Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

It really makes you wonder how the Justices will reflect on the fact that NY defended their law until it reached the Supreme Court then all the sudden admit it was unconstitutional and desire it mooted because they tweaked it to what they deem as constitutional today, it's stupid easy to argue that their new law is just as unconstitutional and the plaintiff is still denied their right and not whole, not ot mension there is no protections to stop NY from going right back to the old law or even a more restrictive one tomorrow, without the Court further defining the right in this case.

 

After all these years of denying 2nd cases, I can't see the Supreme Court dropping this one because NY decides to be too clever by half games, IMO the Court took this case because they want to further define the 2nd, I believe they will proceed with that goal regardless of NY's antics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... then all the sudden admit it was unconstitutional ...

They haven't admitted it was unconstitutional. They just passed laws to grant the plaintiff's relief. Without the court rendering a judgment, it would imply that it is within the power of states and municipalities to impose firearm restrictions or prohibitions as they please.

 

I have to wonder if the court would take a dim view of the defendant's proclaimed intent not to defend its case. Isn't it the duty of counsels to argue their cases vigorously, even if they don't believe them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... then all the sudden admit it was unconstitutional ...

They haven't admitted it was unconstitutional. They just passed laws to grant the plaintiff's relief.

 

 

IMO, it's really getting into symantics at this point, if the previous law didn't infringe there it no relief to be given, this isn't a civil case where a no fault settlement is being negotiated between parties, the fact that NY now argues relief is given and the plantiff is whole because they modified the law certainly implies strongly (a given in laymens terms) that there was an early infringement that is now remedied. This is a classic too clever by half move.

 

Of course in a legal aspect these symantics and implications don't make for law or legal precedent and that is what is really needed at the end of the day to stop NY from pulling a 180 if the case was dismissed putting the plantiff right back at the start.

 

But, hey if NY is not going to defend themselves and instead will focus on amping up their too clever by half symantics and half witted technicalities to get the case mooted instead, that is IMO huge for our side as I really don't see the current Supreme Court having much tolerance for the game NY is playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no. They do not get to pull a Chicago and try to moot the case. This time, before arguments. Chicago tried afterward in McDonald and that didn't fly.

 

Should be denied under public interest doctrine. Appellants/petitioners can easily show that they face further threat from prosecution because, well, look at how NYC changes stuff so quickly. They can just change it back, make everyone re-litigate. Nope nope nope Comrade de Blasio, you will not moot this case.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately the city and now the state have changed the law so it looks like the city cannot unilaterally change the law back even if they want to.

I think this case is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the city and now the state have changed the law so it looks like the city cannot unilaterally change the law back even if they want to.

I think this case is over.

 

 

There is a very heavy burden on then City to prove the case should be mooted, that burden is even higher now that the case has been pushed up to the Supreme Court level, the fact that the City/State changed the law doesn't really rise to the level needed for mooting because with a hot button issue like gun control/rights in a state/city that is notorious for passing restrictive gun control laws, there is a very likely chance that the 'infringement' could return or recur without a court ruling in this case, this opinion is backed up by court precedent in Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw and United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Association to name a few, there are several other cases that also back this up like City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle that made it clear that if there is no real barrier (a court ruling) in place to stop the infringment from being put back in place the case won't be mooted. Sure the fact that the state also changed the law helps the city (and was obviously intentional) but only marginally when you consider the sway and number of votes a city the size of NY has in the state legislature the barrier to go right back to the old way becomes a very small barrier in this instance, proven in part by how easy it was for the city to get the state to change the law so easily to help the very same case currenty in front of the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois appellate court refused to moot an action filed against Trame in re the constitutionality of suspending gun rights of those subject to an ex parte order of protection. This was after plaintiff had obtained relief, had his FOID reinstated, guns returned, but faced the prospect of further harassment, prosecution, because his ex-wife was filing for OPs and getting his FOID suspended. That's one example of denying a motion to dismiss as moot. Not voluntary cessation but "capable of repetition yet evading review."

 

PLENTY of case law here. The constitutional issue is of substantial public interest and one of the exceptions to mootness is "voluntary cessation" doctrine. In other words, just because "they" stopped it doesn't mean "they" can't wait it out, then change the law again. State is Dem controlled. They could simply wait until SCOTUS chucks as moot, reinstate the unconstitutional stuff, and force petitioner(s) to start over.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Supreme Court website, the status of the letter which NYC sent last week has been updated to "not accepted for filing."

 

NYSRPA sent a letter in response to that letter. Its status is also "not accepted for filing."

