strict scrutiny it hopefully means they will be more willing to take up appeals to set things straight


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#62 TriumphRider

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 10

Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:49 PM

Are there any Pro-2A Marches planned in our support?  There needs to be a large public outcry against this Blatant Attack on the US Constitution.  If our voices aren't heard in a very public way, our discontent and anger are moot.

 

WHY don't we have any Great Leaders in our struggle?  Why do we grouse and fight amongst ourselves so much?  We have a common foe to focus on.


The Problem is not the problem.  The Problem is your Attitude about the problem.


#63 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,262 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:54 PM

Ok, so educate me. Say SCOTUS says strict scrutiny must be applied to 2A cases. Do all previously ruled upon cases automatically ruled upon again? Does SCOTUS provide a list of cases that must be re-reviewed by the lower courts? Or must new cases be brought? I'm guessing the latter, so like I said... long game of dominoes.
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Gun Owners of America - Annual Member
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year American Hero Member
** Second Amendment Foundation - Life Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

#64 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,269 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:57 PM

Ok, so educate me. Say SCOTUS says strict scrutiny must be applied to 2A cases. Do all previously ruled upon cases automatically ruled upon again? Does SCOTUS provide a list of cases that must be re-reviewed by the lower courts? Or must new cases be brought? I'm guessing the latter, so like I said... long game of dominoes.

My guess is the latter, new cases brought to be decided under the new precedent


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#65 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,907 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 27 January 2019 - 08:26 AM


 


I think eacala is right, and judges will simply arrive at the same conclusion and claim it to be strict scrutiny,
 
Take an AWB ruling for example:
 
1: Saving lives and preventing mass shootings is a compelling government interest (we know that mass shootings are a tiny fraction of overall crime, but the defense will bring up this point to defend a ban, so the judge will be able to use it in their decision)
 
2: An AWB is narrowly tailored in that it only targets the "weapons of choice of mass shooters" (again we know this to be false, both in that AWBs are much broader than that, and that even most mass shootings are committed with handguns not generally considered to be "assault weapons" but again this is what the defense counsel will say, so the judge can rule based off it)
 
3: The ban is least restrictive in that it doesn't require owners to give up any "assault weapons" they already own, just bans the sale of new ones, and that is the least restrictive way to keep them from proliferating on our streets
 
 
The only saving grace is that if SCOTUS uses this case to say lower courts must do a better job of applying strict scrutiny it hopefully means they will be more willing to take up appeals to set things straight


1. Then the full test of the first component is incomplete. Does it deny or disparage an existing right? The most compelling interest for the government to disarm the people would be to protect an illegitimate government from the people.

2. If one narrow class of weapons was responsible for most all murders then knives and handguns would be the logical target. If successful this type of targeting just shifts the crime weapon of choice to a different one soon to be targeted.

3. Grandfathering would create equal protection claims. Some people have mote rights than others.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#66 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 717 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 27 January 2019 - 08:57 AM

Be nice if they just said: shall not be infringed.



#67 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 27 January 2019 - 08:58 AM

Posted this link in the 2 topics.

 

Cam and company had an interview with Chuck form  CRPA (Cali Rifle and Poistol), Few talking points in the interview,  Sacramento politicians have been put on notice by there lawyers that Strict Scrutiny is coming.He talks about standard of review the NY case would set across the country. Rogers case NJ circuit split.  How Cali laws are coming to state near u..(OOO we know already.)

 

They only give you 2x to view on there web site.

 

https://www.nratv.co...i-gun-war-drums


Edited by Sweeper13, 27 January 2019 - 09:00 AM.


#68 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,588 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 27 January 2019 - 09:43 AM

Does the SC take Witness Slips? :thinking:

Sort of, it's a document that may take on a one or more points raised by either side,

it's called an "amicus curiae" brief, or "friend of the court" brief.

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Amicus_curiae

 

You will see them filed by interested parties on both sides, but not the plaintiff or defendant, who have filings in the actual case.
 

These are normally prepared and filed by lawyers.  SAF, ISRA, and other organizations will likely file.

I don't recommend that anyone act as their own attorney in putting together one of these.  :-)
You know what they will say about your client.



#69 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,907 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 27 January 2019 - 11:51 AM

Back in the 80s are used to file amicus briefs all the time. I am not an attorney. I just filed using templates of Second Amendment foundation filings and inserted my own thoughts and reasoning and cites of relevant case law.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#70 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,806 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 27 January 2019 - 01:12 PM

Couple of things on this. We are hoping to get three major things.

the transportation issue gets argued as a CIVIL right. that recognition but the ball game in a whole different right. Think Brown v Board of Education.

2. it gets out side the home without it being the evil carry case.

3. it gives us standard of review and given a good ruling Should we get the standard we are hpoiing for, that gets applied going forward. It is a major slap to the lower courts who may get called out for decisions they got wrong. Now all those old cases, the ourcomes are largely moot, depending on the test and standard, and they can be relitigated.

Say they referance Friendman and remind them Heller said some have made the argument bordering the friviouls that only those weapons made at the time of the founding are protected. . . .

So they say this was the wrong standard and they name 3,4,5 cases like that citing the proper stand, that would be a huge win for us.

so while some of the oh this is only a transportation case, they have not gotten the full possiblities of what this case could do.

I bet Thomas writes the opinion, its atleast 5-4 gets heard in October and ruled on next January.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#71 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 January 2019 - 01:28 PM

I have been reading several liberal blogs, even the most anti-gun liberals are speculating heavily that the writing is on the wall and this case is very, very likely to state that Strict Scrutiny applies to any 2nd restrictions and in turn is likely to shred decades worth of anti-gun legislation ending their wave of knee jerk restrictions.

 

I read some truly hyperbolic liberal articles after the Heller ruling about how bad it would become, but the undertone fear in these new liberal articles that strict scrutiny is likely coming puts that to shame, they are in full run around in circles panic mode.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#72 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 19,894 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 27 January 2019 - 05:45 PM

I merged quackersmacker's "Supreme Ct may SuperSize 2A with NY Case" into this topic, too.

.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 
Difficult days demand decisions of faith (Max Lucado)
 
On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.

#73 transplant

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,592 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 08 February 2019 - 03:09 PM

Back in the 80s are used to file amicus briefs all the time. I am not an attorney. I just filed using templates of Second Amendment foundation filings and inserted my own thoughts and reasoning and cites of relevant case law.


How difficult was that? Did your submissions get rejected/turned away much, or were they typically allowed into the record?

#74 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 10 March 2019 - 07:02 AM

I believe the NYC law is toast in any event but I worry that perhaps the Libs on the court may join in to rule the law irrational or that it's a Commerce Clause violation. So, instead of a 5-4 ruling where a new standard is forged (strict scrutiny or text/tradition), we get a unanimous (or nearly unanimous) ruling for something less which has the effect of killing the law and not much else.

That said I believe the case was taken to address a standard for the lower courts since there's no split on the law which is the only one in the country.



#75 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,712 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 10 March 2019 - 11:37 AM

If the pro-2A narrative is that it is a civil rights issue, self-defense is a fundamental human right, then we will get the correct ruling - strict scrutiny and a ruling that self-defense is a fundamental human right.  

 

If we go the Molon Lame route.....the ruling will go the wrong way. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#76 howie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 11

Posted 10 March 2019 - 11:47 AM

Roberts concerns me.  Seems as if he's trying to become Kennedy 2.0


NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

NRA Basic Pistol/Rifle/PPITH Instructor
ISP Approved CCW Instructor

www.boondocktactical.com

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"

"I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."- Patrick Henry





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users