Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I think your optics are wrong. I think there is a reason the justices haven’t taken 2A cases. It’s not about Roberts deciding, it’s about Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh knowing how Roberts will vote.

    It wasn’t about what Kennedy would LET Scalia do, it was about Scalia knowing what Kennedy would do.

    ^^^^^

    this
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    No petitioner in the case wanted to take their firearm outside the state. If the federal government can't regulate the possession of a firearm, under their commerce powers, outside of a school as in US v Lopez. What makes you think they can here?

    Again I gave you two amici filings from outside of NY.

    Amicus Curiae
    Latin for "friend of the court." Plural is "amici curiae." Frequently, a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court's decision. Such briefs are called "amicus briefs."

    Moreover the main filing as well as the amici cited in in this case DO argue for commerce clause relevance:
    QUESTION PRESENTED
    Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed,
    locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting
    range outside city limits is consistent with the Second
    Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the
    constitutional right to travel.

    On Lopez you are inverting the actual result. Lopez technically won BUT that FEDERAL school zone law successfully using commerce clause WAS rewritten successfully by moving around a few commas. And the federal government already does have commerce clause derived powers over firearms.

    Roberts is all that matters here since we know all the other justices vote already. I agree it is somewhat more likely Roberts will excluded commerce clause, and exclude strict scrutiny -- but that is not going to be based on the law and precedent -- but on his own political beliefs.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    NYC is in a unique situation geographically. Travel a short distance (i.e., five miles) from midtown Manhattan on the "subway" and you're out of NYC but still in NY State (Westchester); travel the same distance West and you're in NJ.

    Yeah I was grew up in Jersey City so I know this. That is a practical reason why interstate commerce is part of the case and interstate issue cited by all the legal blogs on this case as part of it.

    Just as Scalia was constrained by what Kennedy outbound told him would be his limits, this all hinges on Roberts since he is the swing. He may not author the decision but Roberts will decide. He likely will insist on limiting any commerce clause aspect, just as he will almost certainly not allow strict scrutiny either. But that goes to his political beliefs not the merits.

    By the way it is not totally unique. DC has unique geographic issues, as do a lot of small states.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    By the way it is not totally unique. DC has unique geographic issues, as do a lot of small states.

    More to the point, so does EVERYBODY, except those who live in Alaska and Hawaii. Because no matter how big your state is, you can live on the border just literally feet from another state (or sometimes two or three). Just look at those folks who live in that narrow bit of MD where you can go out for a drive to a country orchard, visit a farm market, get some gas, hit a hardware store, and then decide you might want something at Wegmans, and feel like taking a bit of a scenic route past that micro-brewary ... and before you know it, you've been in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania all before you stop for lunch. I've certainly had more than one day like that.
     

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    NYC is in a unique situation geographically. Travel a short distance (i.e., five miles) from midtown Manhattan on the "subway" and you're out of NYC but still in NY State (Westchester); travel the same distance West and you're in NJ.

    Not really that unique. Imagine if DC pulled the same shit. Similarly small geographic-jurisdiction boundaries.... Have as many guns in your house as you want to run gun oil over, but you can’t take them to MD or VA to shoot. Even the DC Council gets tired of making compulsory donations to SAF.

    NYC is a little weird in that NYS liberally allows it to preempt state laws because the city was established (1624) before the state.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    No petitioner in the case wanted to take their firearm outside the state. If the federal government can't regulate the possession of a firearm, under their commerce powers, outside of a school as in US v Lopez. What makes you think they can here?

    I am unsure why you believe that no petitioner wanted to take their firearm out of the state. The second argument in the petition is exactly that. They do want to take their firearms out of the state.

    US v Lopez indicates that the federal governments commerce powers only apply when there is actual commerce. Local possession of a firearm on local school grounds has nothing to do with commerce.

    In this case traveling across state lines and spending money at an out of state range certainly is commerce and is certainly interstate. None of the lower courts disputed that it was not interstate commerce. They simply felt the ability to rent one out of state made the NYC restrictions acceptable.
     

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    Just as Scalia was constrained by what Kennedy outbound told him would be his limits, this all hinges on Roberts since he is the swing. He may not author the decision but Roberts will decide. He likely will insist on limiting any commerce clause aspect, just as he will almost certainly not allow strict scrutiny either. But that goes to his political beliefs not the merits.

