Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[Some Guy]

Does this logic sound correct?

NYC has proposed rule changes in response to the case. If the case proceeds, a likely outcome is that some or all of the proposed rules will be adopted due to a supreme court ruling/judgement. Therefore, NYC loses nothing by letting the case proceed. The outcome will theoretically the same or similar as if there was no case (this is what they seem to be alleging.) So, NYC is not really harmed by letting the case go forward.

So, why are NYC officials protesting and requesting a stay? The outcome would be the same, right? If the case is stayed, the rules will change. If the case proceeds, the rules will probably change. So why not let the case proceed? They will lose nothing, right? Perhaps NYC officials protest and request delays and stays because these officials know that the proposed rule changes are disingenuous. To me it seems logical to conclude that the act of protesting or requesting stays indicates that the NYC officials are not being honest in their filings with the court. If this is true, it's patently disrespectful to the court, its traditions, and ALL of its justices. NYC should be held to account for this dishonesty. I now think that the case should be expedited, actually.

 

[Kharn]

They want someone else to get the blame for losing at SCOTUS, or kick the can until Bernie/Kamala/whoever can get in. They can count to five, they expect their law is a loser.

 

[krucam]

Does this logic sound correct?

NYC has proposed rule changes in response to the case. If the case proceeds, a likely outcome is that some or all of the proposed rules will be adopted due to a supreme court ruling/judgement. Therefore, NYC loses nothing by letting the case proceed. The outcome will theoretically the same or similar as if there was no case (this is what they seem to be alleging.) So, NYC is not really harmed by letting the case go forward.

So, why are NYC officials protesting and requesting a stay? The outcome would be the same, right? If the case is stayed, the rules will change. If the case proceeds, the rules will probably change. So why not let the case proceed? They will lose nothing, right? Perhaps NYC officials protest and request delays and stays because these officials know that the proposed rule changes are disingenuous. To me it seems logical to conclude that the act of protesting or requesting stays indicates that the NYC officials are not being honest in their filings with the court. If this is true, it's patently disrespectful to the court, its traditions, and ALL of its justices. NYC should be held to account for this dishonesty. I now think that the case should be expedited, actually.

They want someone else to get the blame for losing at SCOTUS, or kick the can until Bernie/Kamala/whoever can get in. They can count to five, they expect their law is a loser.

There is a potential for the Court to do much more than just invalidate the law...that's what NYC and the grabbers fear. A revised standard of scrutiny and/or analysis in 2A cases is a great possibility and would have much more value than just the invalidation of the Statute...

 

[danb]

Does this logic sound correct?

NYC has proposed rule changes in response to the case. If the case proceeds, a likely outcome is that some or all of the proposed rules will be adopted due to a supreme court ruling/judgement. Therefore, NYC loses nothing by letting the case proceed. The outcome will theoretically the same or similar as if there was no case (this is what they seem to be alleging.) So, NYC is not really harmed by letting the case go forward.

So, why are NYC officials protesting and requesting a stay? The outcome would be the same, right? If the case is stayed, the rules will change. If the case proceeds, the rules will probably change. So why not let the case proceed? They will lose nothing, right? Perhaps NYC officials protest and request delays and stays because these officials know that the proposed rule changes are disingenuous. To me it seems logical to conclude that the act of protesting or requesting stays indicates that the NYC officials are not being honest in their filings with the court. If this is true, it's patently disrespectful to the court, its traditions, and ALL of its justices. NYC should be held to account for this dishonesty. I now think that the case should be expedited, actually.

They want to avoid a Supreme Court ruling with national implications precisely so that they can soon go back to their old ways, probably as soon as the court takes it off their calendar.

yes, I think that they are being disingenuous and original brief demonstrates they do not accept the 2nd amendment. They are playing a very dangerous game which I think will backfire.

 

[Some Guy]

They want to avoid a Supreme Court ruling with national implications precisely so that they can soon go back to their old ways, probably as soon as the court takes it off their calendar.

yes, I think that they are being disingenuous and original brief demonstrates they do not accept the 2nd amendment. They are playing a very dangerous game which I think will backfire.

I hope it does backfire on them. NYC officials are essentially calling the supreme court justices a bunch of chumps. The NYC filed briefs are pretty much asking the court to put politics ahead of law and precedent, and they communicate a fundamental disrespect for the justice system and its judges, regardless of ideology.

NYC says "Hey RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan, et al, I think you're either stupid, sketchy or compliant to politics and/or our whims. Go ahead and sign up to a delay in this proceeding to confirm that. Thanks."

 

[Mark75H]

Just wondering - is there any legal precident to "we're going to change"? Has the SCOTUS ever accepted such a (non binding) promise in the past?

 

[press1280]

Just wondering - is there any legal precident to "we're going to change"? Has the SCOTUS ever accepted such a (non binding) promise in the past?

Not that I'm aware of.

Really at this point for Scotus nothing NYC says or does matters unless they actually change the law.

Then we'll see what happens.

 

[danb]

From todays orders list:

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied

 

[swinokur]

Good

 

[krucam]

.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

A step in the right direction. Let's hope they remember NY tried to pull this stunt..

 

[kohburn]

good

 

[danb]

I'll be curious now to see if they go through with changing the law. Changing enforcement of the law wont really do.

 

[Nobody]

So no cert today...or denial?

Nobody

 

[danb]

So no cert today...or denial?

Nobody

None of the above

 

[press1280]

So no cert today...or denial?

Nobody

Cert was already granted. This was a motion by NYC to delay. It was rejected.

 

[Fox123]

So it can now be scheduled, or it will continue as already scheduled? (If so what date?)

 

[danb]

So it can now be scheduled, or it will continue as already scheduled? (If so what date?)

Arguments scheduled for Oct 2019.

 

[MJD438]

So it can now be scheduled, or it will continue as already scheduled? (If so what date?)

IIRC - won't be scheduled for a hearing until after the briefs are complete. The order on the briefs, from the SCOTUS Docket (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html) is:

Feb 25 2019
Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 7, 2019. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 5, 2019.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

This is indeed good news for us! Now NY must take the next step since i bet they were hoping their request would be granted ...