Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

krucam said:

Below is my favorite go-to list for the active #2A cases at SCOTUS.

https://comm2a.org/ot2019/

Click to expand...

Medina v. Barr

DENIED

Also, this list says Malpasso v Pallozzi was scheduled 12/6, but the docket seems to disagree. ETA: I see this "Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 18, 2019." - So there is no way this was scheduled for 12/6 conference

THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS (TTAG) website just published an update on this case as part of their weekly news update.

The featured photo used to illustrate their story was taken by PATRIOT PICKET during our pro-2A demonstration at the Supreme Court last Monday during oral argument in NYSRPA v. NYC (H/T and big thanks to Kaffakid!):

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/will-new-york-city-squirm-out-of-the-supreme-court-case/

We agree that post-argument media coverage is critically important.

This is why, in addition to our boots-on-the-ground sign demonstration and live interviews at the steps of SCOTUS that day, broadcast locally on TV and online nationwide, PATRIOT PICKET captured photos and video to continue to message on behalf of all lawful gun owners, everywhere.

This is but one positive example:

There’s a very good reason why the RED MOMMIES (Moms Demand Action) and all the other paid and bused-in EVERYTOWN anti-gun zombies HAD ALMOST NO USEABLE VIDEO, PHOTOS OR SOUNDBITES to use in their post-argument media propaganda.

PATRIOT PICKET upon arrival immediately took up a position next to and BEHIND their professionally-assembled stage with their lectern and anti-gun backdrop positioned in front of the Supreme Court steps.

Using our pro-2A signs and flags, we “ruined” the photo and video opportunities they intended to use to create their precious anti-gun content for their post-argument anti-gun commercials and social media.

Instead, our “DON’T TREAD ON ME’” flag flew directly above their backdrop, and our pro-2A signs were positioned closely to either side ruining their “stage picture.”

We had no intention of blocking their mass-produced signs; we only asserted our right to be in the same central location (they had no permit to be there exclusively).

So when the anti-First Amendment Bloombergbots attempted to cover up and block our 2A sign messages to deny our right to free speech in this public place (including standing on folding chairs with their signs to block us) we decided “turnabout was fair play.”

So PATRIOT PICKET unleashed the BULLHORN OF TRUTH.

The beautiful sound of our amplified bullhorn messages, right next to their lectern during all their planned speeches that they presumptuously expected the local and national news media to carry for them, ruined their ecstasy.

The AGONY AND THE ECSTASY; their agony, our ecstasy.

As a result, almost no useable video news footage of them appeared without a news anchor voice-over to fecklessly try to explain their message, to cover our successful pro-2A messaging.

They couldn’t use many wide-angle crowd shots, because we were at the center of the stage picture with them. They had to resort to very tight close-ups of their speakers; their incoherent yelling from their lectern over our bullhorn messages is all they produced.

The Battle of the Supreme Court was waged, and continues.

Well done!

Kharn said:

The movement on the other cases, IMO, would be relisting them for conference. That happens on Mondays, and the dockets will be updated later today if it occurred.

Click to expand...

Well, a few cases got relisted, but no 2A cases got relisted. Medina v. Barr got denied, but otherwise no change.

krucam said:

Below is my favorite go-to list for the active #2A cases at SCOTUS.

https://comm2a.org/ot2019/

Click to expand...

And MA filed their response in Worman on Friday, not sure if that one had its own thread.

G O B said:

Well done!

Click to expand...

Very, VERY well done!! It's YUUUUUUGGGGGE to have someone involved who understands the strategy, tactics, and practice of news organizations and how to disrupt them, when required.

JoeR

Thanks Patriot Picket!!

No movement in any of the other 2A cases being held. Nothing being held has been relisted.

I just checked this morning and no orders or anything new at all at the SCOTUS web page.

danb said:

Well, a few cases got relisted, but no 2A cases got relisted. Medina v. Barr got denied, but otherwise no change.

Click to expand...

It's a good petition and an issue that has merit and won't go away. I just don't think that the court like Gura.

Knuckle Dragger said:

It's a good petition and an issue that has merit and won't go away. I just don't think that the court like Gura.

Click to expand...

Most likely the court does not like the defendant. Its notable that they denied this case while holding two other cases Gura is arguing (Pena and Mance). That should tell you that in fact it was a terrible petition.

Bear with me on this one, I'm not an attorney.

I’ve thought about this case a lot since last week. The more I think about it the more I believe:

1. The issues are not moot;
2. The case is germane and relevant to other 2A cases; and
3. The case is germane and relevant to other civil rights issues.

I believe that the court will issue a decision that will result in an injunction on the merits.

