Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

My greatest hope is that no matter how bad it gets in Illinois that we will see some 2nd Amendment infringements get wiped out at SCOTUS. That will be the true big win for us and will effect Illinois eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

My greatest hope is that no matter how bad it gets in Illinois that we will see some 2nd Amendment infringements get wiped out at SCOTUS. That will be the true big win for us and will effect Illinois eventually.

Sure hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I may just donate to the NYSRPA on this. Anti’s and Bloomy push money everywhere. Since there doesnt seem to be a billionaire helping our side other than our NRA dollars...we may need to start spreading money around to other organizations nationwide. Im no millionaire but this is getting ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I merged 2 threads into this single thread in order to keep discussion cohesive on this potentially important case.

The threads were originally titled "Supreme Court to hear 2A case", started by NRAPistol, and "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York: Is there a thread on this?", started by ChicagoRonin70. The new title is simple, yet descriptive. I also moved it all to the Judicial forum as one was located in National Politics.

For some reason the software didn't sort the merged posts chronologically in every case. Hopefully this hasn't made things disjointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a good discussion of this case at Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/22/supreme-court-to-consider-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.

 

*Flynn beat me to it**

 

A very good point. Almost every other Constitutional right has any restrictions subject to "Strict Scrutiny" (I actually can't think of one which is less than "strict" off the top of my head, but one may be out there). SCOTUS could clear up a bunch of the 2A cases if they just state in the initial statement of review that "We apply strict scrutiny to restrictions on individual rights (as identified by Heller)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, January 27, 2019 at 11:47 PM - Merged the two topics.
Hidden by mauserme, January 27, 2019 at 11:47 PM - Merged the two topics.

There was some talk about it here.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70929

 

It's a mundane case, but if the justices word the ruling (as many 2nd supporters hope they do) and insist that the application of 'strict scrutiny' be applied to 2nd infringments just like it it to 1st infringements, 1000s of infringing laws across this nations will fall like dominos.

Link to comment

Wow. This could be big

 

I personally think it's the perfect starter case that doesn't get messy if done right. The law itself is about as close to being an unconstitutional slam dunk as it gets, meaning all the Supreme Court has to include in the ruling (to lay down the rights hammer) is that the test of 'strict scrutiny' is applicable to all 2nd restrictions/infringements just like it is for 1st restrictions/infringements, in turn, forcing the lower courts to clean up and moot all their unconstitutional 'rational basis' and 'intermediate scrutiny' rulings they have been improperly handing out for decades.

 

I just hope the new conservative majority doesn't whiff and disappoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything?

 

If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way.

 

The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything? If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way. The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...

The lineup in the bullpen can change between now and October.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything? If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way. The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...

You're missing a major point. All judges HATE to be overruled. If SCOTUS comes down on the right side of this decision, it's a new day for the Second Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything?

 

If the Supreme Court says strict scrutiny must be applied and judges continue to rule on lower standards they will be overturned time and time again and look like dolts something that is more and more tarnishing to them in the higher courts. History shows us, for the most part, the lower courts get the message when the Supreme Court hammers the point, as evidenced even in 2nd rulings with most of the Heller and McDonald principles being upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How come the RINOpublican party never passed a 2nd Amendment protection act which mandates strict scrutiny?

Oh wait, that means that gun owners won't need them anymore and can't be used as pawns anymore.

While we had a majority in the house and the presidency, with a 51/49 split in the senate, nothing would pass.

 

 

The GOP held a 51/49 majority in the Senate by letter designation only, it really wasn't a majority by any practical means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like this would actually stop the anti's.. Just look at Philly's mayor. Despite knowing that he can't enact further infringements, he is, and he dared them to come arrest him for it. He just doesn't get it. He thinks he's above the state supreme court: https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/01/22/mayor-peduto-criticizes-da-over-proposed-gun-ban/

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-intent-to-ban-guns-in-violation-of-state-law
Pittsburgh Mayor Declares Intent to Ban Guns in Violation of State Law
Friday, December 14, 2018

Yesterday, we reported that it was likely that sweeping gun control measures would be proposed in Pittsburgh. Today, Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto held a press conference to propose a trio of anti-gun city ordinances that, if enacted, would constitute a direct violation of Pennsylvania’s state firearms preemption law and Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent. At the event, Peduto was joined by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, who benefited from $500,000 in spending from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety during his 2018 re-election bid, and City Council members Corey O’Connor and Erika Strassburger.

