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

[domin8]

In that case, let's assume there's a 9-0 ruling in favor of NYSRPA. What is NYC's long game? You know they've already figured this out.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[skinnyb82]

Exactly. However, it should NOT be reserved for only the worst, most problematic cases. In instances of governmental clown-sh!ttery such as this, and any time a government entity tries to pull crap over on its citizens, the harshest sanctions should be applied, and the other party's position should be granted permanently. That's the only way it will curtail this kind of cr@p.

 

I've never seen a government defendant sanctioned under Rule 11. Not once. Never heard of it either. "They" thought it was outlandish how a judge in Texas made Obama DOJ lawyers attend ethics classes after he caught them lying to him, repeatedly. But I don't disagree with throwing the book at these people. Under threat of monetary sanctions, non-monetary sanctions such as disbarment from practicing in that district, circuit, whatever. But...taking a few hundred thousand dollars or taxpayer money NYC...they'll laugh as they're all immune. It's some sucker's money. Disbar a bunch of NYC attorneys from practicing in SDNY/EDNY/whatever and you'll have a knee-capped legal department. "Don't eff with this court."

 

Need to hold these clowns personally liable which isn't possible with government defendants. The entire system needs to be burned down (currently in process but doubt Trump will go after statutory immunity for politicians) and rebuilt because this isn't working. The government can jerk people around like this and there really isn't anything anyone can do about it that will send a message to never do it again or at least "tread lightly."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[Euler]

NYC made the deadline to file its brief.

 

NYC brief

[Flynn]

NYC made the deadline to file its brief.

 

NYC brief

 

LOL, after skimming it over, it's clear, NYC REALLY, REALLY, REALLY doesn't want this case to cross the finish line.

[Euler]

I finally flipped through NYC's brief.

 

While NYC still argues that the case is now moot, most of the brief argues that the previous law did not violate the 2nd Amendment "in the spirit of something a Court-appointed amicus curiae might do." In other words, they're not actually defending the previous law. They're just advising the court of its constitutionality.

 

It describes the text/history/tradition interpretation of the Bill of Rights as "disastrous" to any attempt to use gun control to "adapt" to ever-changing realities.

 

It argues that using strict scrutiny for 2nd Amendment cases, contrary to the petitioner's characterization of their historical treatment, would actually elevate the 2nd Amendment above other constitutional protections, making all other rights 2nd class.

 

There's also an interesting argument that NYC's transport ban did not violate FOPA's transport protections, since FOPA was meant to protect interstate transport, but was apparently silent (to NYC) on trans-municipal transport. Nor, NYC says, did the transport ban prevent anyone from leaving the state. I guess it means once someone escapes the jurisdiction of NYC, it wouldn't try to extradite them back, because I don't recall anything in the previous law that said leaving the state was a valid exception to the transport ban. (In fact, I'd bet there's precedent that if someone legally moved out of state, their site permit would have been revoked and the gun ruled illegal if it had still remained inside city limits at that time.)

 

Rather than striking me as wholly an attempt to bury the case, it seems more like a Hail Mary pass. Hey, maybe it'll fly. You can't win if you don't play.

[domin8]

 

It describes the text/history/tradition interpretation of the Bill of Rights as "disastrous" to any attempt to use gun control to "adapt" to ever-changing realities.

Is that an admission that gun control is unconstitutional? If I were a justice reading this that would determine my ruling right there.

 

It argues that using strict scrutiny for 2nd Amendment cases, contrary to the petitioner's characterization of their historical treatment, would actually elevate the 2nd Amendment above other constitutional protections, making all other rights 2nd class.

Not when the 2nd Amendment seems to be the only one receiving Intermediate Scrutiny while all other Civil Right lawsuits get Strict Scrutiny. Iirc, the 7th Circuit applied strict scrutiny in Moore v Madigan, and the result was Illinois getting concealed carry.

 

There's also an interesting argument that NYC's transport ban did not violate FOPA's transport protections, since FOPA was meant to protect interstate transport, but was apparently silent (to NYC) on trans-municipal transport. Nor, NYC says, did the transport ban prevent anyone from leaving the state.

Arresting nonresidents and taking them to jail when checking in for a flight doesn't violate FOPA? Are they off their meds?https://youtu.be/HyHzVsdWBfMSent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Euler]

Is that an admission that gun control is unconstitutional? If I were a justice reading this that would determine my ruling right there.

...

Arresting nonresidents and taking them to jail when checking in for a flight doesn't violate FOPA? Are they off their meds?

It's an implication that text/history/tradition is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.

