239 replies to this topic

[ChicagoRonin70]

I couldn't find a thread on the case discussed here:

 

NRA-Supported Case Could Soon be Taken Up by the US Supreme Court

 

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

 

The article is from Ammoland, and the intro is extremely astute:

 

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- What if you lived in a major metropolitan area that said you were free to practice the religion of your choice while within its jurisdiction, but in order to worship outside of that jurisdiction, you were required to first ask permission? And what if that permission was rarely granted? Would you feel like your right to exercise the religion of your choice is still protected?

Now imagine you are a newspaper publisher in that same city. You are allowed to distribute your articles within that jurisdiction without any restrictions against editorial content, but if you want to send any copies outside the boundaries of the city, each issue must be submitted for review by city officials who may or may not deem it suitable to be read outside the confines of their control. Is that still free speech and a free press?

The vast majority of Americans would consider such regulations on religion or speech to be completely antithetical to what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. And they would be correct.

 

[Charles Nichols]

Response to the cert petition is due on Thursday.  Fortunately, SCOTUS dockets now contain links to the filings (in most cases).

 

https://www.supremec...lic/18-280.html

[ChicagoRonin70]

Response to the cert petition is due on Thursday.  Fortunately, SCOTUS dockets now contain links to the filings (in most cases).

 

https://www.supremec...lic/18-280.html

 

Yep, I saw that. I was surprised that a thread hadn't been already on here, considering that the case has been ongoing for something like 5 years.

[Hipshot Percussion]

  U.S. SUPREME COURT URGED TO CONSIDER NYC SECOND AMENDMENT LAWSUIT

DECEMBER 3, 2018

By Sarah Quinlan

 

Lawsuit challenges New York City ordinance restricting firearms transportation

 

Attorneys General from 15 states and two governors signed a legal brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in a federal lawsuit challenging a New York City ordinance restricting the transportation of firearms in the city. A New York City ordinance enacted in 2001 requires anyone who wants to take their government-licensed firearm out of their home to obtain a separate “carry” license, in addition to having permission to keep the firearm in the residence.

 

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, a Second Amendment advocacy group, filed a federal lawsuit against the city in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York in 2013 on behalf of Romolo Colantone, a New York City resident and licensed firearm owner affected by the ordinance.

 

Federal Judge Robert Sweet, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, heard the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al.v City of New York, New York, et. al., and ruled against Colantone in 2013. Lawyers representing Colantone appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2015, which upheld the ruling in 2018.

 

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry filed an amicus brief on October 9, 2018 calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case. Attorneys General from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin cosigned the brief, as did the governors of Mississippi and Kentucky.

 

 

Heller Case Affirmed Rights

The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Hellernegates the New York City ordinance, says Joyce Lee Malcolm, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School.

“In Heller, the justices made clear that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms—not just to keep, but also to bear,” Malcolm said. “In Heller, apart from clarifying the right was an individual right to keep and bear, the Court said that people had the right to keep and bear those weapons in common use for self-defense. Obviously, keeping people from taking their handguns out of their homes or having them ready to protect themselves is in violation of the Supreme Court’s clear interpretation of the law. The ban apparently was in place before Hellerin 2008, and the Heller case overturned the Washington, DC ban on residents having handguns in their homes.”

Defying the Court

Malcolm says there is a pattern of city and state elected officials, and federal justices, ignoring Supreme Court rulings on Second Amendment issues.

“There have been many cases within different circuits, particularly circuits that have very strict gun laws, to ignore Heller,” Malcom said. “That’s happened in Illinois, it’s happened in California, and now in New York.”

“I’m really disturbed by the fact that the Second Circuit and some of these other jurisdictions have basically allowed tremendous inroads into what the Supreme Court mandated with Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago,” Malcolm said. “It’s blatantly violating it.”

 

Read the rest of the article HERE

Edited by Hipshot Percussion, 04 December 2018 - 09:17 AM.

[Charles Nichols]

I hope that SCOTUS takes the case and issues a correct decision but SCOTUS is our paramount judicial bureaucracy.  Bureaucracies have intricate rules designed to guarantee that the wrong decisions are made.  

 

Here are a couple of cert petitions which were granted.  Read the decisions and then ask yourself why was it decided the way it was.

 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-608

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-704

 

Here are a couple of cert petitions which were denied.  Read the petitions and then ask yourself why they were denied.

 

https://www.supremec...lic/17-249.html

https://www.supremec...lic/18-191.html

 

"NYC et al" specified the reasons why SCOTUS almost always denies cert petitions, and those reasons are present here.  The response also put a spotlight on what could very well be a fatal vehicle problem with the case.  Namely, it appears the petitioners attempted to expand the definition of a premises license, which means the NYSRPA will likely lose, as the first two cases above did, because the justices will fixate on things other than answering the question, "Is this law constitutional?"

[NRApistol]

By Robert Barnes

January 22 at 10:11 AM

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will examine New York City’s ban on carrying a licensed and unloaded handgun outside the city limits, the first Second Amendment challenge it has accepted in nearly a decade.