I have come to believe that this case is not moot because in reading the transcript the NYC attorney said that the City would not prosecute past violations of the law. But, there’s no way to demonstrate or prove that NYC would or could not prosecute such violations. Proving a negative is always difficult; and proving a future negative even more so:

NYC: "Sorry, bub. We're arresting you or taking away your right to carry because you carried a gun in a box in your trunk in 2017."
People: "But you said you wouldn't."
NYC: "Go cry to mommy. What's said in SCOTUS stays in SCOTUS. Now gimme over your money and your stuff."

I also think that the case for future damages of some kind might be strong enough to validate that the issues are not moot. And I believe that Gorsuch’s multiple comments about a relief delta are telling. Changing the laws are not enough, and the scope of the changes do not adequately meet plaintiffs’ demands or constitutional muster.

Plus, Alito was only able to get the NYC attorney to admit a tortured acknowledgement of the right to bear arms outside of the home (i.e. the attorney referred to something of which I’ve never heard called “home means”, whatever that is…) The attorney's approach to that clearly demonstrates that NYC will continue to push back on these rights.

I also believe the case will be decided on its merits because broader civil rights issues identified by the plaintiffs which are core to this case, are not moot. These issues are related to the way in which the government, in all of its branches and forms, willfully and knowingly suppressed rights until the Supreme Court stepped into the matter. The government passed, defended and adjudicated clearly unconstitutional laws all along. Examples (and this is just from my poor recollection of the facts…)
- The NYC chief of police maintained and still maintains that the transport rules were legitimate, and not an infringement.
- The NYC council adopted the rules knowing that the case for public safety was weak, at best.
- When the plaintiffs took the matter to court, the City funded a substantial campaign to preserve a law/regulation that was clearly unconstitutional.
- The NY state and federal courts all repeatedly allowed the rules to stand. They failed to follow precedent, guidance and instruction, and they failed to preserve and respect civil rights – across the board.
- When the case was granted cert, only then did the City move to change the rules, and move it did. They quickly executed a rule change per local process, and ignored the majority of public commentary that said “don’t change the rules.” They also worked with the governor’s office as well as both houses of the NY state legislature to quickly pass a state rule change. Tellingly, the NYC chief of police or commissioner, whatever his title, maintained all along that the prior rule was NOT a rights violation.
- The NY state legislature changed laws, and the governor signed the changes. And while doing so the law’s sponsor openly stated on the floor of the NY house that they were doing this in response to the SCOTUS cert (although his language was more colorful and critical of the Court.)
- Throughout the City’s engagement w/ SCOTUS, they denied, delayed and obfuscated, muddied and arrogantly refused to acknowledge any wrong-doing, or that they must argue the case on its merits.
- And, the City enlisted a number of US government legislators to apply external, legislative pressure on the court to rule in the City’s favor.

It was clear from the beginning that the plaintiffs’ rights were being violated by illegal, unconstitutional and unreasonable laws, but EVERY agency, official, judge and branch that managed the regulations or heard the dispute REFUSED to act and change the rules. And until today they refuse to acknowledge any wrong-doing. In fact, it’s the opposite. They grudgingly admitted in the SCOTUS hearing that there were no public safety benefits from the old rules, and said that "police have to work harder" but offered NO facts to support that claim. How much harder? Hours? Investigations? Arrests? Nothing.

The City and State of New York have clearly demonstrated that given the opportunity, a government, at all levels, may simply ignore civil rights with which they disagree. They did this simply because they could, and they thought no one would care enough to stop them. The SCOTUS justices see this. It cannot be unseen.

I used to think this case wasn’t not a good vehicle for 2A issues for which I am concerned. Over the last week my opinion on this has changed. Principally, the government of NY has demonstrated that given the chance a government can and will violate 2A, and other rights. They have taken the approach of “just try to stop me” in trying to regulate a fundamental civil right.

I believe that there’s enough of meat on the bone in this case to resolve most if not all matters from this case, and the other 2A cases that are pending cert, too.

And given the way that the City and NY state reacted when this case was granted cert, I think that this case can also inform many other civil rights cases where the government clearly operates beyond its authority. What if the issues were related to speech, assembly, voting, search, seizure, property or other rights? By ruling on this case this court can create a precedent that will inform and strengthen other civil rights.

It would be a grave mistake for the court to pass up this case. I am hopeful they will rule on the merits. It’s necessary for them to do so to preserve the second amendment and other civil rights.

Some Guy said:

Bear with me on this one, I'm not an attorney

...

It would be a grave mistake for the court to pass up this case. I am hopeful they will rule on the merits. It’s necessary for them to do so to preserve the second amendment and other civil rights.

Click to expand...

I'm likewise no attorney, but that feels like a pretty insightful take on this situation. We know at least one Justice (Thomas) more or less explicitly agrees with you on this being a broader Bill of Rights thing. He's not amused that other organs of government and other courts have been playing fast and loose with the importance of different amendments in the BoR for, essentially, political purposes.