 

I just said the argument was interesting. I didn't say it accurately represented reality. It would be amusing if someone filed an amicus brief listing all the cases where people were prevented from leaving the state and then the SC ordered all those convictions overturned en mass.

[Gamma]

That brief. Wow, just wow. They really want to not actually argue this case.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Wow. That brief is one of the most bald-faced, lying-@ss bullsh!t pieces of attempted obfuscation and deceit as a legal brief I have ever laid eyes upon.

 

That sort of thing should be criminal to file; SCOTUS should not only rule immediately in favor of the plaintiffs in the most favorable fashion possible, but there should be punitive sanctions of contempt levied against NYC and their legal representatives.

 

This smacks of massive desperation and even sheer terror on the part of NYC to not have this case go in front of the court.

[skinnyb82]

Not when the 2nd Amendment seems to be the only one receiving Intermediate Scrutiny while all other Civil Right lawsuits get Strict Scrutiny. Iirc, the 7th Circuit applied strict scrutiny in Moore v Madigan, and the result was Illinois getting concealed carry.

 

It was more like heightened intermediate scrutiny ("Heller" test) properly applied instead of the usual drivel coming out of our circuit courts saying "uh, well, this law infringes on the core right...but still constitutional because guns are bad mkay...." that Circuits have been doing ever since Heller.

 

It's a real hoot, reading that, by applying strict scrutiny to the 2A, it'll elevate it above all other rights...then I guess strict scrutiny WAS NOT applied in Roe v. Wade oh wait! Yes, it was! And in Korematsu, Buck v. Bell, Brown v. Board..., Griswold, Loving, Romer, Windsor, PP v. Casey, blah blah blah blah. Those cases all involve suspect classifications. Involves sexual orientation, gender, religion, race, etc. The court has been applying it to the 1A for decades. Incorrectly, in some cases. What's wrong with applying it to the 2A? I'd have no problem if they apply it to the 4A as well and get rid of that asinine automobile exception and open fields garbage.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Fife]

The case is moo

 

https://youtu.be/fLwYpSCrlHU

 

.

 

Stupid speelchick

[Euler]

NYC has sent another letter arguing that the case is moot.

 

It says it's a reply to NYSRPA's response to NYC's suggestion of mootness, but the only such suggestion and response I see in the record are the ones the court rejected last month. In any case, NYC asserts that the doctrine of voluntary cessation does not preclude the court from finding the case moot and that NYSRPA's own response to the suggestion proves the case's mootness.

[Flynn]

LOL, seriously, they argue the case is moot then essentially state as a matter of fact it's likely not in the following paragraph. It's clear they want the case mooted on a Hail Mary twisted technicality, because they are freaking out about how bad they are about to lose. I personally don't believe their two smart by half arguments are going to work at this point in front of the Supreme Court, or at least I hope not.

[press1280]

This is heading back to conference on 10/1, I assume Scotus will decide on mootness.

[Charles Nichols]

Mootness does not always mean that SCOTUS won't hear the case. If I were a betting man then I would bet against NYSRPA but it is not as certain as say, filing an untimely appeal.

 

There are four 2A cases which were held over from the last term and a long queue of 2A cert petitions which will be filed by October 10th.

 

There is a list of links toward the bottom 1/3 of the status page of my California Open Carry website beginning at "Cert Pending" because I am clever that way.

 

https://californiaopencarry.com/status-of-my-federal-open-carry-lawsuit/

 

There is also a wildcard out of the 9th circuit court of appeals, Mark Baird et al v. Becerra. There is a preliminary injunction hearing in the district court on September 6th (this is a handgun Open Carry case). Win or lose, preliminary injunctions are given priority in both oral argument and decision. Preliminary injunctions can be appealed to SCOTUS by the losing party without there being a final judgment by the district court.

 

Or, for all we know, the district court judge will grant the State's motion to dismiss with prejudice and do so against all claims. If that happens then Baird et all can file a cert petition directly with SCOTUS and bypass the 9th circuit court of appeals. A circuit which you may or may not have heard tends to drag its feet where 2A cases are concerned (unless there is a rare win).

[Jeffrey]

No attempt at intimidation here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bird76Mojo]

No attempt at intimidation here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No surprise there. Plucked right out of the leftist playbook. If you can't control things then you play dirty. Stack the deck, or the courts in this case...

[domin8]

Unfortunately, it's completely constitutional. There's nothing in the COTUS that dictates how many SCOTUS justices there should be. Congress does have the authority to add or subtract from thre total number of justices. Looking at the tea leaves, the Democrats think they will maintain majority in the House and win the majority in the Senate and the White House. The courts are suppose to be apolitical. The question becomes, how then could SCOTUS say stealing the courts is unconstitutional? Could they possibly point to Marbury v Madison and exercise their ability to tell Congress to get lost? Article 3 Section 1 of the COTUS is the only statute I can find where it says Congress can establish and diminish lower courts, but not the SCOTUS. Perhaps thre Deems are back at misimagining the placement of commas in Articles 3 Section 1 just like they do with the 2nd Amendment.

 

Remember, IANAL

 

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[skinnyb82]

 

No surprise there. Plucked right out of the leftist playbook. If you can't control things then you play dirty. Stack the deck, or the courts in this case...

The fact that those weasels put it in an amicus brief filed with the Court in a 2A case is beyond the pale. Members of the legislative branch threatening the judicial. Welcome to America.Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[Euler]

Neal Goldfarb, a lawyer at Georgetown, has submitted a request to argue for NYC. He wants time beyond that allocated to NYC to argue that the Heller interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect.

 

There is a boatload of amicus briefs being filed in support of NYC. Not only do they want this case to go NYC's way, they want to overturn Heller and McDonald, which is something even NYC's own briefs didn't try to argue.

[Soutsidr]

Neal Goldfarb, a lawyer at Georgetown, has submitted a request to argue for NYC. He wants time beyond that allocated to NYC to argue that the Heller interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect.

 

There is a boatload of amicus briefs being filed in support of NYC. Not only do they want this case to go NYC's way, they want to overturn Heller and McDonald, which is something even NYC's own briefs didn't try to argue.

Then we should be responding with briefs of our own arguing that ANY licencing scheme at all is unconstitutional for an enumerated right. Broaden the scope of the original argument to eliminate the need for any foid or ccl nationwide.

[steveTA84]

^^^

 

I like that idea.

[skinnyb82]

We don't wanna turn that case into a bigger circus than it already is. And we might end up with something that we really do not like if we push our luck. Remember we still have Roberts.

 

That said, any motions to intervene, argue on behalf of, or whatever other garbage they try, should be denied. None of this nonsense like what happened in Peruta. The respondent is not some random lawyer who doesn't like guns. The respondent is the City of New York.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[BobPistol]

No attempt at intimidation here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Roosevelt wanted to stack the court too.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

Neal Goldfarb, a lawyer at Georgetown, has submitted a request to argue for NYC. He wants time beyond that allocated to NYC to argue that the Heller interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect.

 

There is a boatload of amicus briefs being filed in support of NYC. Not only do they want this case to go NYC's way, they want to overturn Heller and McDonald, which is something even NYC's own briefs didn't try to argue.

Then we should be responding with briefs of our own arguing that ANY licencing scheme at all is unconstitutional for an enumerated right. Broaden the scope of the original argument to eliminate the need for any foid or ccl nationwide.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this. Hammer back at them and don't just play defense. TAKE ground from them rather than just hold it or minimize losing it.

 

Additionally, and I'm serious about this, I really think it is time that there are penalties put in place for POLITICIANS and PUBLIC SERVANTS who seek to illegally abrogate parts of the Constitution that they don't like.

 

As a ruthless dissuasion to anyone elected into public office, or who holds a position that is supported or paid by public funds and taxes, if they act in a way that infringes or interferes or deprives any member or portion of The People of any civil right as written in the Constitution, and are either found guilty in court of doing so (such as a 1983 action) or if the Supreme Court, or other high-level court ends up turning back or throwing out permanently an unconstitutional law that a legislator proposes or supports, the Eighth Amendment is abrogated when determining their punishment.

 

By that, I mean that public servants who so violate the public trust with such acts are specifically punished WITH bail, fines, and unpleasantly severe punishments in a way meant to not only deal with them punitively to the appropriate level of gravity due such betrayal of their offices and oaths to the Constitution, but also as a harsh warning and deterrent to other such official bad actors.

 

Want to bet that if a politician literally bet their life savings and was made penurious, as well as was subject to confinement and hard labor, with no comforts whatsoever, they'd think twice about passing BS laws that interfere with law-abiding citizens rights to be left alone by the government and not hectored and pecked to bloody death by endless mala prohibita

statutes and laws piled up on one another that end up being tossed out as an affront to the principles this country was founded on?

 

Note that I'm not just talking about the Second Amendment, but whenever any unit of government or public servant does something that is either objectively criminal or violates the letter, spirit, or recorded legislative intent of the Constitution or a law based on its principles. That goes for interference with privacy, speech, freedom to worship, free assembly, you name it.

 

And to H ell with qualified immunity; if a civilian would be prosecuted for it, a government official or employee is held to an even higher standard due to the privilege and sufferance at the people's will to their position that they are allowed. There should be LESS leeway and benefit of the doubt to people who make their money off of the taxes of the People.

 

Really, THIS is what is needed to muck the sh!t out of the festering chicken coop of current politics.

[Charles Nichols]

Neal Goldfarb, a lawyer at Georgetown, has submitted a request to argue for NYC. He wants time beyond that allocated to NYC to argue that the Heller interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect.

 

There is a boatload of amicus briefs being filed in support of NYC. Not only do they want this case to go NYC's way, they want to overturn Heller and McDonald, which is something even NYC's own briefs didn't try to argue.

His first Amicus brief was rejected. Today he filed a second Amicus brief. One does not need to be a betting man. His motion to participate in oral argument will be denied.

[Euler]

 

Neal Goldfarb, a lawyer at Georgetown, has submitted a request to argue for NYC. He wants time beyond that allocated to NYC to argue that the Heller interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect.

 

There is a boatload of amicus briefs being filed in support of NYC. Not only do they want this case to go NYC's way, they want to overturn Heller and McDonald, which is something even NYC's own briefs didn't try to argue.

Then we should be responding with briefs of our own arguing that ANY licencing scheme at all is unconstitutional for an enumerated right. Broaden the scope of the original argument to eliminate the need for any foid or ccl nationwide.

 

 

We don't wanna turn that case into a bigger circus than it already is. And we might end up with something that we really do not like if we push our luck. Remember we still have Roberts. That said, any motions to intervene, argue on behalf of, or whatever other garbage they try, should be denied. None of this nonsense like what happened in Peruta. The respondent is not some random lawyer who doesn't like guns. The respondent is the City of New York. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

The Heller/McDonald interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms" is not central to this case. This is a case about transport. Attempts to re-litigate Heller and McDonald are noise.

[domin8]

 

Neal Goldfarb, a lawyer at Georgetown, has submitted a request to argue for NYC. He wants time beyond that allocated to NYC to argue that the Heller interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect.

There is a boatload of amicus briefs being filed in support of NYC. Not only do they want this case to go NYC's way, they want to overturn Heller and McDonald, which is something even NYC's own briefs didn't try to argue.

 

 

His first Amicus brief was rejected. Today he filed a second Amicus brief. One does not need to be a betting man. His motion to participate in oral argument will be denied.

It's here even qualified to argue cases in front of SCOTUS? If so, he'd know Heller and McDonald are settled law, and do not pertain to this case.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[skinnyb82]

Anyone is as long as they've paid $100 for admission to the bar. Or whatever it costs now. It doesn't mean he should be allowed to intervene on behalf of a municipal respondent and contradict the party's filed briefs.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Euler]

Washington Post

New York eased gun law hopeful Supreme Court would drop Second Amendment case - but that hasn't happened yet

...

The court has told both sides to continue filing briefs and that it will consider New York's request to dismiss the case on Oct. 1, a week before the new term begins.

 

Any Supreme Court decision on guns will be magnified in a presidential election year and with the backdrop of the mass shootings that have plagued the country. Whether the recent attacks in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, will affect the justices' decision is anyone's guess, experts say.

 

"They're human beings and this can't help but color a little bit how they see this case," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively about Second Amendment litigation.

 

On how to decide when a case is moot, he said, "I think the Supreme Court has enough wiggle room to go in either direction."

 

The New York restrictions were unique - no other jurisdiction has such strict rules on transporting a weapon. But the case is significant because it marked the first accepted challenge since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to gun ownership in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller and ruled two years later that the Second Amendment governed state and local gun laws as well as those adopted by the federal government.

 

Since then, the court has declined to hear challenges to all manner of gun-control measures, such as bans on certain military-style weapons and state restrictions that make it extremely difficult to obtain a permit to carry a gun outside the home.

...

New York's approach to get rid of the case is similar to what some gun-control advocates had hoped the city of Washington would have done with its restrictive handgun policy that led to the Heller decision. The District's mayor at the time, Adrian Fenty, decided to press ahead after the D.C. Circuit ruled against the city, resulting with the Supreme Court finding an individual right to gun ownership for protection in one's home.

 

The gun violence reform movement thought D.C. should amend the law rather than take it to the Supreme Court, Winkler said. "The result was disastrous for them," he said.

...