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

[sigarms228]

We will find out more soon enough.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/c...ght-for-the-first-scotus-2a-case-in-a-decade/

The justices will hear the mootness arguments in addition to arguments on the merits of the case tomorrow and the possibility exists that the justices will indeed rule the case moot. But knowledgeable Court watchers believe that would only happen if the Court is looking for an even more substantial 2A case to rule on.

 

[TruthTellers]

We've focused a lot on mootness with this case, but I want to go beyond that because I have an interesting thought that I'd like to discuss with all here that relates to the case.

So, let's say SCOTUS rules on this case and creates a strict scrutiny standard for all future cases. That all sounds well and good, but what exactly makes lower court judges in the district and appeals courts have to abide by that standard? What's the penalty if they don't?

Impeachment?

Does anyone here really think that the Congress would remove a judge for not following a SCOTUS ruling?

I think we're putting too much hope on this case to be some landmark case that alters US history.

I doubt the Chief Justice wants to leave that possibility open. Watch for a 5-4 ruling in favor of the law in June and to ease the fears of restructuring that senators wrote in an open letter months ago.

 

[AirForceShooter]

It's Monday.
Hang on to your tighty whities.

Frankly I'm not expecting this jumbo all encompassing decision.

SCOTUS tends to write very narrow conclusions.

AFS

 

[NJgunowner]

I agree with AirForceShooter. If you're expecting any major changes don't hold your breath. I expect a very narrow ruling to prevent them from trying to pass a similar law and not much else.

 

[44 AMP]

As I understand it, one side is saying the matter is moot, because they amended the law. The other side is saying "we were damaged while the law was in effect before they amended it".

The High Court ALWAYS writes "narrow" decisions. IT is the rest of the govt and court system that applies the narrow decision BROADLY.

Impeachment of lower court judges? not happening.

In order to do so one would have to have PATTERN of mis, or malfeasance of office. A single bad ruling (or even a few) does not qualify as enough.

If they are elected, the cure is simple in principle, vote them out at the end of their term. Not always easy in practice, though.

If they are appointed one must have clear, comprehensive evidence of either incompetence or deliberate, willful disregard for the law.

The whole point of the appeals process and appellate courts, up to the High Court, is that someone who feels a judge ruled wrongly can have other judges review and determine if the ruling was correct, or not. And, like baseball in a way, you get three strikes before you're out.

The original court, appeals court, and the Supreme Court. If you strike out in all 3, you're done.

 

[fastbolt]

Here's the transcript of today's arguments:

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ) ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., ) Petitioners, ) v. ) No. 18-280 CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL., ) Respondents.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf

 

[Tom Servo]

As I understand it, one side is saying the matter is moot, because they amended the law.

Yes, but there's an exception to the mootness doctrine called Capable of Repetition, Evading Review. I'll leave a detailed explanation to the lawyers, but the idea is that the city is trying to evade review, but still has ability and intention to harm plaintiffs at a later time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is a short summary from a lawyer who attended:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/o...k-state-rifle-pistol-assn-v-city-of-new-york/

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I made it about half way through the transcript. I'll try to finish it later. My overall impression is that Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor really REALLY want to call it moot and make it go away.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Here is a short summary from a lawyer who attended:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/on...y-of-new-york/

From the link:

Justice Sotomayor argued that text, history, and tradition is a made-up standard that isn’t clearly applicable in this case. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg argued that the City’s limited home permitting of handguns doesn’t affect the transport of firearms…that’s regulated by the city’s carry permits.

One has to wonder if those two are really so ignorant that they don't understand the difference (with respect to firearms) between "transporting" an empty gun in a locked case vs. "carrying" a loaded gun that's ready to rock & roll. The distinction was clarified by Clements, but from the transcript it's impossible to know whether or not they got it.

The three amigas (Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor) also seem to have already decided that the petitioners (the NYSRPA) have gotten everything they wanted, which is why the case should be moot. Clements pointed out that the new law, purportedly allowing transport, adds a requirement that travel must be continuous and uninterrupted (or something to that effect). The three amigas' view on that is that's the new law, not the old law, so they don't want to talk about it. Clemets' position is that, since that wasn't there before but it's there now, the new law does NOT give the petitioners everything they asked for, and thus the case is not moot.

There was also some back-and-forth over whether or not the petitioners have asked for damages. The three amigas say they have not. Clements said their application didn't state a dollar amount but included a blanket request for damages as the court might impose. This is apparently important to the three amigas because "mootness" (is that a word?) may be off the table if damages are involved. (I think -- I am not a lawyer.)

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

If they decide the case is moot doesn't that still leave the appeals court ruling intact as binding case law?

 

[NJgunowner]

I don't think they'll decide the case is moot, they know why NY pulled the law the way they did. NY is hoping that the courts will restructure to a more liberal bent down the road and they can re-introduce the law.

So I THINK we'll get a ruling, it just won't be anything sweeping. It'll probably just reaffirm our right to transport firearms from point A to B.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So I THINK we'll get a ruling, it just won't be anything sweeping. It'll probably just reaffirm our right to transport firearms from point A to B.

Even that will be welcome, because it's a start to undoing the damage caused by Justice Scalia in Heller when he wrote that the core right of the Second Amendment is self defense in the home.

Of course, the Heller case was about keeping an operable firearm in the home so, in keeping with the SCOTUS philosophy of making narrow rulings that typically only answer the question being asked, this is not surprising. The problem is that we know the core purpose underlying the Second Amendment was not really self defense, and we know that the core purpose of the Second Amendment was not limited to within the home. But, in the wake of Heller, lower courts have seized on a few excerpts from the Heller decision to proclaim that "in accordance with Heller" the Second Amendment protects ONLY the right to keep a firearm for self defense in the home.

That's not what Scalia said, but that's what many judges are saying he said, so anything that will slow that down is IMHO a plus.

And we may get an official determination that "transporting" an unloaded firearm is different from "carrying" a loaded firearm. I don't believe that Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are really that ignorant, but they're doing a good imitation.

 

[sigarms228]

Very interesting read from someone that was there yesterday that even I can understand. It pus me a bit at ease as almost all news coverage is pretty much declaring this case DOA though that certainly could happen which the author contends could mean other Second Amendment case possibilities. A snipit below.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/d...te-rifle-pistol-assn-supreme-court-arguments/

The highlight of the arguments on the merits was a spectacular trap that Justice Alito sprang on the attorney for the City. Questioning him on NYC’s change of its laws, he asked, “Are people in New York less safe now as a result of the new city and state laws than they were before?”

Clearly surprised at this seemingly out-of-the-blue question, counsel responded that they were not less safe. Alito then pressed him to concede that there was thus no actual basis for the City to claim that the transportation ban was essential to public safety.

Counsel attempted to tap dance away from that, claiming the restriction accorded with the history of acceptable regulations under the Second Amendment.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Some analysis by Josh Blackman of The Volokh Conspiracy:
https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overv...le-and-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/

Basically, he thinks the Court will find the case moot. However, that might not be a bad thing as it means the Court could add another 2A case to its Spring docket.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm starting to like Alito again. From Mr. Roberts' link:

Justice Alito also seemed to suggest that the now-repealed law was completely irrational, because it never actually promoted public safety:

JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the --are people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?

MR. DEARING: We --we --no, I don't think so. We made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that --that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned? …

JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?

SOCK! POW! BAM!

 

[silvermane_1]

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

It's nothing more than Jim Crow laws for the 21st century.

*cuckles* I needed a good laugh, the "gun control laws" are aimed at a *ahem* much fairer complexion demographic, just look at firearm crime related statistics sometime to see what *ahem* "demographic" takes the "blue ribbon" in those stats, because "the powers that be" don't care about "crime", they care about the "control" and that's what "gun control" is about, it has little to do with "guns".

 

[Doc Intrepid]

In other relevant news, the "Ruth Bader Ginsberg Health Today" reports health conditions are somewhat fragile:

"MONDAY, Nov. 25, 2019 (HealthDay News) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was discharged from the hospital on Sunday after being admitted on Friday with chills and a fever... It's been a tough year health-wise for Ginsburg, who finished treatment for pancreatic cancer in August."

https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging...g-released-from-hospital-after-health-scare#1

The result of which being, according to The Hill, "... Liberal activists are already calling on President Trump to keep any possible Supreme Court vacancy open until after the 2020 election, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has indicated he would fill a court vacancy next year, even though he blocked former President Obama’s nominee for most of 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...rospect-of-election-year-supreme-court-battle

Apparently two amigas are not quite as formidable as three amigas, should one of the amigas fold her hand and cash in her chips.

In an election year.

 

[zxcvbob]

*cuckles* I needed a good laugh, the "gun control laws" are aimed at a *ahem* much fairer complexion demographic, just look at firearm crime related statistics sometime to see what *ahem* "demographic" takes the "blue ribbon" in those stats, because "the powers that be" don't care about "crime", they care about the "control" and that's what "gun control" is about, it has little to do with "guns".

Whites commit more crime because there are more white people. We were looking at the mass murder rates on another forum; someone was making the tired argument that the problem was obviously whitey by posting the number of mass murders in the past 20 years sorted by race. Well, adjust the numbers for the percent of total population and you get a totally different picture. You can guess what group was overrepresented. The most interesting thing I saw (and I got in trouble for pointing it out) is that Latinos were underrepresented.

I have no idea how that compares to overall crime stats, and I'm not sure it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

I agree with your conclusion, just not how you got there.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The most interesting thing I saw (and I got in trouble for pointing it out) is that Latinos were underrepresented.

I have no idea how that compares to overall crime stats, and I'm not sure it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

I agree with your conclusion, just not how you got there.

So you're saying we need to get Hispanics to commit more mass murders?