Second Circuit NYC transport law upheld

wolfwood · Sep 6, 2018

cert petition filed. It is a good read

krucam · Sep 6, 2018

It IS very well written. I always like Paul Clement's writing style. This seems like a slam dunk as written but we sure could use Kavanaugh on the bench for this one. Perhaps we can get 4 votes if it appears Kavanaugh is a shoe in...

esqappellate · Sep 6, 2018

krucam said:
It IS very well written. I always like Paul Clement's writing style. This seems like a slam dunk as written but we sure could use Kavanaugh on the bench for this one. Perhaps we can get 4 votes if it appears Kavanaugh is a shoe in...

That's why, in part, Paul is at the pinnacle of the very very small number of people in the elite of the Supreme Court Bar.

swinokur · Sep 6, 2018

Don't expect a cop in NYC to believe your tale that your are covered under FOPA while trying to leave the city to go do anything.

Sad

Kharn · Oct 8, 2018

docket

NYC's response deadline extended to 8 November.

Bob A · Oct 8, 2018

Kharn said:
docket

NYC's response deadline extended to 8 November.

Plenty of time for the new Justice to get up to speed in his new job.

Nice set of arguments there.

Kharn · Oct 8, 2018

Bob A said:
Plenty of time for the new Justice to get up to speed in his new job.

Nice set of arguments there.

Far better circumstances than Rothery from the 9th, IMO.

jcutonilli · Oct 8, 2018

Bob A said:
Plenty of time for the new Justice to get up to speed in his new job.

Nice set of arguments there.

We will see if a new Justice will make any difference.

I don't think the arguments were as strong as they could be. They talked around the problem, but did not really address why the court really used rational basis and not intermediate scrutiny.

The court claimed that public safety is a substantial government interest, which is why the court claims it meets intermediate scrutiny. While they mention that there the relationship between the restriction and the government interest is based on a hypothesis, they fail to really argue why it is not really intermediate scrutiny. They mention how you may have to travel farther to reach a city range, but failed to elaborate that there is no real difference traveling to a range outside the city vs inside the city. If there is really a problem traveling with a gun why is traveling with a gun inside the city acceptable?

If you read the circuit court opinion, the plaintiffs apparently used a tennis racket analogy. The court promptly destroyed that argument. While I understand that it can be considered a blunt object, I am unfamiliar with how many tennis rackets are used to injure people. I am unsure why a car, which causes at least as many deaths a guns, was not chosen.

While I think that this could have been a good case, I am not so sure based on the arguments presented.

danb · Oct 9, 2018

jcutonilli said:
We will see if a new Justice will make any difference.

I don't think the arguments were as strong as they could be.

Yeah, Paul Clement writes terrible briefs. That's why he gets so few cases granted cert. I am sure he has no idea what the conservative justices are looking for. Maybe he should hire some former Kavanaugh and Scalia clerks. Are you free, you could submit your resume!

press1280 · Oct 9, 2018

jcutonilli said:
We will see if a new Justice will make any difference.

I don't think the arguments were as strong as they could be. They talked around the problem, but did not really address why the court really used rational basis and not intermediate scrutiny.

The court claimed that public safety is a substantial government interest, which is why the court claims it meets intermediate scrutiny. While they mention that there the relationship between the restriction and the government interest is based on a hypothesis, they fail to really argue why it is not really intermediate scrutiny. They mention how you may have to travel farther to reach a city range, but failed to elaborate that there is no real difference traveling to a range outside the city vs inside the city. If there is really a problem traveling with a gun why is traveling with a gun inside the city acceptable?

If you read the circuit court opinion, the plaintiffs apparently used a tennis racket analogy. The court promptly destroyed that argument. While I understand that it can be considered a blunt object, I am unfamiliar with how many tennis rackets are used to injure people. I am unsure why a car, which causes at least as many deaths a guns, was not chosen.

While I think that this could have been a good case, I am not so sure based on the arguments presented.

This transport law would become relatively moot in the face of a successful public carry case. I'd rather they pass on this and take a good carry case instead.
Taking this case just doesn't advance the ball very much IMO.

jcutonilli · Oct 9, 2018

danb said:
Yeah, Paul Clement writes terrible briefs. That's why he gets so few cases granted cert. I am sure he has no idea what the conservative justices are looking for. Maybe he should hire some former Kavanaugh and Scalia clerks. Are you free, you could submit your resume!

