Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#91 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 02 May 2019 - 03:19 AM

Now we wait for Mance v. Barr, Pena v. Horan, Rogers v. Grewal, and Gould v. Moran.  SCOTUS is on vacation.  The justices return for a private conference on Thursday, May 9th. They have granted cert petitions after their private conferences but we typically don't know if a cert petition has been granted, denied, rescheduled, or relisted until the Orders List is released, typically the following Monday unless that Monday is a Court holiday.

 

It is likely we will not hear anything about the two "carry" cases (Rogers and Gould) until the justices have had a couple of weeks to review the brief in opposition filed in Gould which is due on May 6th.  Gould did not file a motion for an extension of time (motions are due 10 days before the due date).  I do not know the deadline for file a waiver to respond but assuming that a brief in opposition is filed instead of a waiver then that would make the case ready for the June 13th private conference which is two weeks before the end of the current term.  



#92 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,411 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 08 May 2019 - 06:27 AM

The opening brief has been filed. Here's the link:

https://www.supremec...oners FINAL.pdf
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#93 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,182 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:48 AM

This case and a well written opinion has the ability to re-shape and liberate the 2nd nationwide, let's hope that the SCOTUS doesn't whiff it!


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

#94 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,411 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 08 May 2019 - 03:10 PM

This case and a well written opinion has the ability to re-shape and liberate the 2nd nationwide, let's hope that the SCOTUS doesn't whiff it!


From a layperson's perspective it appears strong. Let's hope it all works out for the good!
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#95 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,182 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 08 May 2019 - 03:34 PM

 

This case and a well written opinion has the ability to re-shape and liberate the 2nd nationwide, let's hope that the SCOTUS doesn't whiff it!


From a layperson's perspective it appears strong. Let's hope it all works out for the good!

 

 

I have little doubt the NY law won't withstand the current SCOTUS case, but how broad the impact will be nationwide will depend solely on the wording of the opinion, lets hope they toss in a zinger like 'strict scrutiny' that alone will allow a vast majority of anti-gun laws to fall.

 

I do feel it's a very solid case, probalby could not ask for a better one right now as a foot in the door.


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

#96 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 08 May 2019 - 04:36 PM

... lets hope they toss in a zinger like 'strict scrutiny' that alone will allow a vast majority of anti-gun laws to fall.
...


If the only thing necessary to suspend a constitutionally protected civil liberty is a good reason, then the constitutional protection afforded that civil liberty is meaningless.

Those are Scalia's words, although I may not have gotten them all exactly. It's his argument to require strict scrutiny for any law that affects the Bill of Rights, because you need only a good reason to withstand intermediate scrutiny (and any reason at all, even one that isn't good, to withstand rational basis).
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.


#97 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:34 PM

Folks seem to be ignorant of the fact that the levels of scrutiny were invented to uphold unconstitutional laws.  They are judicial interest balancing frameworks which both Heller and McDonald rejected.  If SCOTUS says that judges must apply strict scrutiny in a future case then it will not be judges like Justice Kavanaugh deciding whether or not the challenged law passes strict scrutiny, it will be Judges like your very own Easterbrook who held that "feelings" are sufficient to uphold gun bans based on heightened scrutiny.  We have had a decade of courts watering down intermediate scrutiny to less than rational basis review.  If SCOTUS choses strict scrutiny over "Text, history and tradition" then we will see the inferior courts water down strict scrutiny to less than rational basis review.

 

Keep this in mind, when a law is upheld under any of the tiers of scrutiny that does not mean that the law does not violate the Constitution.  It means that in the opinion of the courts the violation of the right is justifiable.

 

The text, history and tradition test does not allow this.

 

If you are wondering why the mouthpieces of the so-called gun-rights groups are advocating strict scrutiny it is because the text, history and tradition test means there is no right to concealed carry, no Second Amendment right for convicted felons (at least not for the historical common law felonies), and no Second Amendment right for the mentally ill.  They think strict scrutiny will erase that part of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

 

It won't.

 

https://youtu.be/hmrfyYBdA-E

 



#98 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,511 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 16 May 2019 - 03:52 AM

Here is the amicus brief filed by Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalitions, and the Calguns Foundation in support of the petitioners on May, 14th 2019.

Take a read. What do you think?

Attached File  2019-5-14-fpc-fpf-cgf-nysrpa-merits-brief.pdf   192.41KB   17 downloads
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#99 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 16 May 2019 - 06:12 AM

The amici brief makes essentially three points.

1. The right to keep and bear arms is not somehow of lesser importance than other, possibly socially favored, rights.

2. Whether tiered scrutiny is applied to this case or text/history/tradition is applied, either is enough to show that the lower courts' upholding of the NYC statute limiting transport of firearms fails the respective test.

The text/history/tradition standard is that "shall not be infringed" is a constitutional prohibition on government power against any law that restricts the right to keep and bear arms. As such, virtually no firearm law would be constitutional, including NYC's prohibition of transport of firearms.

The tiered scrutiny levels are about making rational laws that achieve their stated goals and, as applied to inalienable rights, constitutionally protected civil liberties are not an unlimited license to commit crime. Since there is no basis to establish that prohibiting legal firearm owners from transporting their firearms prevents them from committing any crime, the prohibition of transport is an unconstitutional infringement.

3. The brief provides several examples, including this case, of how other courts have purported to apply heightened scrutiny to second amendment cases, but the arguments supposedly substantiating heightened scrutiny have been a pretense for no such thing. It then provides examples for how heightened scrutiny should be applied, drawing similarity to several first amendment cases. It urges the court to provide stronger guidance to lower courts on how to apply stricter scrutiny to second amendment cases.

Personally, I think it's a good brief. The points it makes fulfill the dual purpose of resolving the case at hand as well as casting it in a broader context that makes it worth the court's time and effort. Urging the court to provide stronger guidance to lower courts is much needed, but I suspect a favorable decision in this case is still unlikely to be a detailed instructional example of how other courts should better decide second amendment cases. I also think the brief loses some steam bouncing between advocating strict scrutiny and at least intermediate scrutiny.

I also think NYC is going to lose. That NYC proposed amending its laws to forestall an unfavorable judgment makes me believe that NYC thinks it's going to lose, too. Depending how and to what extent the court shreds NYC's firearm permitting regime, it could have implications for spawning challenges to other firearm permits across the country.
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.


#100 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,786 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted Yesterday, 12:14 AM

Here is the amicus brief filed by Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalitions, and the Calguns Foundation in support of the petitioners on May, 14th 2019.

Take a read. What do you think?

attachicon.gif2019-5-14-fpc-fpf-cgf-nysrpa-merits-brief.pdf

 

That's extremely well written and justified, but in the end it is ridiculous to the extreme to have to explain the unambiguous nature of what the Constitution actually means on both this point and every other Right protected—NOT granted—by it:

 

No government unit or agent thereof has ANY right to infringe on the People's rights in ANY presumptively lawful activity, whatsoever. The state or its agents ONLY have the right to restrict the rights or punish a member of the People if that particular individual commits an act that interferes with the rights of other people, or breaks a law that is Constitutionally supported in every way. This is not up to interpretation or Judicial oversight.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#101 press1280

    Member

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

Posted Yesterday, 11:31 AM

NYC will lose. Even the few amicus briefs that argue for watered down intermediate scrutiny are not defending the law itself.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users