Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

Vic said:

I personally think they have something on Roberts. Maybe he and Epstein were friends. Anyway, what a disappointment he is.
V

Click to expand...

Boxcab said:

She was working hard to get Clement to say the case was moot. I think she protests too much and is signaling that there might be enough Justices that think the case is not mooted, that she was trying everything she could to change opinions. This may be good for us..

Click to expand...

Atlasarmory said:

Anyone want to wager when we will know anything difinative on mootness ?

Click to expand...

Some Guy said:

Also, I believe Breyer is mistaken about the storage of firearms in colonial Massachusetts. He said he thought all weapons and ammunition were stored in one location. I believe it might be only the ammunition that was centrally stored and only because of fire hazards. However, I think that changed during and after the revolution. I believe during and after the war that militia eligible persons were required to keep weapons and sufficient ammunition on hand for practice and use if called upon. And under all of this, cartridges reduced or eliminated the risk of fires, too. History, and tradition.

Click to expand...

BeoBill said:

Militia stores only were kept in a central location. Each male of age was expected to maintain a gun, flint, powder and balls.

Click to expand...

danb said:

After reading the transcript I am inclined to think that the case is not moot. Clements rebuttal essentially summarized it well: Plaintiffs are entitled to negotiation of the scope any injunction, plus damages. Roberts was concerned that mootness would "prejudice further options available to the Petitioners, for example, seeking damages. " NYC's response was not "no" rather "I dont think so." There is also a somewhat unsettled question about past violations of the law.

Roberts will be concerned mostly about incentivizing this kind of game playing in the future.

Click to expand...

F5guy said:

Dan forgive my ignorance on this but I’m wondering what damages could be sought? Civil rights violation or something else ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

fidelity said:

No way there would have been an attempted remedy (to the restrictive transport law) by NYC and New York state if the court hadn't taken the case. I haven't read today's transcript, but I would imagine that some of the liberal justices agreed with the revisions made in the NYC ordinance. If so, they get close to agreeing that the original law was overreach. If this is the case, then don't they invite other state governments to continue to play this game of "psyche" with the 2A - write and pass laws that undercut a Constitutional right - and then say I'm sorry and rescind if the SC decides to weigh in? What an awful signal to send. Would Sotomayor do the same and argue for mootness if the same game was played with a right that she cared for?

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

Yep, and I believe it was Alito that called them out for it. It definitely would invite other states and localities to do the same thing as NYC. It also would seem to incentivise lower court defiance, as they could continue with poor opinions and know that they'll be bailed out when the government quits after a cert grant. I'm really curious how many other times this scenario has happened.

I read the transcript and am leaning toward a decision on the merits. Roberts few questions seemed to lean our way.

Click to expand...

Robertjeter said:

Entertaining tweet on NYC argument in district court vs. today. Previously regarded trips to range as not protected under 2A. Total 180 today.


https://twitter.com/rob99711/status/1201634302112468995?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

fidelity said:

If this is the case, then don't they invite other state governments to continue to play this game of "psyche, we were just kidding" with the 2A - write and pass laws that undercut a Constitutional right - and then say I'm sorry and rescind if the SC decides to weigh in?

Click to expand...

BeoBill said:

Of course they do. CIA was caught hacking Congress; do you think the USSC isn't secured by the lowest bidder?

ETA:
Literally everybody has something on everybody else.

The big question is whether Roberts will call their bluff.

Click to expand...

• The computers belonged to the CIA not to the Senate (particularly the SSCI - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence).
• Access to these CIA computers was at a special CIA site, not a Congressional site.
• The CIA was responsible for monitoring security of these computers to ensure they were not used in an unauthorized manner that would compromise classified material not relevant to the topic under review.
• At the time of login, a banner popped up which said "Your use of this system may be monitored and you have no expectation of privacy."
• The people thought to be misusing the CIA computers were SSCI Staffers, not Congressional Members.
• As a result of their security monitoring against abuse or unauthorized access of CIA material not shared with the SSCI Staffers for this specific review, the CIA's RDINet team believed classified material had in fact been improperly accessed and was stored on the SSCI Majority Staff's (Democrats) shared drive area.
• The matter was then referred to the CIA OGC (Office of General Council), who then tasked the RDINet IT members to do a limited review of what classified material was accessed in an unauthorized fashion, based upon standard/routine security monitoring information previously collected, consistent with the login banner notification.
• On 1/14/14 the Deputy of the CIA became aware of the situation, immediately ordered a stand-down, and briefed Senator Feinstein of the situation the next day. (In 2014 the Democrats controlled the Senate and she was Chair of the SSCI.)
• The next day she or her staffers went shrieking to the press that Congress had been spied on by the CIA.

W2D said:

I imagine a collective eye-roll when Sotomajor said transporting a firearm was covered under the license to carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

Some Guy said:

Sotomayor also said that the history, text and tradition stuff was a "made up" standard. I wonder if this opens the door for clarification on this standard. I think she purposefully says this to communicate to the lower circuits that there is ambiguity in this, when there is none. I think she's trying to relitigate Heller.

Click to expand...

Even the court’s more liberal members indicated that the repealed law would be problematic were it properly before the court.

“One problem with the prior regulation,” Justice Ginsburg said, was that “if you wanted to have a gun in your second home, you had to buy a second gun.”

“And what public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one — and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that, therefore, more vulnerable to theft?” she continued.

Click to expand...

Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster.

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

All standards were "made up" at some time in the past. COTUS doesn't define levels of scrutiny; the whole concept was "made up" by SCOTUS long ago. The fact that people accept standards as standards is what makes them, er, standards.

Click to expand...

Tungsten said:

I think we need a 2A equivalent to the Voting Rights Act where states that have shown a proclivity to pass infringing laws will be banned from passing future laws unless approved by a national committee.... actually I would just like to see them banned from passing any 2A laws for 25 years after any infringement.

Click to expand...