The decision to hear the case in the term that begins in October may signal that the reinforced conservative majority on the court is ready to consider more laws that restrict gun rights.

New York’s law is not replicated elsewhere: It permits transporting handguns only to firing ranges within the city. Those who challenged the law have a licenses to keep a handgun at their homes. Petitioners included those who want to take their guns to firing ranges or competitions outside the city, and one who wanted to take the gun to his second home upstate.

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

Washington Post Story

[chislinger]

Not the one I'd like to see, but better than nothing I guess unless in the opinion they legitimize the insane licensing scheme there.

[mikew]

Well, that should be a no-brainer..., but there will be at least 3 out of the 9 who will rule incorrectly.

[Sweeper13]

Well, that should be a no-brainer..., but there will be at least 3 out of the 9 who will rule incorrectly.

Roberts?  

Edited by Sweeper13, 22 January 2019 - 10:27 AM.

[quackersmacker]

What an unbelievably stupid and restrictive law.

[Flynn]

It's certainly a mundane case for them to take up when there are plenty I would love to see taken up instead, but hopefully, the opinion is tailored just a little broad and thus makes it clear that other states can't prohibit the transportation of a legally owned firearm (where you reside) all willy-nilly as you cross municipal or state boundaries.

 

I would hope that the ruling, for instance, is broad enough to cover transporting a legally owned 10+ magazine or say 'assault rifle' through a community that happens to ban them for example if you reside outside of said community.

[Hipshot Percussion]

I suspect the dam doesn't break on 2A cases until RBG is replaced and Constitutional Justices are at a 6-3 advantage.  5-4 is still too close to count on in a landmark 2A case.  This case appears to be a no-brainer on its face and a safe case for the 5-4 SCOTUS.

 

jmho

Edited by Hipshot Percussion, 22 January 2019 - 03:34 PM.

[SiliconSorcerer]

I suspect the damn doesn't break on 2A cases until RBG is replaced and Constitutional Justices are at a 6-3 advantage.  5-4 is still too close to count on in a landmark 2A case.  This case appears to be a no-brainer on its face and a safe case for the 5-4 SCOTUS.

 

jmho

 

I like your opinion. 

[defaultdotxbe]

Not the one I'd like to see, but better than nothing I guess unless in the opinion they legitimize the insane licensing scheme there.

Probably testing the waters for a meatier case

[NRApistol]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled for the city. It said petitioners had not shown there was inadequate access to one of the seven firing ranges in the city, that petitioners could not rent a firearm if they wanted to go to a range elsewhere, or that the upstate homeowner could not get a permit to keep a second handgun there.

 

The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups supported the lawsuit, and said it was time for the court to clarify what the right to keep a firearm for personal protection means.

[Plinkermostly]

It's certainly a mundane case for them to take up when there are plenty I would love to see taken up instead, but hopefully, the opinion is tailored just a little broad and thus makes it clear that other states can't prohibit the transportation of a legally owned firearm (where you reside) all willy-nilly as you cross municipal or state boundaries.

 

I would hope that the ruling, for instance, is broad enough to cover transporting a legally owned 10+ magazine or say 'assault rifle' through a community that happens to ban them for example if you reside outside of said community.

 

Like Highland Pak, or NJ or Oak Park or HI or CA or . . . .

[Hap]

There's a good discussion of this case at Reason (http://reason.com/bl...-whether-new-yo). A key point in the cert petition is that the lower courts claimed to apply intermediate scrutiny to the NY law, but actually used rational-basis scrutiny, a lesser standard. (You could argue that in cases such as the Highland Park AWB challenge, the court applied a standard even less rigorous than rational basis; you might call it "emotional basis" - they basically stated that, if the law makes some people feel safer, it's OK, regardless of whether the law actually makes anyone safer.)

 

The NY law is clearly ridiculous and will not survive. What's more important is that this case provides a vehicle for the Court to drive a stake through the heart of these rational-basis-masquerading-as-intermediate-scrutiny BS decisions and establish some clearer standards for deciding 2A cases. Of which this will not be the last.

Edited by Hap, 22 January 2019 - 03:30 PM.

[Flynn]

What's more important is that this case provides a vehicle for the Court to drive a stake through the heart of these rational-basis-masquerading-as-intermediate-scrutiny BS decisions and establish some clearer standards for deciding 2A cases. Of which this will not be the last.

 

Very good point, the SCOTUS in their ruling can make it clear that any 2nd restrictions brought before them have to be decided by the courts based on strict scrutiny alone and negate all these knee jerk rulings.  Heller hinted at this and it's pretty clear that was their intent, but without coming out and saying, many lower courts have refused to uphold the ideals in Heller.

[Mr. Fife]

NYC has seven gun ranges compared to Chicago's zero gun ranges. I'm willing to bet that there are less innocent people being shot by stray bullets in NYC as compared to Chicago as well. It gets kind of old to keep hearing about little children getting shot by stray bullets.

