NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[lazarus]

Originally Posted by press1280

His vote (assuming the other 5 conservatives agree) would make a per curiam possible, although I don't see them making a straight up call on the merits without oral argument.

Based on composition, I think it is likely Roberts will vote with the other conservatives. And I see him writing a narrowly tailored opinion. Any mildly competent chief justice knows how it works. They vote with the majority if it is going to pass anyway. Then they get to write the opinion if they have a hankering to.

It is rare that the chief justice votes in the minority unless it is some decision they just absolutely abhor.

[Bob A]

If I'm reading everything correctly, there's an extension granted to permit filing briefs opposed to cert until Feb 22.

I presume that once all briefs are filed, we wait while the Court digests all that ink, then eventually coughs up a decision on whether they will take up the case.

Then we either weep quietly into our beer, or hunker down until the end of term decision. Am I getting the timeline right?

[jcutonilli]

Originally Posted by Bob A

If I'm reading everything correctly, there's an extension granted to permit filing briefs opposed to cert until Feb 22.

I presume that once all briefs are filed, we wait while the Court digests all that ink, then eventually coughs up a decision on whether they will take up the case.

Then we either weep quietly into our beer, or hunker down until the end of term decision. Am I getting the timeline right?

SCOTUS will wait several weeks for the petitioner to file a reply brief. They will then schedule it for a conference. They may reschedule if they want some additional time before a conference. They will usually relist cases that they will eventually take. It would guess it would not get to a conference until the middle/end of March at the earliest.

[MossPumper]

Originally Posted by Decoy

I have zero faith in the SCOTUS, they will find some backasswards reason to punt it.

Sad as it is I have to agree with you .

[jcutonilli]

BIO was filed today http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...Opposition.pdf

Neil Goldfarb filed an amicus supporting the BIO 10 days ago http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...tt%20FINAL.pdf

[press1280]

Originally Posted by jcutonilli

BIO was filed today http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...Opposition.pdf

Neil Goldfarb filed an amicus supporting the BIO 10 days ago http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...tt%20FINAL.pdf

I see once again NYC is trying to fool SCOTUS into thinking that the pre-Wrenn scheme in DC was somehow much more restrictive than NYC. It's amazing how they think that there's some magical percentage of issuance (based on good cause) that makes it constitutionally permissible.

[motorcoachdoug]

I think this time around SCOTUS will not give NYC one inch after they played games and wasted the courts time since NYC did NOT want SCOTUS rule against them in the last time around.

[Kharn]

I love NY state's argument here:

"In assessing whether an applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must consider wholly objective factors such as “population density, composition, and geographical location,” among others."

That totally does not sound like there would be disparate impacts between different racial and economic groups. Not the slightest.

[fred55]

Originally Posted by Kharn

I love NY state's argument here:

"In assessing whether an applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must consider wholly objective factors such as “population density, composition, and geographical location,” among others."

That totally does not sound like there would be disparate impacts between different racial and economic groups. Not the slightest.

Bingo, it’s the Democrats/socialists dog whistle against all. 👍 fred55

[jcutonilli]

Originally Posted by Kharn

I love NY state's argument here:

"In assessing whether an applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must consider wholly objective factors such as “population density, composition, and geographical location,” among others."

That totally does not sound like there would be disparate impacts between different racial and economic groups. Not the slightest.

You fail to understand the real problem of why we keep losing. It is not possible to demonstrate a non-speculative need for self-defense of an average individual. This is because that type of future event is not knowable or provable.

The case is lost once you fail to challenge the fact that the government does not really provide public safety. While they do provide some component of public safety they do not protect any specific individual. The only way to really provide public safety to everyone is through individual self defense. You need to be able to make a non speculative argument if you want to have any chance of winning.