Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
237 replies to this topic

#181 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 14 August 2019 - 01:08 PM

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

When I lived in Illinois I shared a driveway with a Navy JAG officer. He said there was some sort of credentialing that had to be done. I'm going off of that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#182 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:50 PM

Supreme Court of the United States

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

 

Attached is the application form for your personal statement, as required by Supreme Court Rule 5.2, including space for endorsement by two sponsors. The sponsors must be members of the Bar of this Court who know you personally and are not related to you by blood or marriage. One of the sponsors or another member of the Bar, including a relative, may move your admission. ... You must obtain a certificate of good standing from the presiding judge, clerk, or other authorized official of the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, Territory or Possession, or of the District of Columbia, evidencing the fact that you have been a member of the Bar of such court for at least three years and are in good standing. ...   To qualify for admission to the Bar of this Court, an applicant must ... not have been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action pronounced or in effect during that 3-year period; and must appear to the Court to be of good moral and professional character.

 

2. Each applicant shall file with the Clerk (1) a certificate from the presiding judge, clerk, or other authorized official of that court evidencing the applicant’s admission to practice there and the applicant’s current good standing, and (2) a completely executed copy of the form approved by this Court and furnished by the Clerk containing (a) the applicant’s personal statement, and (B) the statement of two sponsors endorsing the correctness of the applicant’s statement, stating that the applicant possesses all the qualifications required for admission, and affirming that the applicant is of good moral and professional character. Both sponsors must be members of the Bar of this Court who personally know, but are not related to, the applicant.

 

3. If the documents submitted demonstrate that the applicant possesses the necessary qualifications, and if the applicant has signed the oath or affirmation and paid the required fee, the Clerk will notify the applicant of acceptance by the Court as a member of the Bar and issue a certificate of admission.  ...

 

4. Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation: I, ........................................................ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States. All original signatures must be on one page together.



#183 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 14 August 2019 - 03:15 PM

So there is a credentialing process Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#184 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 August 2019 - 01:54 PM

Not really. The rules are boilerplate that's required by every Article III court for bar admission. This isn't any different as far as I can tell since the rules for admission to district and circuit courts are the same (last I checked). Two unrelated sponsors, check. I ignore that good moral character nonsense because of how many scumbag lawyers I know of who have never had any disciplinary actions taken against them despite clear evidence of fraud perpetrated on the court. Or they have but it's been several years since then. In fact, I have personal knowledge of two lawyers who have been to federal prison for tax crimes, who still practice law, licenses in good standing, stipulated to have licenses suspended while in prison, and both of whom would qualify for admission to the Supreme Court Bar if they have their two SCOTUS-admitted sponsors. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#185 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 15 August 2019 - 07:54 PM

Not really. The rules are boilerplate that's required by every Article III court for bar admission. This isn't any different as far as I can tell since the rules for admission to district and circuit courts are the same (last I checked). Two unrelated sponsors, check. I ignore that good moral character nonsense because of how many scumbag lawyers I know of who have never had any disciplinary actions taken against them despite clear evidence of fraud perpetrated on the court. Or they have but it's been several years since then. In fact, I have personal knowledge of two lawyers who have been to federal prison for tax crimes, who still practice law, licenses in good standing, stipulated to have licenses suspended while in prison, and both of whom would qualify for admission to the Supreme Court Bar if they have their two SCOTUS-admitted sponsors. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I know of a lawyer who "was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension..." 

 

He was subsequently admitted to the SCOTUS bar.

 

Paying a small filing fee, and getting two references ain't much of a hurdle.


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.

#186 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 19 August 2019 - 04:09 PM

Update in the Cheeseman case, "Aug 19 2019 Response Requested. (Due September 18, 2019)"

 

The Respondents can ask for an up to sixty day extension to file the Response.  One would think they would simply boilerplate one of their previously filed responses.


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.

#187 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 04 September 2019 - 07:43 PM

Reply of NYSRPA filed.
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.


#188 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,513 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 04 September 2019 - 08:52 PM

Reply of NYSRPA filed.

Cue applause.gif.

Extra kudos to breaching the door of restrictions on non-residents as well.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#189 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:11 PM

SCOTUSblog

...
Last for this overview, and perhaps least, an odd New York City regulation raised significant questions about how Second Amendment gun control laws should be evaluated. But the regulation and a New York state licensing statute have since been amended, and New York has asked that the case be dismissed as moot. Although some justices may be itching for a Second Amendment vehicle, chances are this case will not be it.
...


IMO New York City's law was so wrong that I don't think it would need a very strict standard to be struck down. Perhaps that's what the author of the blog meant, but I suspect he means that the court will indeed rule the case moot. I don't think it will. If/when it doesn't, it's still a start at addressing the "bear" part of "keep and bear" at the US Supreme Court level, even if it's only transport. Heller and McDonald were just about the "keep" part.

Edited by Euler, 11 September 2019 - 11:13 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.


#190 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 13 September 2019 - 04:52 PM

Oral argument calendared for December 2nd.


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.

#191 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,896 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:32 PM

IL-GUNLOBBY
Being reported by one of the NRA attorney's Chuck Michel

...BREAKING: the United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the NYSRPA v NYC 2A "bear arms" case for Monday December 2, 2019. So the Court will not immediately dismiss the case on mootness grounds as NYC requested after it repealed the challenged laws. However, the Court will probably hear argument on both the mootness issues AND the 2A issue on 12/2/19, and could decide to dismiss the case on mootness grounds after that. Otherwise we will likely get a ruling at the end of the Supreme Court's session in June 2020. NRA is supporting this vital and potentially game changing case. JOIN NRA (and CRPA)!...
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#192 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:58 PM

The cert petition had already been accepted before all this mootness crap started flying. The case probably got scheduled for oral arguments based on that alone.

The court could still choose to dismiss it in the "long conference" on October 1, which we'd find out on October 7. Personally, I doubt it. As long as at least 4 justices want to hear it, the show will go on. Plus I think the amicus brief by the Becket Fund is on point: allowing voluntary cessation by a large, powerful repeat-litigator like NYC invites government abuse of power. I'd go farther and say that the court might announce that they have disposed of the mootness option and will not entertain any time on it in orals.

Edited by Euler, 13 September 2019 - 09:00 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.


#193 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,218 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 13 September 2019 - 09:48 PM

The cert petition had already been accepted before all this mootness crap started flying. The case probably got scheduled for oral arguments based on that alone.

The court could still choose to dismiss it in the "long conference" on October 1, which we'd find out on October 7. Personally, I doubt it. As long as at least 4 justices want to hear it, the show will go on. Plus I think the amicus brief by the Becket Fund is on point: allowing voluntary cessation by a large, powerful repeat-litigator like NYC invites government abuse of power. I'd go farther and say that the court might announce that they have disposed of the mootness option and will not entertain any time on it in orals.

 

That will certainly make 5 Democrats very unhappy. :rofl: 



#194 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 07 October 2019 - 08:39 AM

Mootness denied. It's going to trial.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#195 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 07 October 2019 - 08:42 AM

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#196 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 07 October 2019 - 08:44 PM

SAF HAILS HIGH COURT’S DECISION TO MOVE N.Y. GUN LAW CHALLENGE FORWARD BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today cheered the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to move forward with a case that challenges a New York City gun law that was so restrictive the city amended it, and then tried to get the high court to dismiss the case. “We’re delighted that the Supreme Court will move this important case forward,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in support of overturning this egregious attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. We are confident that the high court will ultimately rule in favor of Second Amendment rights.” The city scrambled to change the law once the court decided to accept the case for review earlier this year. The challenge is brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. “It’s outrageous that the city has furiously tried to derail this case by changing the law,” Gottlieb stated. “That says volumes not only about the city’s fear of having to defend their restrictive gun control law before the court, but it also suggests to us that the city knew all along their law would not pass the constitutional smell test under any level of scrutiny, and they panicked.  “New York, and other state and local governments, have been getting away with adopting ridiculously oppressive gun regulations because lower courts have thumbed their noses at previous Supreme Court rulings in favor of the Second Amendment,” he added.  “Equally outrageous, if not moreso,” Gottlieb observed, “was the attempt by Capitol Hill Democrats led by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to bully the high court by filing a brief to dismiss the case or face the possibility that Democrats would pack the court. How dare Whitehouse and his associates attempt such coercion. We’re proud of the Supreme Court justices for ignoring this threat to their independence as a separate branch of government.  “The Democrats’ political demagoguery obviously backfired, and rightly so,” he said. “It just might cost them in November 2020.” https://www.saf.org/...llenge-forward/
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#197 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,213 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 08 October 2019 - 12:41 AM