[EDIT: Here's the NYSRPA letter.]

 

I think that means the Supreme Court considers arguments for and against mooting to be irrelevant and case will proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next step in order is for both sides to file their final briefs, since I don't think there will be any more amicus briefs.

 

NYC already filed a motion to dismiss as moot and got denied. Its letter was neither a brief nor a motion. NYSRPA argued in their letter that NYC can decline to defend its (now obsolete) law in the final brief, but anything else before then (i.e., NYC's letter) is premature.

 

However you want to look at it, the letters were out of order. NYSRPA probably just tried to file a letter in case the Court decided to take the NYC letter seriously. The Court didn't take it at all, so both letters have been stricken from the proceedings (even though they're still available for download if you saved the links).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

New York City filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" followed by a request for extension for their Merits brief. NYSRPA has responded to the request for extension.

To give their motion some context, briefs are due August 5, and the SC is currently "on break" between terms. ("On break" just means they aren't in conference or hearing cases. It doesn't mean they're all out fishing.) NYC wants the due date extended to September 30. August 5 was already an extension. May 7 was the original due date.

 

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.

 

 

NY knows the case is a dead goose and knows they are about to likely change the 2nd landscape nationwide in a direction they don't favor, I hope the SC doesn't let NY drag it out too much longer and cracks the whip, after all it's a civil rights issue and should be prioritized!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.

I was wrong. They got denied today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.

I was wrong. They got denied today.

 

 

Someone's in the hot seat this weekend and coming week!

 

I'm hoping my speculation that the SC took up this case to white glove the lower courts and press home that the 2nd is a right that mandates the same degree of scrutinty in regards to potential infringmenets as other rights, we can hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade de Blasio ought to be looking for new counsel to rep NYC as counsel of record Richard P. Dearing seems to be VERY reluctant to litigate this in SCOTUS and is doing everything he possibly can to try to get out of it. Maybe retain a litigator such as Paul Clement oh wait NYSPRA retained him heh.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade de Blasio ought to be looking for new counsel to rep NYC as counsel of record Richard P. Dearing seems to be VERY reluctant to litigate this in SCOTUS and is doing everything he possibly can to try to get out of it. Maybe retain a litigator such as Paul Clement oh wait NYSPRA retained him heh. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Dearing isn't retained. He's a city employee. NYC has one of the largest legal departments in the country, larger than even most large private law firms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the New York City lawyer is doing the best he can to limit the damage with the facts and pile of crap that he was dealt by the city counsel and mayor. Hard to believe that he would be pro-gun when he is in the DeBlasio administration but he did clerk for a Bush appointed District Court judge - Lee Rosenthal. Dearing is a four-time winner of the National Association of Attorneys General “Best Brief” Award for excellence in brief writing to the U.S. Supreme Court, including one awarded after arriving at the Law Department. Dearing was an associate at Vinson & Elkins and has a J.D. from Yale Law School.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYSRPA has filed a response to NYC's suggestion that the case is moot. They make a few points why it is not moot.
  • NYC and NY State changing the law does not address whether the previous law was constitutional.
  • NYC has not taken a position that the previous law was unconstitutional.
  • NYC previously defended the law, asserting that it was constitutional, only arguing mootness when it became apparent that the SC might not rule in its favor.
  • Although the new law is less restrictive than previous law, it still restricts where lawful owners residing in NYC may transport their firearms, including allowing the police commissioner to designate places arbitrarily as either allowed or not allowed.
  • The new law still prohibits lawful owners who to not reside in NYC to transport their firearms into or through the city for any purpose.
This response is not required of NYSRPA at this time. I suspect it has filed the response so that NYC can attempt to address the points in its brief (which is due Monday), enabling the SC to rule conclusively on all arguments and points in the case. NYSRPA's original brief (filed May 7) could not address mootness, since NYC didn't even suggest mootness until July 3, which was also after all the amicus briefs were filed. The SC could still reject the response as out of order, because it's not actually a response to anything the court has accepted from NYC. I have to wonder whether the court might issue some rulings about parties attempting to subvert court procedures to squabble outside of accepted filings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYSRPA has filed a response to NYC's suggestion that the case is moot. They make a few points why it is not moot.

  • NYC and NY State changing the law does not address whether the previous law was constitutional.
  • NYC has not taken a position that the previous law was unconstitutional.
  • NYC previously defended the law, asserting that it was constitutional, only arguing mootness when it became apparent that the SC might not rule in its favor.
  • Although the new law is less restrictive than previous law, it still restricts where lawful owners residing in NYC may transport their firearms, including allowing the police commissioner to designate places arbitrarily as either allowed or not allowed.
  • The new law still prohibits lawful owners who to not reside in NYC to transport their firearms into or through the city for any purpose.
This response is not required of NYSRPA at this time. I suspect it has filed the response so that NYC can attempt to address the points in its brief (which is due Monday), enabling the SC to rule conclusively on all arguments and points in the case. NYSRPA's original brief (filed May 7) could not address mootness, since NYC didn't even suggest mootness until July 3, which was also after all the amicus briefs were filed. The SC could still reject the response as out of order, because it's not actually a response to anything the court has accepted from NYC. I have to wonder whether the court might issue some rulings about parties attempting to subvert court procedures to squabble outside of accepted filings.

 

 

Surely there must be some punitive mechanism to penalize such willfully idiotic and manipulative attempts to subvert the judicial process. It should be that if a party attempts to do what NYC is doing, the court should summarily rule in permanent and irreversible favor entirely for the plaintiff, since it is blatantly transparent that NYC knows that its law is unconstitutional and unallowable, and they are sh!t-weaselingly attempting to pull one over on the court to prevent a ruling that they do not favor, rather than approaching the process fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That process is called sanctions. When this gets remanded back to the district court, plaintiffs should move for Rule 11 sanctions against NYC and its counsel for frivolous pleadings. Technically any frivolous pleading is sanctionable but the penalty is reserved for the most egregious offenders. I've seen a copyright troll (see John Steele, currently serving time in federal prison) and (IIRC) the client get hit with a quarter million in sanctions for pulling this EXACT kind of crap. Getting "found out" then trying to get the case dismissed because they got caught and are trying to slink away.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The new law still prohibits lawful owners who to not reside in NYC to transport their firearms into or through the city for any purpose.
There was a news article on this a few months ago. I forget where I saw it. People traveling through JFK and La Guardia were getting arrested when they disclosed they were traveling with firearms when checking into their flights. For example, say I wanted to travel home to Salt Lake City while I was living in Philadelphia. Jet Blue has a smoking good deal for a nonstop from JFK to SLC. Use to be $99 each way. Last I saw it was $129 each way. It could be more now, but still a great deal. Had I done this and declared my firearms at check-in I would've never made it past the check-in process because I would've left the airport in handcuffs due to not having the NYC permit required for possessing firearms, which you can't get as a nonresident (just like a FOID card).Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That process is called sanctions. When this gets remanded back to the district court, plaintiffs should move for Rule 11 sanctions against NYC and its counsel for frivolous pleadings. Technically any frivolous pleading is sanctionable but the penalty is reserved for the most egregious offenders. I've seen a copyright troll (see John Steele, currently serving time in federal prison) and (IIRC) the client get hit with a quarter million in sanctions for pulling this EXACT kind of crap. Getting "found out" then trying to get the case dismissed because they got caught and are trying to slink away. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

As long as qualified immunity protects those involved and it's tax dollars paying the sanctions, nothing will change, the only way I see to prevent this is to make removing qualified immunity from those involved easier so that it hits those involved personally and directly when that happens, do that and you can bet a lot of the games will instanty cease when those involved have to actually pay the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is now an amicus brief on whether NYC should be allowed to declare the case moot.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the doctrine of voluntary cessation applies less stringently to governmental defendants than to private ones.

 

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit law firm dedicated to the free expression of all religious traditions. ... Becket is concerned, however, that the argument offered in respondents' suggestion of mootness - that "a governmental defendant's change in law [falls] beyond the reach of the voluntary cessation doctrine" - would arm governmental defendants with a powerful new tool for frustrating constitutional rights.

...

CONCLUSION

This case illustrates why governmental defendants should not get special treatment when trying to moot a case. The City has just as much incentive as a private defendant to avoid an adverse ruling. It is a sophisticated, repeat litigator with an incentive to pick and choose its cases. It benefits from immunities that make it harder to bring viable claims for damages, despite past alleged violations of constitutional rights. Any number of political circumstances could cause the City to resume its challenged conduct. And the case cuts to the heart of important constitutional issues with broad public interest. Regardless of what the Court ultimately decides on the question of mootness or on the merits, it should reject the claim that governmental defendants get special treatment under the doctrine of voluntary cessation.

It's a whole new round of amicus briefs, maybe only starting with this one, ignited by NYC's claim that governmental defendants should be able to moot civil rights suits. So now NYC is going to get pounded for two things. I foresee the mootness issue having more impact on court precedent than the original 2A case. It's like they're looking for a 9-0 decision against them on purpose.

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...