    Bingo. I’m cautiously optimistic that Roberts’ Trump Derangement Syndrome is just that, and that he is scient enough to not let that affect his interpretation of the constitution. The more rational side of me says he is the next Souter though after the mental gymnastics he swong for Obamacare. RBG can’t retire soon enough.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Again I gave you two amici filings from outside of NY.

    Again, no petitioner has attempted to or said they wished to take firearms outside the state. If so, go ahead and post it up.


    Moreover the main filing as well as the amici cited in in this case DO argue for commerce clause relevance:

    Again, this issue involves state law, not 18 U.S. Code § 926A. The state law involves intrastate movement of firearms. It's a novel idea, but equivalent to Peruta wanting to open carry after seeking a concealed carry permit..There's no standing on the commerce clause issue.

    On Lopez you are inverting the actual result. Lopez technically won BUT that FEDERAL school zone law successfully using commerce clause WAS rewritten successfully by moving around a few commas. And the federal government already does have commerce clause derived powers over firearms.

    It was rewritten to say that the firearm had to have passed in interstate commerce. It sure was "rewritten successfully". The rewrite though, hasn't been challenged, sorry, but I doubt that would fly either. I didn't invert anything actually.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    I am unsure why you believe that no petitioner wanted to take their firearm out of the state. The second argument in the petition is exactly that. They do want to take their firearms out of the state.

    From Petition:

    "Petitioners Romolo Colantone, Jose Anthony Irizarry, and Efrain Alvarez hold premises licenses in New York City. App.7. Colantone is a resident of Staten Island and has held a premises license for nearly 50 years. He owns a second home in Hancock, New York, in Delaware County, and he wishes to transport his handgun to his second home and use it when he is in residence there to defend himself and his family. App.7; JA33 ¶11. He has declined to take his handgun from the city to Hancock, however, for fear of prosecution under §5-23. JA33-34 ¶¶12, 14"

    "Irizarry and Alvarez are residents of the Bronx and have held premises licenses for more than a decade. JA41 ¶¶2, 3; JA45 ¶¶2, 3. Colantone, Irizarry, and Alvarez all seek to transport their handguns to target ranges and shooting competitions outside New York City to hone their shooting skills. App.7. The same is true for members of petitioner the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. JA9. Because of §5-23, however, petitioners and/or their members have declined to participate in any shooting competitions or events outside the borders of the city for fear of revocation of their premises licenses and of criminal prosecution. JA33-34 ¶¶10,13; JA42-43 ¶¶9-10; JA46-47 ¶¶9-10."

    Do you see a challenge to 18 U.S. Code § 926A anywhere? I don't, but I see, "for fear of prosecution under §5-23"...That's intrastate.


    US v Lopez indicates that the federal governments commerce powers only apply when there is actual commerce. Local possession of a firearm on local school grounds has nothing to do with commerce.

    Yes, in that case, but there was no "actual commerce" in Gonzales v Raich and possession was inside the home for personal use...See how nicely they can twist that jurisprudence to suit their needs for corrupting the Constitution. There are no grounds for a commerce clause ruling...IMO


    In this case traveling across state lines and spending money at an out of state range certainly is commerce and is certainly interstate. None of the lower courts disputed that it was not interstate commerce. They simply felt the ability to rent one out of state made the NYC restrictions acceptable.

    From Petition:

    "And the court rejected the argument that the transport ban has an impermissible extraterritorial effect, insisting that it “directly governs only activity within New York City,” notwithstanding its total prohibition on transporting lawfully acquired firearms outside the city. App.31-34. As for the right to travel, the court concluded that the “Constitution protects the right to travel, not the right to travel armed.” App.35."
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    This case will most likely be settled on the grounds of ones constitutional right to travel with lawfully owned property and limited to previous Heller findings concerning firearms in the home. Because the law is limited to intrastate travel, the commerce clause doesn't apply here.

    Don't get your hopes up for any novel 2nd Amendment decision.

    The question presented is:

    Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

    If this is a win based on the commerce clause, itll be because the libs joined to make it a lopsided vote. I Do not see the 5 conservatives taking the case just on commerce clause arguments.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,538
    Columbia
    Look for a highly covered mass violence event with a firearm shortly before or after oral arguments...