This is the kind of logic and nonsense that $%#$%@#$^ me off to no end.

 

"But the court still may decide to declare the case moot after hearing oral arguments in December, particularly after mass shootings this summer in Texas, Ohio and elsewhere."

 

https://www.usatoday...ket/3857970002/

 

What does a criminal act in Texas and Ohio have to do with whether a law in NY is a violations of a Constitutional right?  Those criminal acts should not even be taken into consideration!

 

My rights (and others) don't magicaly diminish and/or get reduced because of a few isolated criminal acts and for people to suggest a few criminal acts should dictate policy and how the Supreme Court reviews and interprets my rights in the Constitution is downright disgusting!


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

#198 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,190 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 08 October 2019 - 08:32 PM

 

 

 particularly after mass shootings this summer in Texas, Ohio and elsewhere."

 

Gee, can the LWW media make it MORE obvious they're wanting more mass shootings and sending their signals to the thugs, criminals and crazies out there who read their paper?


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#199 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,001 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 08 October 2019 - 10:43 PM

Guys, I guess it's ok to obsess your minds about all this stuff, but how about:

 

YOU JUST GO OUT SHOOTING and HAVE SOME FUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Life Member --- NRA Endowment Level
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member --- Tennessee Gun Owners
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Oak Ridge Sportsmen's Association

 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.


#200 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,213 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 08 October 2019 - 11:30 PM

Guys, I guess it's ok to obsess your minds about all this stuff, but how about:

 

YOU JUST GO OUT SHOOTING and HAVE SOME FUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There is 24 hours in a day, plenty of time to a lot of different things, for example I went out today and bought another AR-15 lower and still have some time to post here.


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

#201 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,775 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 10 October 2019 - 10:05 AM

 

Guys, I guess it's ok to obsess your minds about all this stuff, but how about:

 

YOU JUST GO OUT SHOOTING and HAVE SOME FUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There is 24 hours in a day, plenty of time to a lot of different things, for example I went out today and bought another AR-15 lower and still have some time to post here.

 

 

I just milled another and frankly I don't even like AR-15's. 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#202 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 15 October 2019 - 12:04 PM

Neal Goldfarb has again been denied his motion to argue that the Supreme Court should never have accepted NYSRPA's cert petition and that it decided Heller wrongly, because it doesn't understand what the 2nd Amendment really means.

Docket

Even setting his legal arguments aside, it seems like he's asking the justices to let him come before them to tell them that they're stupid.... and they turned him down.

Meanwhile, the US DOJ will also be participating in oral arguments in support of the NYSRPA.

Edited by Euler, 15 October 2019 - 12:09 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.


#203 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,601 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 15 October 2019 - 03:02 PM

^^^^^^ The duplicity never ends. (sighs) :no:


“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

#204 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 15 October 2019 - 08:19 PM

^^^^^^ The duplicity never ends. (sighs) :no:


I suspect the DOJ just wants to say that Federal law (FOPA) always preempted the NY transport ban and that the SC shouldn't rule in a way that threatens FOPA.
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.


#205 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 24 October 2019 - 02:41 PM

Harvard Law Review

...
The liberal Justices in the minority have a last-ditch strategy that would sacrifice the specific gun restriction at issue in this case, yet save a number of far more critical gun control measures around the county.
...
The suit challenges a New York City regulation requiring owners of city-conferred "premises licenses" to keep their guns inside their homes at all times...

