Love Love:  0
Laugh Out Loud Laugh Out Loud:  0
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York

  1. #1
    Asst. Administrator Rep Power: 100
    Reputation: 7742
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    DogWalksWithMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,271
    Threads
    406
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1162 Post(s)

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

    Opening arguments are today.

    The Harvard Law Review suggests shifting the argument from the 2nd to the Commerce Clause of the 14th.

    https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/th...can-intervene/

    The Court granted certiorari in January, which was itself a bad sign for gun control proponents—the City’s restrictions were upheld in the lower courts and no other federal court has reached a conflicting conclusion, leaving the Court little reason to take the case other than to reverse the decision below. But the Court tipped its hand still further when it denied the City’s request to dismiss the case as moot in light of intervening city and state laws, both of which granted the challengers the exact relief they requested in their complaint.

    ...

    But all is not lost. 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.

    ...

    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: at least five votes based on the Commerce Clause, with perhaps a concurring opinion based on the Second Amendment. 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...
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rep Power: 6
    Reputation: 3282
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,448
    Threads
    69
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    389 Post(s)
    Why would Roberts care if it were a unanimous decision? Heller wasn't. If the court wanted to do something so tame, they could have just refused to take the case. The NY law is already changed. They could have accepted the idea the case was moot. But they didn't. My hope is that signals they want to make a Constitutional statement with this case, and I doubt they want to make a statement about something as mundane as the Commerce Clause. I think the article is wishful thinking and the part of the author. I think the majority of the court wants to make a statement. Exactly what that statement will be, we will see, but the article's premise doesn't make sense to me.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rep Power: 15
    Reputation: 9857
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,005
    Threads
    98
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1392 Post(s)
    This could be good, or it could be exceedingly bad. We wont know until the robes opine
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Rep Power: 10
    Reputation: 5776
    Rep Level: PDF American
    nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,803
    Threads
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    635 Post(s)
    Almost all federal anti bills, either list the tax code or commerce clause under "Constitutional authority"
    Pardon me, Sir, for this difference of opinion. my personal interest in such questions is entirely extinct; but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance of our government on it’s pure principles.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rep Power: 15
    Reputation: 9857
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,005
    Threads
    98
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1392 Post(s)
    After reading about today's arguments it's pretty apparent SCOTUS is going to be business as usual concerning the RTKABA, after the appropriate show of course.

    Appears the liberals threats to the court worked.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Rep Power: 6
    Reputation: 3282
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,448
    Threads
    69
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    389 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    After reading about today's arguments it's pretty apparent SCOTUS is going to be business as usual concerning the RTKABA, after the appropriate show of course.

    Appears the liberals threats to the court worked.
    Maybe, maybe not. Even the liberal news site Vox conceded that they may be pushing NY State Rifle and Pistol aside for an even better case they could hear as soon as Friday. Rogers v. Grewal, with the latter being Attorney General of New Jersey. Rogers applied for a carry permit in NJ, but was denied because he could not show "just cause." Rogers claims the just cause restriction is unconstitutional, which of course it is. It has now gone through appeals and SCOTUS could hear it. This case is a lot clearer than the NY case and it is not moot. The ruling could easily declare that 2A applies outside the home, which of course it does and that may issue is therefore unconstitutional. They could also set a higher standard of scrutiny for future 2A cases. It would truly be a neater solution than ruling on the NY case and would accomplish the same thing.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  7. #7
    Senior Member Rep Power: 15
    Reputation: 9857
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,005
    Threads
    98
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1392 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Maybe, maybe not. Even the liberal news site Vox conceded that they may be pushing NY State Rifle and Pistol aside for an even better case they could hear as soon as Friday. Rogers v. Grewal, with the latter being Attorney General of New Jersey. Rogers applied for a carry permit in NJ, but was denied because he could not show "just cause." Rogers claims the just cause restriction is unconstitutional, which of course it is. It has now gone through appeals and SCOTUS could hear it. This case is a lot clearer than the NY case and it is not moot. The ruling could easily declare that 2A applies outside the home, which of course it does and that may issue is therefore unconstitutional. They could also set a higher standard of scrutiny for future 2A cases. It would truly be a neater solution than ruling on the NY case and would accomplish the same thing.
    Of course I hope you are right.

    That said I see little hope in SCOTUS rulings.
    There was the ridiculous red herring that the BOR did not apply to the states which it clearly did from the beginning.

    The 2nd Amendment was not an act of congress that can constitutionally be ignored by the states.
    It was a constitutional amendment , ratified by the states and binding on the states from the day it was ratified.

    Yet SCOTUS let that silly theory it didnt apply run for what over 2 centuries?

    SCOTUS is,Federal. I simply do not believe after all this time of infringement after infringement that the robes are going to willingly put the balance of power back into the hands of we the people.

    JMO.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  8. #8
    Asst. Administrator Rep Power: 100
    Reputation: 16863
    Rep Level: PDF Bronze Member
    ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,051
    Threads
    367
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1874 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    After reading about today's arguments it's pretty apparent SCOTUS is going to be business as usual concerning the RTKABA, after the appropriate show of course.

    Appears the liberals threats to the court worked.
    That's my guess, as well.

    With the expressly "protected" liberties, it's all basically a show.

    It'll come down to whether the SCOTUS "robes" actually grow a legal and moral conscience, when it comes to the RKBA. It's OURS. Never was theirs to screw with. They just don't want to part with it ... at least, not without teeth marks on it as we strip it back from them.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rep Power: 4
    Reputation: 389
    Rep Level: PDF Range Master
    GraySkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 1st, 2016
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    197
    Threads
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    49 Post(s)
    That was also my assertion on another forum about this. The court will rule on this, and perhaps invalidate the principle of the law, if they should choose to re-enact it, but I'm betting they will rule on such a narrow basis that it won't set precedent for any other gun laws to be challenged. Then they will go back to sleep and ignore the RTKBA for another 10 years.

    If anyone protests, they will use this case as their "proof" that they don't ignore the 2nd.

    This has been their track record. They have consistently refused to clamp down on lower courts who continue to ignore Heller and McDonald, and have staunchly refused to provide the clarification that Heller still needs for it to be proper precedent.

    If this is going to be different, I won't believe it until I BOTH see it, and see their willingness to enforce its application with the lower circuit courts. I'm not holding my breath...

  10. #10
    Asst. Administrator Rep Power: 100
    Reputation: 16863
    Rep Level: PDF Bronze Member
    ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,051
    Threads
    367
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1874 Post(s)
    A summary of the case ...

    New York City Might Avoid Making Second Amendment History @ National Review, 3 December 2019.


    And links to SCOTUS for documents related to the case ...

    Oral arguments, Case #18-280 @ SupremeCourt.gov, in the case of NYS Rifle & Pistol Assn v. City of New York.

    Docket information, Case #18-280 @ SupremeCourt.gov.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  11. #11
    Asst. Administrator Rep Power: 100
    Reputation: 7742
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    DogWalksWithMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,271
    Threads
    406
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1162 Post(s)

    Just finished reading the oral arguments.

    While (as the left media states) mootness was a big part of the arguments, I don't think the case will be mooted.

    And while not covered in the testimony, I think there is a possibility the entire idea of a "premises license" might get thrown out as unconstitutional.

    Also wonder if the court may make note of and invalidate the city requirement to keep a roster of customers, so that LE can verify claims a person was taking their firearm to a range... The is the RAS and PC for that? This comes from the NYC argument stating allowing residents to leave the city to shoot elsewhere makes investigation by LE more difficult.
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •