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

[DogWalksWithMe]

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...

[jmf552]

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.

[Ghost1958]

This could be good, or it could be exceedingly bad. We wont know until the robes opine

[nlyric]

Almost all federal anti bills, either list the tax code or commerce clause under "Constitutional authority"

[Ghost1958]

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.

[jmf552]

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.

[Ghost1958]

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.

[ccw9mm]

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.

[GraySkies]

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...

[ccw9mm]

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.

[DogWalksWithMe]

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.