Woo Hoo!
Simply put, the City’s transport ban
lacks even a rational basis, much less the heightened
showing necessary to justify burdens on constitutional
rights. This Court should not let either that novel ban
or the Second Circuit’s indefensible version of
“heightened scrutiny” stand.
The Transport issue getting addressed is nice, however the underlying question of how the lower Courts have "thumbed their noses" at McDonald and Heller will be the real prize. From the Petition:
I hope someone works in the Williams quote of "they must state so more plainly" from the MD courts into a brief or one of the court's opinions.
Anyone have a guess on the outcome?
Future timeline:
Petitioner brief in 45 days (March 8?)
Respondent brief 30 days later (April 7, Sunday, so April 8)
Petitioner reply 30 days after, but no later than 2pm one week before oral argument. (May 8)
The last oral argument for the term is scheduled for April 24, I believe they filled that schedule with last week's flurry of grants, so it could fall into next term with the opinion released in June 2020.
Future timeline:
Petitioner brief in 45 days (March 8?)
Respondent brief 30 days later (April 7, Sunday, so April 8)
Petitioner reply 30 days after, but no later than 2pm one week before oral argument. (May 8)
The last oral argument for the term is scheduled for April 24, I believe they filled that schedule with last week's flurry of grants, so it could fall into next term with the opinion released in June 2020.
Future timeline:
Petitioner brief in 45 days (March 8?)
Respondent brief 30 days later (April 7, Sunday, so April 8)
Petitioner reply 30 days after, but no later than 2pm one week before oral argument. (May 8)
The last oral argument for the term is scheduled for April 24, I believe they filled that schedule with last week's flurry of grants, so it could fall into next term with the opinion released in June 2020.
Yes, this will argued next term. Unless it is an emergency, the Court does not sit for arguments in May.
Reading the petition, it's hard to imagine a loss, here. But it's also hard to imagine a win being anything other than annoying to NY gun grabbers, and otherwise little if any help to the broader 2A cause. I suppose it's possible a sufficiently annoyed SCOTUS might bring the hammer down, sort of like with Citizens United, and clobber something broader than the narrow issue at stake. But I'll remain non-optimistic on the broader issues. Hoping for the best, of course.