    The Hearing Protection Act was done in by Las Vegas. We'll see what event influences this decision.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk



    The HPA was done in by ball-less Republicans


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    From Petition:

    "Petitioners Romolo Colantone, Jose Anthony Irizarry, and Efrain Alvarez hold premises licenses in New York City. App.7. Colantone is a resident of Staten Island and has held a premises license for nearly 50 years. He owns a second home in Hancock, New York, in Delaware County, and he wishes to transport his handgun to his second home and use it when he is in residence there to defend himself and his family. App.7; JA33 ¶11. He has declined to take his handgun from the city to Hancock, however, for fear of prosecution under §5-23. JA33-34 ¶¶12, 14"

    "Irizarry and Alvarez are residents of the Bronx and have held premises licenses for more than a decade. JA41 ¶¶2, 3; JA45 ¶¶2, 3. Colantone, Irizarry, and Alvarez all seek to transport their handguns to target ranges and shooting competitions outside New York City to hone their shooting skills. App.7. The same is true for members of petitioner the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. JA9. Because of §5-23, however, petitioners and/or their members have declined to participate in any shooting competitions or events outside the borders of the city for fear of revocation of their premises licenses and of criminal prosecution. JA33-34 ¶¶10,13; JA42-43 ¶¶9-10; JA46-47 ¶¶9-10."

    Do you see a challenge to 18 U.S. Code § 926A anywhere? I don't, but I see, "for fear of prosecution under §5-23"...That's intrastate.




    Yes, in that case, but there was no "actual commerce" in Gonzales v Raich and possession was inside the home for personal use...See how nicely they can twist that jurisprudence to suit their needs for corrupting the Constitution. There are no grounds for a commerce clause ruling...IMO




    From Petition:

    "And the court rejected the argument that the transport ban has an impermissible extraterritorial effect, insisting that it “directly governs only activity within New York City,” notwithstanding its total prohibition on transporting lawfully acquired firearms outside the city. App.31-34. As for the right to travel, the court concluded that the “Constitution protects the right to travel, not the right to travel armed.” App.35."

    The petition says "Colantone, Irizarry, and Alvarez all seek to transport their handguns to target ranges and shooting competitions outside New York City to hone their shooting skills." The last time I checked every other state is outside NYC, so interstate travel is covered under this statement.

    They are not challenging the lawfulness of 18 U.S. Code § 926A. This section specifically allows interstate transport, which is what they are asking for. You should check the petition's Table of Authorities if you cannot find a particular Code section. According to this table 18 U.S. Code § 926A is specifically listed on page 14 of the petition and is included as part of argument I of the petition.

    I believe §5-23 is the NYC ordinance that prohibits permit holders from taking their firearm anywhere but the seven NYC gun ranges. It makes no distinction between intrastate and interstate.

    SCOTUS has interpreted the commerce clause very broadly and if you bothered to read Gonzales v Raich you would see that

    Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

    The “directly governs only activity within New York City,” is in reference to the firearm and not the travel and use of it outside the state. The reason is because people can still travel and use other rented firearms. Based on how broadly SCOTUS interprets the commerce clause, I see them overruling this decision.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    The petition says "Colantone, Irizarry, and Alvarez all seek to transport their handguns to target ranges and shooting competitions outside New York City to hone their shooting skills." The last time I checked every other state is outside NYC, so interstate travel is covered under this statement.

    Their challenge involves prohibitions to travel with firearms under a permit issued by NYC. Federal law has jurisdiction over interstate travel and Federal law doesn't prohibit the interstate travel of firearms. Their interstate challenge has no standing.


    They are not challenging the lawfulness of 18 U.S. Code § 926A. This section specifically allows interstate transport, which is what they are asking for. You should check the petition's Table of Authorities if you cannot find a particular Code section. According to this table 18 U.S. Code § 926A is specifically listed on page 14 of the petition and is included as part of argument I of the petition.

    You obviously never read why 18 U.S. Code § 926A was being mentioned in the petition. It makes no reference to interstate commerce, but was used in a comparative sense on appropriate storage of transported firearms.


    I believe §5-23 is the NYC ordinance that prohibits permit holders from taking their firearm anywhere but the seven NYC gun ranges. It makes no distinction between intrastate and interstate.

    It doesn't need to as Federal law has jurisdiction over interstate travel. You are assuming something not in evidence.


    SCOTUS has interpreted the commerce clause very broadly and if you bothered to read Gonzales v Raich you would see that

    Very broad indeed and its expansion was grounded on a farmer who was being subsidized by the Federal government. Not following the rules after signing your name on the dotted line doesn't work out very well. Social Security is another form of subsidizing by the government and completely voluntary. So when they tell you you're going to buy health care, you will buy health care. But here, Gonzales v Raich involves home growing whereas this case involves possession and transport within NYC.

    WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

    "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes."

