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

Well, I don't know the majority of Justice's opinions on the 2nd Amendment, but you generally can't moot a case for a particular law when you have not yet changed it! NY's argument was pretty weak.
 
when I was a pup going hunting upstate ny from Long Island were to contact local precincts when passing through while carrying firearms. nobody ever did it but was the NYC law in 70's.................also heard NYC police officers being arrested in NJ for caring service weapons
 
raimius said:
Well, I don't know the majority of Justice's opinions on the 2nd Amendment, but you generally can't moot a case for a particular law when you have not yet changed it! NY's argument was pretty weak.
Click to expand...

It was weak because a proposal that might or might not pass and might or might not moot the case if passed is not a law that makes the case moot.

But even if it were, the case might be heard. US v Lopez was, and the court pointedly ignored a law passed in the mean time.

From Rhenquist's majority opinion:

But to the extent that congressional findings would enable us to evaluate the legislative judgment that the activity in question substantially affected interstate commerce, even though no such substantial effect was visible to the naked eye, they are lacking here. [n.4]

...

4 We note that on September 13, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796. Section 320904 of that Act, id., at 2125, amends §922(q) to include congressional findings regarding the effects of firearm possession in and around schools upon interstate and foreign commerce. The Government does not rely upon these subsequent findings as a substitute for the absence of findings in the first instance. Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 ("[W]e're not relying on them in the strict sense of the word, but we think that at a very minimum they indicate that reasons can be identified for why Congress wanted to regulate this particular activity").
Click to expand...
 
Did NYC actually change the rules? I thought the objection when the city first tried to have the case mooted was that they didn't actually change the rules/regulations, they just said they would enforce them differently.

That's not the same thing as changing the regulations.
 
Another reason to leave NY. I did, moved to the free state of Tennessee.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, and please don't take this personally, but comments like that are getting old.

I live in Illinois. As most people know, Illinois is less than gun friendly, but far from the worse state. If I've been told once, I've been told 1000 times to move out of this state, many times from people on this forum. Easy to say, but may not be easy to do for some people.

I have three children and nine grandchildren within a 20 miles radius of me. Not a one of them would move with me. I have a bought and paid for home, and do not wish to sign another mortgage, I'm too old for that. I have friends. I have a very good job. Also, my health isn't what it used to be. These are all difficult things to move away from.

So instead of tucking tail and running away, I have made the decision to stay and fight. I'm a member of the NRA and the ISRA. I donate money to pro gun organizations when I can. I call and write my state congressmen. I write letters to the editor of local newspapers. I get involved. I'm staying and fighting, for if no one does, it truly would be bad in this state.

Nothing terribly wrong with throwing in the towel and leaving, if that's what a person chooses to do. But I'm not that way, and there's also nothing wrong with that.

Best of luck to those of you in New York. Keep up the good fight.
 
Last edited:
Did NYC actually change the rules?
Click to expand...

They had a hearing for a "proposed rule change" and used that as the basis to send a motion to the court to moot the case. SCOTUS declined to do so. The rule change was as minor as possible, and it would have only allowed transport from home to the range and back.

It's indicative of how little they plan to comply if they lose. We saw the same thing in Chicago and Washington DC, in which those cities complied as narrowly as they could. I expect NYC to do the same.
 
After the last letter attempt to moot the case, NYC filed an actual motion, called a "Suggestion of Mootness" that argued that the ordinance change (now adopted) and the state law change (rushed through the Legislature and enacted as an emergency statute so that it would take effect immediately).

Today, Paul Clemens filed his reply. A bit redundant, but makes the point extremely clear that NYS and NYC are in essence conspiring to avoid SCOTUS review of a new ordinance (that probably doesn't pass constitutional muster either) for fear that it could open the floodgates of a generalized right to "bear" (in the sense of transport) any firearms anywhere within the State (and horrors, the City) without police permission.

Here is his brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket... NYSRPA suggestion of mootness opposition.pdf
 
Here is his brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...opposition.pdf
Click to expand...

I know reading court filings is about as exciting as watching paint dry to most folks, but the attorneys for the petitioners did really well penning that response to mootness. They decimated NYCs arguments that the SCOTUS should consider the case moot. I see SCOTUS hearing the case. I went to quote a line from the briefing, but in reading it found about a 1000 more worthy of quoting. So just read it. While I don’t predict “bear arms” will be broadly defined by this case, the transport of legally owned firearms will likely be declared a constitutional right. And not just to a 2nd residence or place of business owned by the gun owner, an “authorized range or competition,” or to a gunsmith (with special permission) as NYC has now changed their ordinance to allow.
 
From what I understand, once SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, their course is set and they don't have much interest in these "mootness" motions. Perhaps the lawyers can chime in on this: do they often accept such motions?
 
I can't give you any data on how often mootness challenges succeed. I'd venture to say "not very often" at the SCOTUS level. Once SCOTUS decides that the case is important enough to hear, I doubt they really want for it be mooted out.
 
Democrat senators are not taking the news about this case well and making threats warning the court to "heal" or face restructuring.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...g-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
Click to expand...
 
Spats McGee said:
I can't give you any data on how often mootness challenges succeed. I'd venture to say "not very often" at the SCOTUS level. Once SCOTUS decides that the case is important enough to hear, I doubt they really want for it be mooted out.
Click to expand...

I suspect some might want to accept the mootness argument just because the law NYC may be forced to defend is so absurd and indefensible. The same reason the City and State acted to try to moot the case, I believe.
 
Maybe, but the main reason I'd want the case mooted out (if I were representing the City or the State) would be to avoid ruling that's really bad for my client, going forward.
 
Just read this on TTAG and scheduled for SCOTUS December 2nd. However it is not certain that it will be heard yet but good to see it scheduled and we should know by sometime in October.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/scotus-schedules-ny-state-rifle-pistol-
association-case-for-december-2/


The US Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for December 2 for the much anticipated New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case..

Nevertheless, it is not a forgone conclusion that the court will even hear the case in December, much less that it will issue a sweeping ruling on the right to keep and bear arms that will finally bring Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel. The case could still end at the October procedural hearing without being decided on the merits.
 
Last edited:
Some good news in that oral arguments will start as scheduled on December 2ND though still possible case will be decided as moot at that time.


By Dan M. Clark | October 07, 2019 at 09:54 AM

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourn...toss-case-over-controversial-gun-control-law/


The U.S. Supreme Court declined to toss a case over a restrictive gun regulation in New York City Monday.
In an order handed down Monday, the Supreme Court disagreed that the case immediately became moot after the city relaxed that regulation and the New York State Legislature approved a law addressing it.
Click to expand...

While there is still an off-ramp before the justices consider the merits of the regulations, their refusal to immediately reject the matter as moot may signal that a faction of the current high court has an appetite to take a closer look at the breadth of the Second Amendment’s meaning.
Click to expand...
 
sigarms228 said:
Some good news in that oral arguments will start as scheduled on December 2ND though still possible case will be decided as moot at that time.
Click to expand...

I hope they don't allow the case to be mooted. If they do, the anti-gun states will pass an endless list of illegal / unconstitutional laws, wait until they finally reach SCOTUS and then repeal them at the last minute. Then do it over and over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top