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

KyJim said:
The Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning in this case. The order granted it without modifying the issue presented.
Click to expand...

In spite of the potential dangers, this is the best news I have heard in a long time! The petition lays out a very strong argument, and given the current SCOTUS balance I feel they would not have granted certiorari if they did not believe the NY law was a flagrant abuse of Heller. Hopefully they will require strict scrutiny in the future for this clear constitutional right.
 
Perhaps the ACLU will take up this issue....oh, I forgot, they only defend THEIR issues.
Click to expand...

I don't know if they have spoken on this issue but that characterization is unfair.

The ACLU has opposed using the secret "no fly" list as a "no buy" list for guns.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-urging-senators-vote-no-collins-amendment-4814-hr-2578

They opposed taking away gun rights based on Social Security Disability status.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-vo...s-rule-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces-eo-senate

And here's the ACLU amicus brief supporting the NRA against Cuomo.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/nra-v-cuomo-aclu-amicus-brief
 
publius42 said:
I don't know if they have spoken on this issue but that characterization is unfair.

The ACLU has opposed using the secret "no fly" list as a "no buy" list for guns.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-urging-senators-vote-no-collins-amendment-4814-hr-2578

They opposed taking away gun rights based on Social Security Disability status.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-vo...s-rule-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces-eo-senate

And here's the ACLU amicus brief supporting the NRA against Cuomo.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/nra-v-cuomo-aclu-amicus-brief
Click to expand...
Usually the ACLU won't touch a straight 2nd Amendment case. However, if the case involves the parts of the constitution they DO support, they will help. They are very much opposed to secret lists, financial extortion to silence free speech and group suspension of constitutional rights, and rightly so.
 
Spats McGee said:
Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.
Click to expand...
OK, fair enough.

Anything is possible, but I would expect that since the licensing process is only mentioned in passing in the case it's unlikely that any significant change will come out of it. The plantiffs are asking for relief from the travel restrictions, not an end to licensing.
 
The plantiffs are asking for relief from the travel restrictions, not an end to licensing.
Click to expand...

We're still in the baby steps stage. Heller was about a relatively small question at its core, and that involved the right to keep a licensed gun in the home.

What I'm hoping to see is a clearer declaration that laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.
 
My guess is the sheer absurdity of the NYC law is why they took it. Heller didn't clarify things very much, just slapped down DC for a law that was a de facto over ride of the 2nd amendment.
 
Spats McGee said:
Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.
Click to expand...
OK, but the points were not general, but gun related.

Related to the topic case, one of the issues to be decided involves our right to travel. That's relevant, the ACLU supports it, and it does kinda tie into the no fly/no buy thing.
 
I hope that if they strike down the NYC law, they don't add unnecessary prose supporting state and city ability to burden the carry of firearms. There should be a window allowing that the banning the carry of loaded firearms is not supported by the 2nd Amend.

Don't say that of course banning concealed or open carry is legit for the states
 
Tom Servo said:
We're still in the baby steps stage. Heller was about a relatively small question at its core, and that involved the right to keep a licensed gun in the home.

What I'm hoping to see is a clearer declaration that laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.
Click to expand...
How laws that directly challenge a constitutional amendment aren't automatically subject to strict scrutiny escapes me. But, yes, a definition of strict scrutiny applied to the Second would be a nice bonus.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
banning the carry of loaded firearms is... supported by the 2nd Amend
Click to expand...
Somehow that's how I think many federal judges would read that quote if it is in the opinion. Just like they grossly misinterpreted the paragraph in which Scalia wrote "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause".
 
Friend sent me this link of a pretty good article on current court status and problems. https://nationalfirearmslaw.com/look-out-below/

Points out the pros and cons of recent decisions like Heller, lower court misinterpretations and how the future depends on SCOTUS being progun in a very clear manner. That depends on Roberts. If not, state restrictions will cripple major portions of the country.
 
Good info..

What I never figured out in all this was why NYC was so hell bent on preventing guns from leaving the city in the first place.. I mean NYC doesn't want the guns in the city to begin with so why make a law that prohibits it :) ?
 
It took a hundred years to go from the 14th Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education. One Inc. v. Olesen happened in 1952 and Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003. A civil rights litigation strategy is not for those who seek immediate gratification. Heller happened in 2007 (and only after significant changes of SCOTUS).
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
It took a hundred years to go from the 14th Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education. One Inc. v. Olesen happened in 1952 and Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003. A civil rights litigation strategy is not for those who seek immediate gratification. Heller happened in 2007 (and only after significant changes of SCOTUS).
Click to expand...
BR wins the Understatement of the Month Award.
 
I'm not a lawyer. But it might be the SC want's to tell them what they expect the new regs will be. This could get interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top