[2A4Cook]

How is this even a 2A case? I see it as a jurisdictional case, and possibly a 4A case. This is like prohibiting one from driving his car out of city limits (and you have no constitutional right to drive). They are trying to control residents' rights and activities outside of their limits. They are a municipality, not a sovereign nation.

[defaultdotxbe]

NYC has seven gun ranges compared to Chicago's zero gun ranges. I'm willing to bet that there are less innocent people being shot by stray bullets in NYC as compared to Chicago as well. It gets kind of old to keep hearing about little children getting shot by stray bullets.

Obviously NYC's reduced gun violence is due to rest of the strict gun control laws they have, including the one preventing people from leaving the city with their guns, but I'm sure f they got rid of those 7 ranges there would be no gun violence in the city at all

[NRApistol]

How is this even a 2A case? I see it as a jurisdictional case, and possibly a 4A case. This is like prohibiting one from driving his car out of city limits (and you have no constitutional right to drive). They are trying to control residents' rights and activities outside of their limits. They are a municipality, not a sovereign nation.

I believe their law prohibits transportation within the city limits unless your destination is one of the seven ranges. I would think that once you "smuggled" your firearm outside city limits you would no longer be bound by a city ordnance.

 

"It permits transporting handguns only to firing ranges within the city."

[defaultdotxbe]

 

How is this even a 2A case? I see it as a jurisdictional case, and possibly a 4A case. This is like prohibiting one from driving his car out of city limits (and you have no constitutional right to drive). They are trying to control residents' rights and activities outside of their limits. They are a municipality, not a sovereign nation.

I believe their law prohibits transportation within the city limits unless your destination is one of the seven ranges. I would think that once you "smuggled" your firearm outside city limits you would no longer be bound by a city ordnance.

 

"It permits transporting handguns only to firing ranges within the city."

 

And even then you have to notify the police when you intend to travel to a range, giving them the date, time, and route you'll be taking. Any deviation (even incidentals like a construction detour, or it taking longer due to traffic) is technically a violation

[Mr. Fife]

I believe their law prohibits transportation within the city limits unless your destination is one of the seven ranges. I would think that once you "smuggled" your firearm outside city limits you would no longer be bound by a city ordnance. "It permits transporting handguns only to firing ranges within the city."

It's a violation of the terms of the license, and will cause you to get your license suspended.

Possession of a handgun is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to the broad discretion of the New York City Police Commissioner (Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459 [2005]).

Read more here, Beach vs. Kelly http://www.courts.st.../2008_05814.htm

Stupid speelchick

Edited by Mr. Fife, 22 January 2019 - 04:33 PM.

[NRApistol]

 

I believe their law prohibits transportation within the city limits unless your destination is one of the seven ranges. I would think that once you "smuggled" your firearm outside city limits you would no longer be bound by a city ordnance. "It permits transporting handguns only to firing ranges within the city."

It's a violation of the terms of the license, and will cause you to get your license suspended.

Possession of a handgun is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to the broad discretion of the New York City Police Commissioner (Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459 [2005]).

Read more here, Beach vs. Kelly http://www.courts.st.../2008_05814.htm

Stupid speelchick

 

Sure sounds like they got him for in city transport:

 

"Petitioner violated the terms of his premises residence license when he carried his firearm to and from the airport for his trip to Nevada."

[357]

Very good news and long awaited and finally after 8 years the Supreme Court took a 2nd Ammendment case and hopefully they will take more now. Thank God finally Justices who respect the Constitution are now the majority at the Supreme Court.

Millions of people have been waiting for relief for years in states like Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, California and lately Washington, Oregon and Illinois from Bloomberg's arbitrary and repressive laws calling rifles in common use made for civilians "assault weapons" and weapons of war and standard capacity magazines "high capacity" which king Bloomberg has said 3 bullets is all that people need for deer hunting and he keeps changing the definition from 10 to 7 to now 5 rounds.

About time the Supreme Court reaffirms that arms in common use cannot be banned or restricted and puts in their place municipalities and states who have ignored Heller and McDonald and use loopholes to restrict people's 2nd Amendment rights also by calling any guns they want to ban "assault weapons" and high capacity and persecuting millions of people for property they bought legally and which is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

These Unconstitutional and tyrannical laws have made hundreds of thousands of people leave their families and friends and jobs to get relief from tyrannical laws imposed on them through corruption with lies and propaganda.

[Mr. Fife]

This is probably the beginning of good things to come. Imagine taking your gun through New York and not getting busted at the airport. Imagine! You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[DomG]

I look at this like the liberals look at getting laws to go their way.  Get a little bit and build on that.

 

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[NakPPI]

This is a great case for the supreme Court. We will get an opinion that says that the second amendment applies outside of the home, which destroys some existing bad law that we have. It also paves the way for challenges to restrictive concealed carry laws.

[FarmHand357]

This is a great case for the supreme Court. We will get an opinion that says that the second amendment applies outside of the home, which destroys some existing bad law that we have. It also paves the way for challenges to restrictive concealed carry laws.

 

+1.  I hope this is borne out.