But the challengers now make clear in their brief before the Court that they are no longer interested in just the two modest travel freedoms for premises license holders. Instead, the challengers want the Court to issue a sweeping ruling that "the Second Amendment protects a right to carry arms outside the home," period.
...
It turns out the Second Amendment argument is not the only constitutional challenge in this case. ... But there is another constitutional challenge worthy of our interest: a challenge based on the Dormant Commerce Clause.
...
Just as New Jersey can't forbid its residents to eat at New York City restaurants, New York City can't forbid its residents to bring their guns to New Jersey shooting ranges.
...
Suppose the four liberal Justices expressed their willingness to join an opinion striking down New York City's premises license restrictions on this Dormant Commerce Clause ground. For his part, Chief Justice Roberts might be especially interested in crafting a majority opinion on this rationale, since it would produce a unanimous ruling in favor of the challengers.... Indeed, it is possible that Justices Alito and Kavanaugh might join the Dormant Commerce Clause majority as well, viewing that as a worthwhile compromise ruling in favor of gun owners that does not inject the Court into the heated, broader nationwide argument over the Second Amendment and public carry limits....


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.


#206 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,213 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 24 October 2019 - 03:04 PM

Harvard Law Review

...
The liberal Justices in the minority have a last-ditch strategy that would sacrifice the specific gun restriction at issue in this case, yet save a number of far more critical gun control measures around the county.
...
The suit challenges a New York City regulation requiring owners of city-conferred "premises licenses" to keep their guns inside their homes at all times...

But the challengers now make clear in their brief before the Court that they are no longer interested in just the two modest travel freedoms for premises license holders. Instead, the challengers want the Court to issue a sweeping ruling that "the Second Amendment protects a right to carry arms outside the home," period.
...
It turns out the Second Amendment argument is not the only constitutional challenge in this case. ... But there is another constitutional challenge worthy of our interest: a challenge based on the Dormant Commerce Clause.
...
Just as New Jersey can't forbid its residents to eat at New York City restaurants, New York City can't forbid its residents to bring their guns to New Jersey shooting ranges.
...
Suppose the four liberal Justices expressed their willingness to join an opinion striking down New York City's premises license restrictions on this Dormant Commerce Clause ground. For his part, Chief Justice Roberts might be especially interested in crafting a majority opinion on this rationale, since it would produce a unanimous ruling in favor of the challengers.... Indeed, it is possible that Justices Alito and Kavanaugh might join the Dormant Commerce Clause majority as well, viewing that as a worthwhile compromise ruling in favor of gun owners that does not inject the Court into the heated, broader nationwide argument over the Second Amendment and public carry limits....

 

 

The guys suggestion doesn't solve the intrastate issues brought up in the case and since those issues are not entirely mooted by NY's quick revamp of the law that can easily be reversed, his suggested ruling would be half butted and not address the core issues brought up in the case.  He is literally suggesting the Court ignore the core issues of the case and rule on speculated fringe concerns that would open the door for NY to continue to infringe intrastate with a revamp of the law.


Edited by Flynn, 24 October 2019 - 03:06 PM.

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

#207 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 18 November 2019 - 03:13 PM

The court invited the DOJ to present its opinion in a letter on mootness. The DOJ responded that the case should not be mooted.
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.


#208 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,135 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 18 November 2019 - 03:21 PM

The court invited the DOJ to present its opinion in a letter on mootness. The DOJ responded that the case should not be mooted.

 

So, that's essentially the DOJ making New York duck-walk down a dark alley while getting kicked up where the sun don't shine with a pair of wing-tips, yes?


"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
 

 
 
 
 


#209 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 18 November 2019 - 04:12 PM

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.

Edited by Euler, 18 November 2019 - 04:13 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.


#210 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 November 2019 - 08:36 AM

The court invited the DOJ to present its opinion in a letter on mootness. The DOJ responded that the case should not be mooted.

That makes me wonder if DOJ/SG Francisco will just lay down and say "2A should be subject to strict scrutiny."

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users