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

[Flynn]

 

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.

[defaultdotxbe]

 

 

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

[TriumphRider]

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.

[Glock23]

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.

[defaultdotxbe]

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

[lockman]

 

 

 

 

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 ***

[Plinkermostly]

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

[Sweeper13]

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.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-chuck-michel-gavin-newsom-sounds-the-anti-gun-war-drums

[Sweeper13]

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.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-chuck-michel-gavin-newsom-sounds-the-anti-gun-war-drums

[mikew]

Does the SC take Witness Slips?

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.org/wiki/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.

[lockman]

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.

[Tvandermyde]

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.

[Flynn]

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.

[mauserme]

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

[transplant]

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?

[press1280]

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.

[BobPistol]

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.

[howie]

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

[BobPistol]

I'm going to call it now.

 

SCOTUS won't be friendly to this case. I predict they will rule against the "strict scrutiny" ruling.

 

I hope I am wrong!

 

But if SCOTUS rules the correct way (strict scrutiny), the RINOpublican party will completely be useless to the 2A crowd, and you'll see a lot less votes for the RINO party. That means more leftocrats getting elected at the Federal level.

 

Currently, the RINO party is worthless but at least can claim to not make things worse than leftocrats in charge.

 

But now gun owners will have no reason to vote RINOpublican. They got everything, and it is a supreme court ruling, so leftocrats can't overrule it. So the pro 2A crowd leaves the RINOs behind and that's a significant chunk of the base.

 

The RINO party knows this and will talk to the judges behind the scenes, and let them know the political repercussions.

 

The good news is that the RINO party may go the way of the Whig Party which it replaced, and we get a viable third party who takes its place. But not until the leftocrats do some damage at the Federal level.

[Charles Nichols]

The City of New York just filed a request with #SCOTUS to stay the briefing schedule in NYSRPA et al v. NYC et al.

 

Document attached.

 

Docket -> https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

20190412152613471_nysrpa%20v%20cny%2018-180%20ltr%204%2012%20191.pdf

[RoadyRunner]

In other words - they got bullied into not letting any SCOTUS ruling become a national precedent.

 

Does the petitioner get to amend their complaint in response - detailing how the new rules continue to impact their 2A rights?

[Euler]

The City of New York just filed a request with #SCOTUS to stay the briefing schedule in NYSRPA et al v. NYC et al.

The proposed rule would ... allow premises licensees to transport a handgun listed on their premises license directly to and from any of the following additional locations, provided that the handgun is transported unloaded, in a locked container, with the ammunition carried separately:

• Another premises of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and possess a handgun;
• A small-arms range/shooting club authorized by law to operate as such, whether located within or outside New York City; and
• A shooting competition at which the licensee may possess the handgun consistent with the law applicable at the place of the competition.

If the proposed rule is adopted, it would render this case moot.

 

And if the proposed rule is not adopted (satisfactorily) while the case is suspended, the plaintiffs are screwed.

[Euler]

In other words - they got bullied into not letting any SCOTUS ruling become a national precedent. Does the petitioner get to amend their complaint in response - detailing how the new rules continue to impact their 2A rights?

The rule should be changed to say that premises licensees are allowed to transport a handgun listed on their premises license directly to and from any other place where they may legally possess it, instead of trying to limit what those places may be.

[Flynn]

I personally believe their proposed rules DO NOT moot the case, and thus the SCOTUS should deny the stay!

 

The rules still infringe on the ability of the owner to transport their firearm legally to many legal places!

 

Rule number 1 limits the licensee to only transport the firearm to other properties the licensee owns/rents or has authoritve control over, it would still be illegal for them to say take a firearm to a friends house or friends property or even a gunsmith as written!

 

Rule number 2 would still prevent the licensee from transporting his firearm to a private range or private property where shooting is lawful in or out of state, even for lawful hunting purposes!

[BobPistol]

Well, here comes that feeling of doom.

[skinnyb82]

 

I personally believe their proposed rules DO NOT moot the case, and thus the SCOTUS should deny the stay!

Well they're proposed rules for one. They haven't cured a single defect. And SCOTUS may just say "too late" because this is, well, sorta what Chicago tried pulling in McDonald. SCOTUS will say "Why didn't you change this earlier? Why are you waiting until this case is fully briefed and certiorari granted?" They can't stay the briefing schedule. It's fully briefed, minus some amici. The danger here, I would argue, is that this shows NYC just does whatever it wants and if it appears that they're in legal jeopardy over it, they simply ask a court to hold on while they moot the case. Shouldn't be permitted. But that's not up to me. It's up to "the Nine." Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[chislinger]

Surely by now the court realizes that punting on gun issues just makes it even more complicated down the road?

[Hap]

Surely this situation has come up enough that we have some idea how the Court will respond.

[Charles Nichols]

Surely this situation has come up enough that we have some idea how the Court will respond.

It has:

 

" A defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case." Friends of the Earth, Inc. et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 174 (2000)

 

But whether or not SCOTUS decides to dismiss the case as moot is entirely up to SCOTUS.

[Flynn]

" A defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case." Friends of the Earth, Inc. et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 174 (2000)

 

But whether or not SCOTUS decides to dismiss the case as moot is entirely up to SCOTUS.

 

 

It will be interesting to see if the same judges that felt that way back then agree now, or will they 180 their opinions and rule against their own precedent because it's a gun case?