delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,208
So, to paraphrase the process for getting a concealed carry permit in NJNYHIetc is:
Apply locally, pay, get rejected, spend for lawyers to appeal for every court from local/state, through federal courts/districts, loosing at every turn over the course of 9 years, in the case of HIvYoung.
Appeal to the Supreme Court, when they take the case… say… ok, we’ll give mr young, or in this case the NJ guy a permit. And ask that the case be dismissed.
All this to get a 5 year permit. When the permit expires, if the guy is still alive, he can restart the multi year and $$$ process all over again.
If you ask the politician in NYNJHI, the system is functioning exactly as designed. Feature, not a bug.
/rant my apologies… and not aimed at you! Just observing. And agreeing. I think.
Apply locally, pay, get rejected, spend for lawyers to appeal for every court from local/state, through federal courts/districts, loosing at every turn over the course of 9 years, in the case of HIvYoung.
Appeal to the Supreme Court, when they take the case… say… ok, we’ll give mr young, or in this case the NJ guy a permit. And ask that the case be dismissed.
All this to get a 5 year permit. When the permit expires, if the guy is still alive, he can restart the multi year and $$$ process all over again.
If you ask the politician in NYNJHI, the system is functioning exactly as designed. Feature, not a bug.
/rant my apologies… and not aimed at you! Just observing. And agreeing. I think.
press1280,
Some lawyers will say that a party can “moot” a case, but only a Court can make a binding determination that a petitioner’s claim (i.e., pending litigation) is (1) “resolved” and only then can the claim be said, in a strictly legal sense (2) “therefore moot.”*
As indicated above (post # 474) my guess is N.Y.’s lawyers will recommend that an attempt be made to have the court “moot” the case. Any recommendation will be confidential. N.Y.’s politicians may (or may not) take the advice . . . you have pointed out some of the considerations.
Regards
Jack
*“Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule had changed is therefore moot.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf page 1
"Because Federal Courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy) legal actions cannot be brought or continued after the matter at issue has been resolved, leaving no live dispute for a court to resolve. In such a case, the matter is said to be "moot". For Supreme Court decisions focusing on mootness, see, e.g., Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) and Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)."