I never said it was terrible. Are you saying this brief was perfect and that he does not make any mistakes? There are definitely things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief.

How many 2A cases of his have been accepted? He is not listed as council in Heller, McDonald or Caetano. He was listed in Peruta, which was denied.

Have you looked at what the courts are doing?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/l...r-courts-dont-follow-supreme-court-precedent/

It is not unusual that the SCOTUS doesn't take cases when there is some kind of split.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/EvolutionofConflict.pdf

SCOTUS has not really accepted any 2A case for argument since McDonald. The lower courts have come to a much different conclusion compared to Heller/McDonald. SCOTUS has done nothing to correct these conclusions. Maybe the problem is that those arguing the problem don't really understand the real problem.

danb · Oct 9, 2018

jcutonilli said:
I never said it was terrible. Are you saying this brief was perfect and that he does not make any mistakes? There are definitely things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief.

How many 2A cases of his have been accepted? He is not listed as council in Heller, McDonald or Caetano. He was listed in Peruta, which was denied.

Have you looked at what the courts are doing?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/l...r-courts-dont-follow-supreme-court-precedent/

It is not unusual that the SCOTUS doesn't take cases when there is some kind of split.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/EvolutionofConflict.pdf

SCOTUS has not really accepted any 2A case for argument since McDonald. The lower courts have come to a much different conclusion compared to Heller/McDonald. SCOTUS has done nothing to correct these conclusions. Maybe the problem is that those arguing the problem don't really understand the real problem.

Paul Clement has more cases argued before the Supreme Court over the last 4 years than any other lawyer. He also has the most wins in close cases. I'd bet on Paul Clement over random internet guy every day that ends in y.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/09/empirical-scotus-supreme-court-all-stars-2013-2017/

You keep whining how the briefs are not "perfect" and there are "things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief." I don't see you putting you money where your mouth is and filing amicus briefs.

Applehd · Oct 9, 2018

jcutonilli said:
...

Your sig line should be... "I could have done/said/written/argued it better." :rolleyes:

...at least you are consistent.

danb · Oct 9, 2018

Applehd said:
Your sig line should be... "I could have done/said/written/argued it better but didn't get off the couch and do anything about it."

...at least you are consistent.

fixed for you.

BeoBill · Oct 9, 2018

Allen65 said:
How does this law even pass a rational basis test? I guess the solution is to head to a range in PA so FOPA provides an affirmative defense?

How does ANYTHING in Tammany Hall-run NYC pass a rational basis test? You need connections, or you're out of luck.

Blacksmith101 · Oct 9, 2018

BeoBill said:
How does ANYTHING in Tammany Hall-run NYC pass a rational basis test? You need connections or bribes, or you're out of luck.

FIFY

jcutonilli · Oct 9, 2018

danb said:
Paul Clement has more cases argued before the Supreme Court over the last 4 years than any other lawyer. He also has the most wins in close cases. I'd bet on Paul Clement over random internet guy every day that ends in y.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/09/empirical-scotus-supreme-court-all-stars-2013-2017/

You keep whining how the briefs are not "perfect" and there are "things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief." I don't see you putting you money where your mouth is and filing amicus briefs.

You keep making straw man arguments. Paul Clement is a very good lawyer, I have never claimed he is a bad one. He writes plenty of good cert petitions and has argued the most number cases in the past 5 years. How does any of this address this case and whether this particular case will be accepted? What 2A SCOTUS cases has he argued?

It is not my opinion that SCOTUS has not taken another 2A case despite lower court rulings that have eviscerated the 2A. It is a fact. Why have they passed on all of the other 2A cases to date including ones that Paul Clement has written?

Maybe I am getting it all wrong. After all the results speak for themselves. 0 argued 2A SCOTUS cases (since McDonald) vs tens of cert denied 2A SCOTUS cases. Apparently there is nothing wrong with the argument. The courts are obviously corrupt and the next case will overcome this corruption. We will continue to blame someone else for our losses.

