Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[krucam]

And finally, founding era restriction on transporting gunpowder...holy crap, the instant case is about the firearm....

 

[krucam]

One final Final...aren’t they supposed to put their information and prayer at the end? No mention of Mootness either...

 

[Inigoes]

One final Final...aren’t they supposed to put their information and prayer at the end? No mention of Mootness either...

There are 2 documents submitted.

Mootness was argued throughout the main document.

The appendix had all of the discharge ordinances from way back when.

 

[krucam]

Didn’t see the 2, now reading the Main...

 

[Kharn]

One final Final...aren’t they supposed to put their information and prayer at the end? No mention of Mootness either...

Their appendix is a late attempt to show text, history, and tradition are on their side for restricting transport between locations.

 

[HaveBlue]

They would’ve been better off trying the moot tactic in an earlier appeal. At least to blunt the blow from what comes next.

Do they ever discuss their reason for the City & the State suddenly colluding to stop defending and abandon “the safety of their own citizens”?

Clearly this was a response to cert. After two straight wins, what is their reason to suddenly give up?

 

[GTOGUNNER]

The problem with historical reference is that other laws have changed. Prosecution of violations is , i am certain a mere percentage of what it was at one time. Therefore, it can be way more dangerous now than it was when any handgun law was first written.
I would guess this is the case with Baltimore.

 

[press1280]

It's worse, the appendix has nothing to do with transport, it's old ordinances addressing discharging firearms within city limits...

Why Not? N.Y. and others have gotten a pass by just pointing to some other law and the courts have bought it.

 

[Inigoes]

Why Not? N.Y. and others have gotten a pass by just pointing to some other law and the courts have bought it.

Because NYC submitted the brief to a court that called the 2A a "fundemental" right. This court deserves a little more than crap thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Why its nothing more then a history lesson IMO having NOTHING to do with the lawsuit. I guess NYC really wants to be smacked down hard... not to mention the state as well..

 

[danb]

I cant find the merits brief that they submitted to the 2nd circuit. I wonder how close this is.

I read this respondents merits brief and it occurred to me that they were feigning incompetence, particularly the part about means-end scrutiny which they have to know the Supreme Court will never swallow. It did not even seem like they were going for a good dissenting opinion by 4 justices. If the Supreme Court thinks that they are incompetent They might not want NYC to argue the case, which gets NYC off the hook defending the law either way.

Or maybe I am giving them too much credit and they really are this incompetent.

 

[press1280]

I cant find the merits brief that they submitted to the 2nd circuit. I wonder how close this is.

I read this respondents merits brief and it occurred to me that they were feigning incompetence, particularly the part about means-end scrutiny which they have to know the Supreme Court will never swallow. It did not even seem like they were going for a good dissenting opinion by 4 justices. If the Supreme Court thinks that they are incompetent They might not want NYC to argue the case, which gets NYC off the hook defending the law either way.

Or maybe I am giving them too much credit and they really are this incompetent.

Then this should be our "Miller" and stack up PRO 2A precedent against a (metaphorically speaking) dead party.

 

[danb]

I don't think that Miller would happen today. What the Roberts court would do is appoint someone to argue the case or dismiss it. Miller never really should have happened in the first place.

 

[wjackcooper]

Jcutonilli wrote: “I believe Scalia also pointed out that there is a historical prohibition on concealed carry based on historical cases. Should we accept that the right does not include the right to concealed carry?”

I wrote: Put into “historical context” open carry was the “manly” thing to do at that time, this stuff is not problematic.

Jcutonilli wrote: Are you going to answer the question?”

Seems to me, the question was answered above, but I will try again:

In “historical context” open carry” was customary . . . in the context of the “present” concealed carry (in about 40 states) is customary. The S.C. does not operate in a vacuum. One possible ultimate holding: States can regulate the method, but “may not completely forbid the carrying of handguns for self-defense.”*

Right to carry for “self – defense” (not method of carry) is the basic issue. The below link is to a dissenting opinion, but Justice Thomas comments on the critical questions.

Regards
Jack

*http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Denying-Petitiion-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf

 

[Mike OTDP]

I don't think that Miller would happen today. What the Roberts court would do is appoint someone to argue the case or dismiss it. Miller never really should have happened in the first place.

It should not have...but the lower court decision was against the Feds, IIRC. Nevertheless, were I a judge, I would not treat Miller with much deference for precisely the reason that it was not legitimately argued.

 

[danb]

It should not have...but the lower court decision was against the Feds, IIRC. Nevertheless, were I a judge, I would not treat Miller with much deference for precisely the reason that it was not legitimately argued.

The actual judgement rarely matters as much as the reasoning and analysis, and we got some ridiculous analysis with Miller, even taking judicial notice of things not in evidence (related to militia use of shotguns).

 

[CurlyDave]

It should not have...but the lower court decision was against the Feds, IIRC. Nevertheless, were I a judge, I would not treat Miller with much deference for precisely the reason that it was not legitimately argued.

BUT, Miller does have the silver lining that "Assault Weapons" bans and magazine capacity limits would clearly fail.

There is a lot of derision of Miller, but I would far rather live with a strictly-enforced Miller than with what we have now.

 

[danb]

BUT, Miller does have the silver lining that "Assault Weapons" bans and magazine capacity limits would clearly fail.

There is a lot of derision of Miller, but I would far rather live with a strictly-enforced Miller than with what we have now.

yeah, there is that.

 

[jcutonilli]

Jcutonilli wrote: “I believe Scalia also pointed out that there is a historical prohibition on concealed carry based on historical cases. Should we accept that the right does not include the right to concealed carry?”

I wrote: Put into “historical context” open carry was the “manly” thing to do at that time, this stuff is not problematic.

Jcutonilli wrote: Are you going to answer the question?”

Seems to me, the question was answered above, but I will try again:

In “historical context” open carry” was customary . . . in the context of the “present” concealed carry (in about 40 states) is customary. The S.C. does not operate in a vacuum. One possible ultimate holding: States can regulate the method, but “may not completely forbid the carrying of handguns for self-defense.”*

Right to carry for “self – defense” (not method of carry) is the basic issue. The below link is to a dissenting opinion, but Justice Thomas comments on the critical questions.

Regards
Jack

*http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Denying-Petitiion-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf

I agree that you provided an answer, just not one that addressed the historical context of concealed carry. Your more elaborate answer does not address the historical context of concealed carry either.

According to Heller the scope is defined by the historical context. It says nothing about the scope changing. Your observation about the current context says nothing about historical context of concealed carry. It also does not address more current concealed carry restrictions. Prior to 1986, it seems that most states either banned or severely restricted concealed carry. Legislatures can exceed the scope of the right, they just cannot infringe on the right.

Thomas's dissent says nothing about the Ninth Circuit getting the scope wrong about concealed carry. His issue is that the Ninth Circuit avoided the real question about public carry and how that is accomplished. I think Peruta is a poorly argued case because, like you, they never addressed the historical context of concealed carry.

It seems to me that the historical context is not very clear and that this case (NYSRPA v NYC) does not present any better argument as to how to resolve the scope of the 2A

 

[jcutonilli]

The actual judgement rarely matters as much as the reasoning and analysis, and we got some ridiculous analysis with Miller, even taking judicial notice of things not in evidence (related to militia use of shotguns).

How did they take notice of things not in evidence. They found that

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

They remanded the case for further fact finding.