    He had to follow the Agricultural Adjustment Act, he signed into it.


    The “directly governs only activity within New York City,” is in reference to the firearm and not the travel and use of it outside the state. The reason is because people can still travel and use other rented firearms. Based on how broadly SCOTUS interprets the commerce clause, I see them overruling this decision.

    That's just a judges opinion. Though, the permit does only have jurisdiction over travel within NYC and the State. I see SCOTUS overruling on grounds other than commerce jurisprudence.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    The petition says "Colantone, Irizarry, and Alvarez all seek to transport their handguns to target ranges and shooting competitions outside New York City to hone their shooting skills." The last time I checked every other state is outside NYC, so interstate travel is covered under this statement.

    They are not challenging the lawfulness of 18 U.S. Code § 926A. This section specifically allows interstate transport, which is what they are asking for. You should check the petition's Table of Authorities if you cannot find a particular Code section. According to this table 18 U.S. Code § 926A is specifically listed on page 14 of the petition and is included as part of argument I of the petition.

    I believe §5-23 is the NYC ordinance that prohibits permit holders from taking their firearm anywhere but the seven NYC gun ranges. It makes no distinction between intrastate and interstate.

    SCOTUS has interpreted the commerce clause very broadly and if you bothered to read Gonzales v Raich you would see that



    The “directly governs only activity within New York City,” is in reference to the firearm and not the travel and use of it outside the state. The reason is because people can still travel and use other rented firearms. Based on how broadly SCOTUS interprets the commerce clause, I see them overruling this decision.

    good points
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Their challenge involves prohibitions to travel with firearms under a permit issued by NYC. Federal law has jurisdiction over interstate travel and Federal law doesn't prohibit the interstate travel of firearms. Their interstate challenge has no standing.

    You obviously never read why 18 U.S. Code § 926A was being mentioned in the petition. It makes no reference to interstate commerce, but was used in a comparative sense on appropriate storage of transported firearms.

    It doesn't need to as Federal law has jurisdiction over interstate travel. You are assuming something not in evidence.

    Very broad indeed and its expansion was grounded on a farmer who was being subsidized by the Federal government. Not following the rules after signing your name on the dotted line doesn't work out very well. Social Security is another form of subsidizing by the government and completely voluntary. So when they tell you you're going to buy health care, you will buy health care. But here, Gonzales v Raich involves home growing whereas this case involves possession and transport within NYC.

    WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

    "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes."

    He had to follow the Agricultural Adjustment Act, he signed into it.

    That's just a judges opinion. Though, the permit does only have jurisdiction over travel within NYC and the State. I see SCOTUS overruling on grounds other than commerce jurisprudence.

    The NYC permit only applies to NYC. In order to travel from one's home in NYC to someplace outside of NYC you have to actually travel through NYC. If you traveling from your home in NYC with an unloaded firearm and your destination is not one of the city ranges, you can be found guilty of violating your premise permit. The interstate exception does not apply because you have not actually traveled interstate yet. The violation occurs before you cross the NYC border. This is why argument I is generic and does not specify just intrastate.

    The City’s Ban On Transporting Handguns Outside City Limits Is An Extreme, Unjustified, And Irrational Restriction On Second Amendment Rights.

    The reference to 18 U.S. Code § 926A was "included as part of argument I of the petition" because it demonstrates why the NYC restriction are "extreme, unjustified and irrational". Exactly as I stated.

    The confinement of guns in the home of NYC residents (consistent with the petitioners argument I) is also why the judge can say the law “directly governs only activity within New York City,” No interstate transport of those firearms are allowed. This is acceptable to the district and circuit courts because a NYC resident can rent them elsewhere.

    If you don't like the judges opinions don't file a lawsuit
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    An Amici was submitted last week on behalf of the Petitioners by the Judicial Watch Inc and Allied Educational Foundation.

    It's a nice read.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...5725205_Amicus Brief NY Rifle Assn 18-280.pdf

    Schedule for the Merits phase is as follows:
    Feb 25 2019 Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 7, 2019. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 5, 2019.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    While the average time for them to make a decision is about 90 days, individual cases can take much longer. There are still three cases that were argued in October that have not been decided yet. https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

    I think it will depend on how narrow or broad the decision will be. Based on the petition, and the reluctance to take other cases, I am not sure we will get a broad opinion. There was not much difference in the argument between this case and the other cases that have been denied. The merits briefs and the oral arguments may provide more a better basis for how narrow or broad the decision will be.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom