Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
239 replies to this topic

#211 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,488 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 19 November 2019 - 10:55 AM

Not quite.

ScotusBlog

... the federal government filed a short brief in which it agreed with the challengers that the case is not moot. The government reasoned that there is still a live controversy because the challengers could seek money damages from the city, but it rejected the challengers' contention that the case is not moot because the rules remain problematic even after the city's changes. The challengers' objections to the new rules "would establish a new controversy regarding those provisions," the government acknowledged, but they "do not establish a live controversy regarding the City's original transport ban." The state and the association will file their responses by Wednesday, November 20.
...


Personally, I'm on board with a brief the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty filed a while ago in support of neither party, but opposed to mootness. If NYC (a large, powerful, well-funded organization) is allowed to play a shell game with restrictions on individual liberties, it invites governments everywhere to abuse their authority over any individual anywhere.

 

It seems that these days, governments don't need an invitation ...



#212 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,119 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 20 November 2019 - 02:29 PM

...
Personally, I'm on board with a brief the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty filed a while ago in support of neither party, but opposed to mootness. If NYC (a large, powerful, well-funded organization) is allowed to play a shell game with restrictions on individual liberties, it invites governments everywhere to abuse their authority over any individual anywhere.


It seems that these days, governments don't need an invitation ...


Maybe not, but at least the courts aren't yet issuing such invitations as a matter of course.
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.


#213 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,119 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 20 November 2019 - 02:37 PM

NYSRPA and NYC have filed letters in response to the DOJ's.

Not surprisingly, NYSRPA agrees that they could file a monetary damage claim in the future, but they disagree that no ruling is required on the previous transport ban.

Also not surprisingly, NYC disagrees that NYSRPA could ever file a future monetary damage claim as part of the current case, since they have not done so already, but agrees that the case is otherwise moot, as well.

I think it would be a bad move on NYSRPA's part to append a damage claim to this case. This case should be all about the constitutional issue and nothing else. It was originally the DOJ that brought up the issue of money. I'd hate to see the oral arguments get bogged down in debates over monetary damages.

Edited by Euler, 20 November 2019 - 02:48 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.


#214 CILhunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 21 November 2019 - 06:50 AM

NYSRPA and NYC have filed letters in response to the DOJ's.

Not surprisingly, NYSRPA agrees that they could file a monetary damage claim in the future, but they disagree that no ruling is required on the previous transport ban.

Also not surprisingly, NYC disagrees that NYSRPA could ever file a future monetary damage claim as part of the current case, since they have not done so already, but agrees that the case is otherwise moot, as well.

I think it would be a bad move on NYSRPA's part to append a damage claim to this case. This case should be all about the constitutional issue and nothing else. It was originally the DOJ that brought up the issue of money. I'd hate to see the oral arguments get bogged down in debates over monetary damages.

 

It was probably a tactical error not to ask for $ in the first place. Monetary damages are never mooted.



#215 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 22 November 2019 - 09:49 PM

If asking for "monetary damages", shouldn't the least that they ask for is compensation for their legal expenses?


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#216 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,938 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 29 November 2019 - 09:30 PM

So, oral arguments are on Monday. I know the transcripts will be published at the end of the day - and the audio at the end of the week. I think they are the only options - unless anyone knows of any other sources...

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#217 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,665 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:57 AM

In 2 minutes the hearing begins!
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#218 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,733 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 02 December 2019 - 10:54 AM

Is there any play by play write up as this happens?

#219 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 5,401 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 02 December 2019 - 11:29 AM

https://twitter.com/...4194033664?s=09
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#220 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 13,786 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 02 December 2019 - 11:57 AM

 

After an hour of oral arguments, seemed possible (although not certain) that #SCOTUS will dismiss NYC 2nd Amendment case as moot after city changed its rule. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not speak, but Chief Justice John Roberts seemed like he could be a 5th vote for moot.

8:16 AM - 2 Dec 2019

 

 

https://www.facebook...4870759801/?t=2


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#221 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,467 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:10 PM

https://www.supremec...all_12-2-19.pdf

 

Those who spoke for each side today.

 

Waiting for audio to be posted.

https://www.supremec...ment_audio/2019


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#222 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,488 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:17 PM

Yes, encourage Dem cities and states to stomp all over their residents' constitutional rights by enacting illegal laws and enforcing them until a lawsuit eventually reaches the steps of the SCOTUS. Make a ruling to stop this Dem scumbaggery!!

#223 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,467 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:21 PM

I will be away from the net this afternoon, if someone sees the audio pop up, please post the link.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#224 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,387 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 02 December 2019 - 01:01 PM

Hope all goes our way.

#225 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,665 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 01:11 PM

SCOTUSblog summary of today's proceeding: https://www.scotusbl...-city-gun-rule/
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#226 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 02 December 2019 - 01:55 PM

I'm not getting it.  If the SCOTUS declined to allow the case to be dropped over mootness this summer, and confirmed the case to proceed to arguments today, why is mootness coming up again? Why is it more and less moot since summer?  Clearly this is going to go straight along party lines, but Roberts better not let us down, again.



#227 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,488 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 02 December 2019 - 02:03 PM

You mean "I'll call a fine a tax to save Obamacare" Roberts?

#228 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,119 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 02 December 2019 - 02:50 PM

I'm not getting it.  If the SCOTUS declined to allow the case to be dropped over mootness this summer, and confirmed the case to proceed to arguments today, why is mootness coming up again? Why is it more and less moot since summer?  Clearly this is going to go straight along party lines, but Roberts better not let us down, again.


Because there were no oral arguments on the motion for mootness over the summer. The SC declined to dismiss the case based on briefs alone.
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.


#229 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,665 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 03:10 PM

I don't see how it's moot, since the circuit court decision is still binding case law unless overturned by SCOTUS. But I'm not a lawyer.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#230 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,665 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 03:43 PM

Here's a link to today's transcript: https://www.supremec...18-280_m64o.pdf
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#231 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,387 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 04 December 2019 - 08:39 AM

So it sounds like they my rule it moot or is there a case?

Edited by colt-45, 04 December 2019 - 08:40 AM.


#232 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 04 December 2019 - 08:56 AM

Well, after reading that transcript, it's a tough call.  It is pretty clear that there are two very distinct views on the merits.  I think it's going to come down to, are we going to keep the 5th Conservative Judge on our side?  Roberts.



#233 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2019 - 01:53 PM

I don't see how it's moot, since the circuit court decision is still binding case law unless overturned by SCOTUS. But I'm not a lawyer.

If it's mooted a Musingwear order is given by SCOTUS which will vacate all lower court opinions on the matter.



#234 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2019 - 01:55 PM

Well, after reading that transcript, it's a tough call.  It is pretty clear that there are two very distinct views on the merits.  I think it's going to come down to, are we going to keep the 5th Conservative Judge on our side?  Roberts.

Likely yes, he'll be the deciding vote. It was pretty clear that the old law had no support of being constitutional  from either the lefties on the court or the city's attorney.



#235 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2019 - 02:00 PM

 

NYSRPA and NYC have filed letters in response to the DOJ's.

Not surprisingly, NYSRPA agrees that they could file a monetary damage claim in the future, but they disagree that no ruling is required on the previous transport ban.

Also not surprisingly, NYC disagrees that NYSRPA could ever file a future monetary damage claim as part of the current case, since they have not done so already, but agrees that the case is otherwise moot, as well.

I think it would be a bad move on NYSRPA's part to append a damage claim to this case. This case should be all about the constitutional issue and nothing else. It was originally the DOJ that brought up the issue of money. I'd hate to see the oral arguments get bogged down in debates over monetary damages.

 

It was probably a tactical error not to ask for $ in the first place. Monetary damages are never mooted.

 

I also see them typically ask that an order is made by the court declaring the statute in question unconstitutional. No way around that one.



#236 8x57

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 04 December 2019 - 09:35 PM

All these media outlets speculating that SCOTUS will moot the case. However, after reading the transcripts, all that discussion was from the 4 liberal justices. Gorsuch and Alito were clearly in favor of ruling on the merits and wanted to hear the petitioners thoughts on standard of review and "text, history, and tradition". It's obvious from past opinions that Kavanaugh and Thomas are right there with them. Roberts didn't say much, asking a minor technicality follow up on a mootness question. It was hard to get a read on his position.

I could see this going either way. Either Roberts was purposefully being hard to read and we're going to get the text history tradition opinion written by Thomas that we're all hoping for or Roberts is going to decide he can avoid picking sides and avoid further controversy and "heal the Court" by going with the liberals to call it moot. That really doesn't make sense though because SCOTUS went out of their way to grant cert on this one (it's not like Obamacare or a controversial whitehouse policy that is unavoidable). Thomas, among others, would be livid to watch Roberts go this far with it and then decide to abandon ship. Then again they don't call him John Benedict Arnold Roberts for nothing....

#237 RyanC

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 34 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 19

Posted 04 December 2019 - 10:11 PM

Didn't Easy-E call Ice Cube Benedict Arnold or was it Dr. Dre?...sounds like someone (Bloomberg) is whispering in some of the judges ears. Conversation about mootness being the way. Can't loosen grip on gun laws. It's for the children..

#238 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 05 December 2019 - 01:38 AM

That really doesn't make sense though because SCOTUS went out of their way to grant cert on this one

 

That is still my opinion as well.  The blunt reality is that many lower courts are simply ignoring Heller/McDonald and I still believe this case was granted cert so the SCOTUS could white glove those lower courts and put them on notice that it's a right that they can no longer deny with judicial reviews bellow those of other enumerated and even non-enumerated civil rights.  The truth is the SCOTUS wants the lower courts to do the grunt work, they really only want to give instructions and guidance to the lower courts, but when the lower courts choose to ignore that guidance and instruction, it's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS lays down the law in very clear context.


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

#239 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 06 December 2019 - 12:09 PM

Audio of orals now posted:

https://www.supremec...dio/2019/18-280

 

enjoy the moot arguments.


Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#240 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 08 December 2019 - 10:57 PM

Audio and scrolling video of the transcript highlighted in yellow in synch with the audio thanks to Project Oyez!

 

https://youtu.be/Uok_kvE8tRE


Concealed carry is of no use to me because I don't carry a purse or wear a dress, and I'm not into secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

 

"Should the Open Carry movement become successful it will result in the greatest dissolution of government power since the collapse of the Soviet Union." - Charles Nichols
 
"If a monkey looks into a book, a sage cannot look out." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
 
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas." - Charles Baudelaire 
 
"God doesn't want me and the devil isn't finished with me." - Raymond Reddington
 
"When you lift the last veil, you might discover that your bride is an ignorant, illiterate child living in a world of fear and superstition." - Charles Nichols.* 
 
* I posted this on my Facebook page on May 20, 2011.  Unable to find its origin, I claim to be its creator.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users