Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#121 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 05 July 2019 - 11:43 AM

... then all the sudden admit it was unconstitutional ...


They haven't admitted it was unconstitutional. They just passed laws to grant the plaintiff's relief. Without the court rendering a judgment, it would imply that it is within the power of states and municipalities to impose firearm restrictions or prohibitions as they please.

I have to wonder if the court would take a dim view of the defendant's proclaimed intent not to defend its case. Isn't it the duty of counsels to argue their cases vigorously, even if they don't believe them?

Edited by Euler, 05 July 2019 - 11:48 AM.

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.


#122 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,484 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 05 July 2019 - 12:36 PM

 

... then all the sudden admit it was unconstitutional ...


They haven't admitted it was unconstitutional. They just passed laws to grant the plaintiff's relief. 

 

 

IMO, it's really getting into symantics at this point, if the previous law didn't infringe there it no relief to be given, this isn't a civil case where a no fault settlement is being negotiated between parties, the fact that NY now argues relief is given and the plantiff is whole because they modified the law certainly implies strongly (a given in laymens terms) that there was an early infringement that is now remedied. This is a classic too clever by half move.

 

Of course in a legal aspect these symantics and implications don't make for law or legal precedent and that is what is really needed at the end of the day to stop NY from pulling a 180 if the case was dismissed putting the plantiff right back at the start.

 

But, hey if NY is not going to defend themselves and instead will focus on amping up their too clever by half symantics and half witted technicalities to get the case mooted instead, that is IMO huge for our side as I really don't see the current Supreme Court having much tolerance for the game NY is playing.


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

#123 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:01 PM

No no no. They do not get to pull a Chicago and try to moot the case. This time, before arguments. Chicago tried afterward in McDonald and that didn't fly.

Should be denied under public interest doctrine. Appellants/petitioners can easily show that they face further threat from prosecution because, well, look at how NYC changes stuff so quickly. They can just change it back, make everyone re-litigate. Nope nope nope Comrade de Blasio, you will not moot this case.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


Unfortunately the city and now the state have changed the law so it looks like the city cannot unilaterally change the law back even if they want to.
I think this case is over.

#124 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,484 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:06 PM

Unfortunately the city and now the state have changed the law so it looks like the city cannot unilaterally change the law back even if they want to.

I think this case is over.

 

 

There is a very heavy burden on then City to prove the case should be mooted, that burden is even higher now that the case has been pushed up to the Supreme Court level, the fact that the City/State changed the law doesn't really rise to the level needed for mooting because with a hot button issue like gun control/rights in a state/city that is notorious for passing restrictive gun control laws, there is a very likely chance that the 'infringement' could return or recur without a court ruling in this case, this opinion is backed up by court precedent in Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw and United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Association to name a few, there are several other cases that also back this up like City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle that made it clear that if there is no real barrier (a court ruling) in place to stop the infringment from being put back in place the case won't be mooted.  Sure the fact that the state also changed the law helps the city (and was obviously intentional) but only marginally when you consider the sway and number of votes a city the size of NY has in the state legislature the barrier to go right back to the old way becomes a very small barrier in this instance, proven in part by how easy it was for the city to get the state to change the law so easily to help the very same case currenty in front of the court.


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

#125 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,833 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 July 2019 - 05:32 PM

Illinois appellate court refused to moot an action filed against Trame in re the constitutionality of suspending gun rights of those subject to an ex parte order of protection. This was after plaintiff had obtained relief, had his FOID reinstated, guns returned, but faced the prospect of further harassment, prosecution, because his ex-wife was filing for OPs and getting his FOID suspended. That's one example of denying a motion to dismiss as moot. Not voluntary cessation but "capable of repetition yet evading review." PLENTY of case law here. The constitutional issue is of substantial public interest and one of the exceptions to mootness is "voluntary cessation" doctrine. In other words, just because "they" stopped it doesn't mean "they" can't wait it out, then change the law again. State is Dem controlled. They could simply wait until SCOTUS chucks as moot, reinstate the unconstitutional stuff, and force petitioner(s) to start over. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#126 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 08 July 2019 - 09:43 PM

On the Supreme Court website, the status of the letter which NYC sent last week has been updated to "not accepted for filing."

NYSRPA sent a letter in response to that letter. Its status is also "not accepted for filing."
[EDIT: Here's the NYSRPA letter.]

I think that means the Supreme Court considers arguments for and against mooting to be irrelevant and case will proceed.

Edited by Euler, 08 July 2019 - 09:47 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.


#127 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 09 July 2019 - 11:22 AM

It may be that neither followed the courts requirements for filing.

#128 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 09 July 2019 - 12:22 PM

The next step in order is for both sides to file their final briefs, since I don't think there will be any more amicus briefs.

NYC already filed a motion to dismiss as moot and got denied. Its letter was neither a brief nor a motion. NYSRPA argued in their letter that NYC can decline to defend its (now obsolete) law in the final brief, but anything else before then (i.e., NYC's letter) is premature.

However you want to look at it, the letters were out of order. NYSRPA probably just tried to file a letter in case the Court decided to take the NYC letter seriously. The Court didn't take it at all, so both letters have been stricken from the proceedings (even though they're still available for download if you saved the links).

Edited by Euler, 09 July 2019 - 12:23 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.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users