I think its hard to say if the case is moot. Some people read "yes" some people read "no." The key exchange IMO is when Roberts
asked if mooting this case prejudices further options. NYC response was not "no," it was a definitely "maybe" based on some time bar, and they would have to look at it.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is there any way in which a finding of mootness would prejudice further options available to the Petitioners in this case, for example, seeking damages?
MR. DEARING: I don't -- I don't think so. I mean, they -- they --it's possible they'd have -- they'd have a time bar on --on -- on damages, but it depends -- it would depend on the allegation they've made. They've never made any allegations related to damages, and I think we'd have to assess that based on the allegations they make.

Click to expand...

So, yeah, it might prejudice future options, ergo the case is not moot. "it depends" was not the correct answer here. Of course, I am in the minority here thinking that this case is not moot , due to this exchange.

We have not seen any action on any other case. The court may wait until we have an official opinion on mootness.

I do know, NYC put all their eggs in the mootness bucket and very little time on the 2A side. If the case is not moot, they royally ****ed themselves (no tears shed here). In fact, I look forward to NYC rather than gun owners getting ****ed for once.

danb said:

I think its hard to say if the case is moot. Some people read "yes" some people read "no." The key exchange IMO is when Roberts
asked if mooting this case prejudices further options. NYC response was not "no," it was a definitely "maybe" based on some time bar, and they would have to look at it.



So, yeah, it might prejudice future options, ergo the case is not moot. "it depends" was not the correct answer here. Of course, I am in the minority here thinking that this case is not moot , due to this exchange.

We have not seen any action on any other case. The court may wait until we have an official opinion on mootness.

I do know, NYC put all their eggs in the mootness bucket and very little time on the 2A side. If the case is not moot, they royally ****ed themselves (no tears shed here). In fact, I look forward to NYC rather than gun owners getting ****ed for once.

Click to expand...

I think you're right. That was not the correct way to answer Roberts' question. I did not catch this in my reading. It further ratifies my opinion that the case is not moot. Not by a long shot.

Let me add on my opinion on a potential outcome.

First: the right of Transport outside the home cannot be infringed. This is likely the baseline of any non-moot ruling.

Secondly, we could get a windfall if the Justices rule that states must strongly consider the BoR when writing new laws or, better yet, preempt the states from writing any laws regarding the 2A under the presumption that it is a claimed Federal power. Now, I highly doubt they have the spine to issue such a powerful ruling, but if the former is granted it would still bolster 2A rights for generations to come.

There are probably more potential benefits from a non-moot case but I do not know particularly what else could be argued out of this case. Only time will tell.

Cruacious said:

Let me add on my opinion on a potential outcome.

First: the right of Transport outside the home cannot be infringed. This is likely the baseline of any non-moot ruling.

Secondly, we could get a windfall if the Justices rule that states must strongly consider the BoR when writing new laws or, better yet, preempt the states from writing any laws regarding the 2A under the presumption that it is a claimed Federal power. Now, I highly doubt they have the spine to issue such a powerful ruling, but if the former is granted it would still bolster 2A rights for generations to come.

There are probably more potential benefits from a non-moot case but I do not know particularly what else could be argued out of this case. Only time will tell.

Click to expand...

Yep, I've had it in my signature line for a while. No other enumerated right in the US Constitution has the clause "shall not be infringed". Clearly, preemption was intended.

Some Guy said:

Bear with me on this one, I'm not an attorney.

I’ve thought about this case a lot since last week. The more I think about it the more I believe:

1. The issues are not moot;
2. The case is germane and relevant to other 2A cases; and
3. The case is germane and relevant to other civil rights issues.

I believe that the court will issue a decision that will result in an injunction on the merits.

Click to expand...

Your observations are thoughtful, but not conclusive. The Supreme Court's mootness jurisprudence is not straightforward - there's something here for both parties. The court's ruling on mootness will have more to do with where they want to go with the Second Amendment generally and this issue specifically. Hell, they could punt on the merits (and hopefully grant another petition) and use this as an opportunity to nail down a mootness doctrine. There are just too many possible permutations to make any kind of prediction. The only sure bet is that the court will not find for NY on the merits.

These analyses on mootness can credibly go either way. What's important is where the court goes from there.

The problem I see, even with the new rewritten law it that is still infringes on transport. If this case is mooted, NY and other states will say “See, SCOTUS says we can greatly infringe on where you can take your firearm and they said this is okay”. Look for them to see this as a good legal case for them to clamp down on existing transportation laws. Much like some of what they tried to pull from Heller about limits on 2A and twisting it to their benefit.