Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

 

https://youtu.be/Uok_kvE8tRE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So at this point no news is good news? Surely they wouldn't wait until June if they were going to rule it moot and we'd hear that sooner than later?

At this point, no news is no news, and nothing else.

Here is a link to a well-written article on mootness and the NYSRPA v. NYC oral argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Chief Justice Roberts led the charge? Ahem...

 

Imho, if the new law they enacted to undermine the lawsuit still infringes on our 2A rights, which it does, they have an obligation to right this wrong. This business about allowing the state to reset and kick the can, forcing a new lawsuit to determine the constitutionality of the new law is crazy. This entire logic of allowing government to infringe on Constitutional Rights, with clearly bad and onerous laws, for years and decades as it works it's way through the courts is a complete and utter travesty. Our forefathers never anticipated a court system that allowed cases to stall for a decade or more, while the harm continues. I'm sure they also didn't anticipate murders going through years, and years through countless appeals and millions of dollars of tax payers money for smoking gun cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at this point no news is good news? Surely they wouldn't wait until June if they were going to rule it moot and we'd hear that sooner than later?

I'd agree with this. I doubt they hold a mootness ruling until June. A wild guess on my part (if they rule it's moot and there's dissents) might be it comes in February or March.

In the meantime I don't expect any of the held cases to do anything until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

A retired anti-2A judge bemoans the upcoming decision at AlterNet.

The Supreme Court is poised to extend gun rights at the worst possible time

April 8, 2020

 

...

In December's oral arguments, the city again asked the court to moot the case. The city made no attempt to defend the transportation ban.

 

Unfortunately, given the city's capitulation and the Supreme Court's right-wing orientation, the only real remaining question is the scope of the NRA's inevitable victory. Even if the court reconsiders the city's request and enters a dismissal order, the NRA will walk away with a significant win, having forced the city to rescind one of the most stringent gun-control laws in the country. On the other hand, a decision on the merits on constitutional grounds in the NRA's favor would reward the organization with an even bigger triumph, endangering gun-control laws everywhere.

 

A nation awash in firearms in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic awaits the court's decision, which is expected by the end of June.

... This is not an NRA case. The NRA did file an amicus brief, but so did everybody else on the planet, it seems. The NYSRPA did this one solo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have found interesting is the assertion that NRA is the bad guy; it puts an easily targettable face on the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, in a conversation with an anti-2nd Amendment person if they make the point that it is the NRA pushing all this gun stuff, I make the point that the 2nd Amendment has little to do with the NRA. The 2nd Amendment is a God given right for Americans to protect ourselves, hunt, act as a check on the government at all levels, etc. As far as I am concerned I do not need the NRA at all for the 2nd Amendment, although I do support them. There is usually a glazing of the anti-2nd Amendment person's eyes when presented this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They ruled the case MOOT.

 

 

petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule is moot and that petitioners’ new claims should be addressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand.

 

But said they should grant cert and handle these issues in another pending case:

 

some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

 

Full Opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was somewhat expected. The question now is what will happen to the several 2nd amendment cert petitions they've been holding for the last year. Now that NYSRPA is done, we'll finally get to see what SCOTUS has in mind those cases.

 

Just reading the NYSRPA opinion it's easy to see that Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh want to hear another 2A case, and it only takes 4 votes to grant cert....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They ruled the case MOOT.

 

 

petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule is moot and that petitioners’ new claims should be addressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand.

 

But said they should grant cert and handle these issues in another pending case:

 

some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

 

Full Opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

"some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

"

 

THAT is far more important, for us all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, unless one of the other cases that have been held pending this decision is ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, this was pretty much a wash that forced New York to make changes only to avoid a decision on Constitutional grounds because they knew their law wouldn't fly.

 

Thus, by doing so, they were allowed to commit malfeasance and violate the civil rights of citizens without any real penalty.

 

This is a real Reginald J. Shatbox development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading the decision as they did not dismiss it, rather they remanded it to the lower court to look at the case again in light of the changes to the laws with a warning from 4 justices that they are not looking at Heller the right way. This very case could be back before the court.

It looks like it's back to the appeals court but only to address any damages issue. The case as it relates to the 2A seems to be over.

All other held 2A cases are heading back to conference this Friday......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. At least SCOTUS has decided to move quickly to vote on which other 2A case they would rather have.

 

Any predictions on which of these they may choose Friday? These are all on their calendar for that day.

Monday would be the day they announce the result.

 

Mance v. Barr
Pena v. Horan
Rogers v. Grewal
Gould v. Lipson
Ciolek v. New Jersey
Cheeseman v. Polillo
Worman v. Healey
Malpasso v. Pallozzi
Culp v. Raoul
Wilson v. Cook County
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm reading the decision as they did not dismiss it, rather they remanded it to the lower court to look at the case again in light of the changes to the laws with a warning from 4 justices that they are not looking at Heller the right way. This very case could be back before the court.

 

It looks like it's back to the appeals court but only to address any damages issue. The case as it relates to the 2A seems to be over.

All other held 2A cases are heading back to conference this Friday......

I read to address additional claims as well as damages because they have not resolved all of the original infringement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting. At least SCOTUS has decided to move quickly to vote on which other 2A case they would rather have.

 

Any predictions on which of these they may choose Friday? These are all on their calendar for that day.

Monday would be the day they announce the result.

 

Mance v. Barr
Pena v. Horan
Rogers v. Grewal
Gould v. Lipson
Ciolek v. New Jersey
Cheeseman v. Polillo
Worman v. Healey
Malpasso v. Pallozzi
Culp v. Raoul
Wilson v. Cook County

 

Normal practice would be to take a may-issue permit case since there's a clear circuit split.

 

But since they initially took this case (no split) I'm looking more to low hanging fruit and a law that even the most ardent antis will have a hard time defending and no one will miss. My vote is Pena v. Horan. I think it may take a few conferences though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading the decision as they did not dismiss it, rather they remanded it to the lower court to look at the case again in light of the changes to the laws with a warning from 4 justices that they are not looking at Heller the right way. This very case could be back before the court.

 

That is what I'm seeing as well, even without a 'win' ruling the Supreme court just put the lower courts on notice that they best stop ignoring Heller as they very well are about to send a stronger message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm reading the decision as they did not dismiss it, rather they remanded it to the lower court to look at the case again in light of the changes to the laws with a warning from 4 justices that they are not looking at Heller the right way. This very case could be back before the court.

 

the Supreme court just put the lower courts on notice that they best stop ignoring Heller as they very well are about to send a stronger message.

 

A back handed way of affirming Shepard/Moore v Madigan, since Posner obviously DID NOT ignore Heller in his decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does this mean what I think it does . . .

 

New Jersey’s law cannot be squared with the text, history, or tradition of the Second Amendment, and this case provides an ideal vehicle for this Court to develop its Second Amendment law and correct the mistaken approach of the Third Circuit and other courts in applying watered-down scrutiny and effectively rendering the Second Amendment a homebound right.

 

. . . because if it does, it looks like anti-civil-rights clowns might be getting set to be taken out to the forest preserves and made to duck-walk pantsless while someone with wingtips follows along behind them kicking them up where the sun don't shine.

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...