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

It's certainly a case the Supreme Court ought to hear.

It's nothing more than Jim Crow laws for the 21st century.
 
Where dies the link say it's headed for the Supreme Court? The petitioners have submitted it, yes, but certioari has not been granted. It can still be turned down.
 
This is ridiculous, little by little they are squeezing the neck out of our freedom, i don't live in NY but people who do have to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

From historical knowledge, the chief mechanism in which freedoms can be eroded is by the government declaring national emergencies and how weapons must be taken away for "your own good". From the medieval Catholic Church to Cambodia's Pol Pot, this is the one tool that the ruling powers have used to strangle their subjects into total submission.

Declare a bogeyman. Whether it be heretics, or criminals or juvie gangs. And then raise such a scare that the public will believe anything that will "help" them. And that is how rights are taken away.

As someone from New York, I hope these cases go through and win. Even minor victories are still victories and they will pave the road for more actions in the future. The Sullivan Act was passed with the intent of keeping street gangs and organized crime syndicates from getting guns, but that was all horse manure. It specifically targeted low income New Yorkers possibly from immigrant backgrounds. Mainly Italians. The New York political machine and vice industries of the early 1900's had long been dominated by the Irish Mob, who had used force to overturn Anglo-German control of the rackets in the middle of the 19th century. When a large influx of Italians and Chinese arrived in the port of New York in the 1900's, bringing with them their own powerful underworlds, these old generation guys were scared to death. Tammany Hall was one of the backers of the bill, as they were afraid that a new generation of armed social interest groups in the city would create another "Gangs of New York" scene and usurp their powerbase, as how the Tammany mobsters originally usurped Captain Isiah Rynders back in the 1840s. It is an archaic, useless and highly unconstitutional piece of legislation that should have been removed when the Heller case in DC had passed.
 
Where dies the link say it's headed for the Supreme Court? The petitioners have submitted it, yes, but certioari has not been granted. It can still be turned down.
Click to expand...

The SC can't turn it down until it gets there, right?
 
To clarify: The docket at this juncture shows that a petition for writ of cert has been filed and distributed for conference, but it has neither been granted nor denied.
 
The Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning in this case. The order granted it without modifying the issue presented. The order can be found here on page 13.

The issue, as stated by Petitioners is:
Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Click to expand...
The petition can be found at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...332608_NYSRPA cert petition 9-04-18 FINAL.pdf.

This is finally a chance for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home and, possibly, the standard of review and its application.
 
NYC NYS

Perhaps the ACLU will take up this issue....oh, I forgot, they only defend THEIR issues.
:eek:

Usually, NYC does not allow guns into their city...more here then meets the eye.
 
My concern is that that an opinion, even in our favor, would legitimize the draconian NYC licensing process. Is that a legitimate concern, or just my paranoia?
 
Armed_Chicagoan said:
My concern is that that an opinion, even in our favor, would legitimize the draconian NYC licensing process. Is that a legitimate concern, or just my paranoia?
Click to expand...
Depends on the opinion. Best to wait for the ruling and comment on it rather than speculating in a vacuum.
 
Since the issue is not the validity of licensing, it would be very unlikely that a favorable ruling would address licensing directly. That doesn't mean a lower court could not seize upon some imprecise language or hypothetical and construe it as legitimizing licensing, no matter how strict. An unfavorable ruling would likely have significant adverse impact on gun rights in a variety of ways, IMO.

But, as natman said, it's maybe best to hold off on the speculation.
 
I find it fairly telling that NYC fights so hard to keep anyone but law enforcement from owning a gun, then prohibits those that succeed in clearing the licensing hurdles from taking their firearms out of the city.
 
would legitimize the draconian NYC licensing process. ..
Click to expand...

At one time, the high court upheld slavery. They have been wrong other times, as well.

The court will be looking at a very specific set of questions, and I fully expect a very specific ruling on them. After which, the anti-gun world will go on doing what ever the hell they feel like, and can get away with, same as before...

And, the High Court will NOT stop this, until/unless another case is brought to them, specific to it, and they both hear it, and rule in what we would consider our favor.

Simply put, the people who believe gun control, up to and including prohibition, is right, just, and a proper role of government will keep on doing what they do, until a court they recognize having jurisdiction tells them specifically, personally, individually, in small words, to stop doing it.

and even then, they might not...

This is the established historical pattern. If you expect a "sea change" in the state of gun control from this case, I think you are ...unrealistically hopeful.
 
Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Click to expand...
This is a quite narrow question. I think, at least until a standard of scrutiny is established, and a clear method of testing developed at the SCOTUS level, keeping questions narrow and focusing on only the most restrictive laws is probably the best chance we have at winning cases. Winning cases and establishing a clear line of advance is likely our best strategy for protecting our rights.

Hopefully, we get a solid win on this. If we don't, it could be REALLY bad news.
 
one question, why is our own government so bent on gun control and disarming the law abiding citizen ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top