Not content to spearhead his own city’s violation of state law, Peduto called for municipalities throughout the country to ignore state statutes duly enacted by their residents’ elected representatives. A press release from the mayor’s office chronicling the conference explained, “Mayor Peduto has asked cities around the country to support Pittsburgh’s measures and/or introduce similar legislation to create nationwide momentum behind the critically needed gun changes.”

Councilmember O’Connor, who purportedly authored the anti-gun proposals, took a similar tack, stating that Pittsburgh “must seize the opportunity to make a real difference by partnering with other municipalities in the Commonwealth and cities across America to enact” gun restrictions. Councilmember Strassburger also encouraged the municipal lawlessness, stating, “I hope more cities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the entire nation will join Pittsburgh in this critical effort.”

The three legislative proposals are a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a total ban on several types of common firearms accessories and standard capacity magazines, and the development of a procedure to confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process of law.

Under the proposed semi-automatic ban, it would be “unlawful to manufacture, sell, purchase, transport, carry, store, or otherwise hold in one’s possession” a firearm defined as an “assault weapon.”

The legislation defines “assault weapon” by listing several models of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, including the Colt AR-15 and certain configurations of the Ruger Mini-14. Moreover, the legislation goes on to add to the definition of “assault weapon” semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that meet a certain set of criteria.

The prohibition criteria for rifles is the following:

a. The firearm is a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable

magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon;

iii. A bayonet mount;

iv. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash

suppressor; and

v. A grenade launcher;

Pistols would be judged under the following criteria:

b. The firearm is a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable

magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol

grip;

ii. A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash

suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the

barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger

hand without being burned;

iv. A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is

unloaded; and

v. A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

The following shotguns would banned:

c. The firearm is a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon;

iii. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

iv. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

The legislation would also prohibit the possession of machine guns lawfully registered under the National Firearms Act.

The legislative proposal targeting common firearms accessories would ban the possession of firearms magazines “that [have] the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” The ordinance would also ban any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is equipped with either a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, or a forward pistol grip (among other items).

Both pieces of legislation impose severe penalties on those who refuse to submit to the city’s unlawful mandates. Those who do not comply “shall be fined $1,000 and costs for each offense, and in default of payment thereof, may be imprisoned for not more than 90 days.” Moreover, the proposals provide that “[e]ach day of a continuing violation of or failure to comply… shall constitute and separate and distinct offense.” Meaning that otherwise law-abiding individuals who fail to comply with the ordinances would face potential financial ruin.

The final proposal would empower law enforcement to search for and confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process. Acting on merely a petition offered by a law enforcement official or family or household member a court could issue an order for an individual’s firearms to be seized. The individual would have no opportunity to speak or present evidence on their own behalf prior to confiscation.(Bold/Italic Type my emphasis)

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has made clear that firearms laws are a state matter and that it is unlawful for the state’s political subdivisions to regulate firearms. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120, concerning the “Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition,” states,

No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

The language of the statute is crystal clear. Municipalities like Pittsburgh may not pass their own firearms regulations.

However, the simple statute wasn’t simple enough for the reading challenged lawmakers of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the question as to whether Pittsburgh and Philadelphia could restrict commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In finding that they could not, the court stated,

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.

Another portion of the opinion described Pittsburgh’s position as “frivolous.”

In the 2009 case National Rifle Association v. Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania came to the same conclusion after Philadelphia ignored the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s 1996 ruling and enacted a ban on commonly-owned firearms and a lost or stolen reporting ordinance. Citing Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Ortiz, the Commonwealth Court struck down the local firearms ordinances. Philadelphia appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and was denied.

In pursuing their local gun control ordinances, Peduto and his anti-gun allies have demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to state law, judicial precedents, and the taxpaying constituents who will foot the bill for this political grandstanding. NRA stands ready to use all available legal avenues to ensure that the residents of Pittsburgh are never subject to these unconstitutional and unlawful proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything?

 

If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way.

 

The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...

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...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...