When I loose, I look to see where I made mistakes and try and figure out better ways to make my argument better. I continue to run into people that simply want to defend the status quo and blame someone else for the losses. I am slowly trying to put together an argument, but I keep running into people that would rather dismiss this line of argument.

danb · Oct 9, 2018

jcutonilli said:
You keep making straw man arguments. Paul Clement is a very good lawyer, I have never claimed he is a bad one. He writes plenty of good cert petitions and has argued the most number cases in the past 5 years. How does any of this address this case and whether this particular case will be accepted? What 2A SCOTUS cases has he argued?

It is not my opinion that SCOTUS has not taken another 2A case despite lower court rulings that have eviscerated the 2A. It is a fact. Why have they passed on all of the other 2A cases to date including ones that Paul Clement has written?

Maybe I am getting it all wrong. After all the results speak for themselves. 0 argued 2A SCOTUS cases (since McDonald) vs tens of cert denied 2A SCOTUS cases. Apparently there is nothing wrong with the argument. The courts are obviously corrupt and the next case will overcome this corruption. We will continue to blame someone else for our losses.

When I loose, I look to see where I made mistakes and try and figure out better ways to make my argument better. I continue to run into people that simply want to defend the status quo and blame someone else for the losses. I am slowly trying to put together an argument, but I keep running into people that would rather dismiss this line of argument.

There could be many many many reasons that the Supreme Court has not taken a case. Reasons that have nothing to do with the "quality" or substance of the arguments. The Supreme Court likes to see a circuit split (among other things). You could submit the perfect brief with the perfect arguments with the perfect litigants, but if you are the first, you might get denied because no split. In fact Gorsuch in one of today's cases commented that maybe the court would be better served to remand one of today's cases to allow an issue raised at arguments percolate further.

4 years ago, no one could imagine that there was a circuit split on public carry - let alone that D.C. would be shall issue before MD! Here we are now, with a solid split.

Roberts court overturns precedents less than prior courts. The flip side, Roberts court allow issues to percolate a lot more before they take a case . For something as controversial as public carry of guns, they will let the issue percolate for a long time, I think.

But if you really think its the quality or substance of arguments that are preventing us from getting to court, rather than the Roberts court exceedingly deliberative and slow approach to taking cases, then there is an easy fix. Submit amicus briefs! Then you will have definitive proof whether its the arguments or some other issue.

Kharn · Oct 9, 2018

jcutonilli said:
I never said it was terrible. Are you saying this brief was perfect and that he does not make any mistakes? There are definitely things that I think he could have addressed better in this brief.

How many 2A cases of his have been accepted? He is not listed as council in Heller, McDonald or Caetano. He was listed in Peruta, which was denied.

Have you looked at what the courts are doing?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/l...r-courts-dont-follow-supreme-court-precedent/

It is not unusual that the SCOTUS doesn't take cases when there is some kind of split.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/EvolutionofConflict.pdf

SCOTUS has not really accepted any 2A case for argument since McDonald. The lower courts have come to a much different conclusion compared to Heller/McDonald. SCOTUS has done nothing to correct these conclusions. Maybe the problem is that those arguing the problem don't really understand the real problem.

Clement was a significant player in both Heller and McDonald.

Heller:
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE

PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record

Mar 18 2008 Argued. For petitioners: Walter Dellinger, Washington, D.C. For United States as amicus curiae: Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Alan Gura, Alexandria, Va.

McDonald:
Mar 02 2010 Argued. For petitioners: Alan Gura, Alexandria, Va. For respondents National Rifle Association, In.c, et al. in support of petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: James A. Feldman, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington, D. C.

esqappellate · Oct 9, 2018

Kharn said:
Clement was a significant player in both Heller and McDonald.

Heller:
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE

PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record

Mar 18 2008 Argued. For petitioners: Walter Dellinger, Washington, D.C. For United States as amicus curiae: Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Alan Gura, Alexandria, Va.

McDonald:
Mar 02 2010 Argued. For petitioners: Alan Gura, Alexandria, Va. For respondents National Rifle Association, In.c, et al. in support of petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: James A. Feldman, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington, D. C.

Paul Clement is one the best oral advocates in the SCT that I have ever seen. And I have seen plenty!

Second Circuit NYC transport law upheld

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Throbbing Member

dont be a dumbass

Crank in the Third Row

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics