Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

If it becomes an actual SCOTUS decision , then the scoflaw states would have to change : Together, and right then .

Otherwise they could continue to pass and enforce laws they know to be illegal . Gamble how long it will take for a sympathetic plaintiff to initiate a case, persevere over several years , multliple appeals, and $$$ . And meanwhile harass, arrest, and convict / fore plea deals upon to population to keep them in line .

ed bernay said:

H/T to David Hardy at Of Arms & the Law

NYC letter to Court

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...20190703170251906_Letter to Supreme Court.pdf

Click to expand...

Queue up Pena...

not just moot, doubly moot!!

Well if it’s mooted, then that frees the log jam of other cases. Right?

Where would accountability come in to this system.

If the city and state permitted this bad law/rule, and judges, state and federal upheld them, at what point is there a reckoning? Along the lines of you were so blatantly wrong in the law and rulings, you can no longer be trusted for these cases? Especially for the judges?

If the nyc and ny state both say it was wrong, and only after threat of scotus review, there was a failure of the system. That is blatantly obvious by the actions take.

So who pays?

It’s all well and good they are removing this stupidity in NYC but 235 new anti gun laws across the country are passed each year. Only 1 is is being defeated. At this rate, we ain’t gonna catch up. Ever

delaware_export said:

Well if it’s mooted, then that frees the log jam of other cases. Right?

Where would accountability come in to this system.

If the city and state permitted this bad law/rule, and judges, state and federal upheld them, at what point is there a reckoning? Along the lines of you were so blatantly wrong in the law and rulings, you can no longer be trusted for these cases? Especially for the judges?

If the nyc and ny state both say it was wrong, and only after threat of scotus review, there was a failure of the system. That is blatantly obvious by the actions take.

So who pays?

It’s all well and good they are removing this stupidity in NYC but 235 new anti gun laws across the country are passed each year. Only 1 is is being defeated. At this rate, we ain’t gonna catch up. Ever

Click to expand...

My hope is the logjam stays in place with one of the held cases getting cert outright. They won't hear all these cases (now at least), so the only other option is they just deny cert to all. That would be just devastating and cause utter confusion. What the hell would the court be looking for to take a 2A case? NYSRPA didn't involve a circuit split (the usual vehicle for a cert grant).

We'll catch up when SCOTUS issues an opinion that gets the appeals courts in line. That will cut down on the nonsense.

No one pays in this case since plaintiffs didn't ask. If they did ask then the NYC residents would be paying.

krucam said:

Queue up Pena...

Click to expand...

Agreed......although with NY city and state's response to the cert grant, I don't put it past CA to change their roster to moot that case too.

Cheeseman would absolutely not be mooted by NJ if it got cert

Reference from CalGuns:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=23174215#post23174215

Please see Post 784. The thoughtful RPLaw certainly stirs the pot: "Interesting in that the letter to the SCOTUS re; mootness fails to mention that the new law(s) completely disregard the fact that one may bear/transport/etc a firearm to ANY PLACE they may lawfully possess it and instead substitutes a few specific locations as being "permissible"."

Am I the only one that's torn on whether or not I'd like a life-changing, landmark SCOTUS case on the 2A to be known (like, "Heller") with the single word, "Cheeseman?"

After some thought, I've decided I like the idea.

Occam said:

Am I the only one that's torn on whether or not I'd like a life-changing, landmark SCOTUS case on the 2A to be known (like, "Heller") with the single word, "Cheeseman?"

After some thought, I've decided I like the idea.

Click to expand...

I thought that myself. We could show up to Annapolis wearing Wisconsin-style cheesehead hats to enhance the misogyny. Frosh might very well stroke out.

Fedora said:

Reference from CalGuns:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=23174215#post23174215

Please see Post 784. The thoughtful RPLaw certainly stirs the pot: "Interesting in that the letter to the SCOTUS re; mootness fails to mention that the new law(s) completely disregard the fact that one may bear/transport/etc a firearm to ANY PLACE they may lawfully possess it and instead substitutes a few specific locations as being "permissible"."

Click to expand...

IIRC there's also a caveat in the NYC regulations that requires permit holders get written NYPD permission for each time they transport their firearm to one particular activity.

If NYC really wants to go all-in on mootness, the SCOTUS could appoint another member of the SC bar to defend their former position for them and let the case continue. And Aladdin's Castle can still bite NYC on the butt, the SC said changing the law to evade review can be reviewed as otherwise the defendant would be free to void the new law and re-engage in the same behavior as soon as the judgement is vacated as moot.

Fedora said:

Reference from CalGuns:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=23174215#post23174215

Please see Post 784. The thoughtful RPLaw certainly stirs the pot: "Interesting in that the letter to the SCOTUS re; mootness fails to mention that the new law(s) completely disregard the fact that one may bear/transport/etc a firearm to ANY PLACE they may lawfully possess it and instead substitutes a few specific locations as being "permissible"."

Click to expand...

Yes, but plaintiffs only asked for transport to ranges and homes. Another case has to be filed for that.

press1280 said:

Yes, but plaintiffs only asked for transport to ranges and homes. Another case has to be filed for that.

Click to expand...

There’s still some strings in there including asking pd for a permit to be able to transport to a ny approved hunting area. The legal firearms permit holder is still subject to encumbrance and the whims of government permission grantor.

The city and the state threaded a needle. But I wonder if a law abiding and permitted owner still have to ask for more permission might keep it alive.

I cannot remember I thought of the original complaint in the asked for hunting, any shooting ranges and any other residences? The city changed that verbiage but added the extra permit on top of a permit rule with regard to hunting?

Idk or am I having reading comprehension issues this morning. Lol. We’ll just have to see where it goes

Can the amended law requiring permission of the police department to exercise a constitutional right be used to attack the whole unconstitutional licensing scheme?

ed bernay said:

Can the amended law requiring permission of the police department to exercise a constitutional right be used to attack the whole unconstitutional licensing scheme?

Click to expand...

If permission must be asked, that is a privilege.

Inigoes said:

If permission must be asked, that is a privilege.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% but my question is about at this point in the case. IIRC, the challengers didn't challenge the requirement to of obtaining NYC's permission to even own a firearm in your own house. If NYC is amending the law to require permission to even move the firearm from your house in NYC to a house upstate, isn't that the opportunity now to challenge the requirement to obtain permission of owning a gun even after you have already demonstrated you are not a prohibited person just like NICs does in free America.

ed bernay said:

I agree 100% but my question is about at this point in the case. IIRC, the challengers didn't challenge the requirement to of obtaining NYC's permission to even own a firearm in your own house. If NYC is amending the law to require permission to even move the firearm from your house in NYC to a house upstate, isn't that the opportunity now to challenge the requirement to obtain permission of owning a gun even after you have already demonstrated you are not a prohibited person just like NICs does in free America.

Click to expand...

Someone could challenge it, but it would start at the lowest court level as a new case. It might work its way up to SCOTUS some time before 2035, but not likely. And by then the balance on the court will have changed again.

Allen65 said:

Someone could challenge it, but it would start at the lowest court level as a new case. It might work its way up to SCOTUS some time before 2035, but not likely. And by then the balance on the court will have changed again.

Click to expand...

I mean for this case. NYC will argue its moot. Can the good guys argue now that the amended law still requires permission from NYC police to move a firearm out of NYC, which can be denied every time. The case is therefore not mooted. SCOTUS can then dismantle the licensing scheme. Sound possible?

ed bernay said:

I mean for this case. NYC will argue its moot. Can the good guys argue now that the amended law still requires permission from NYC police to move a firearm out of NYC, which can be denied every time. The case is therefore not mooted. SCOTUS can then dismantle the licensing scheme. Sound possible?

Click to expand...

IANAL, but from what I understand that would still constitute a new claim, which means restarting at the bottom. Hopefully one of our friendly MDS legal scholars will add to this part of the conversation.

I believe that the NY State law (once signed) preempts the NYC regulation.

Transport for hunting would be fine as I read it ("any other location..." highlighted). The bit about getting permission from NYC police only applies if you are bringing a gun INTO the city. If you live upstate, they want you to get permission to bring it in (probably premises license for NYC). The reverse is not true: if you have a NYC premises license you can take it anywhere.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY INCONSIST- ENT PROVISION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW OR RULE OR REGULATION, THE PREMISES LIMITATION SET FORTH IN ANY LICENSE TO HAVE AND POSSESS A PISTOL OR REVOLVER IN THE LICENSEE'S DWELLING OR PLACE OF BUSINESS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE TRANSPORT OF SUCH PISTOL OR REVOLVER DIRECTLY TO OR FROM (I) ANOTHER DWELLING OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE LICENSEE WHERE THE LICENSEE IS AUTHORIZED TO HAVE AND POSSESS SUCH PISTOL OR REVOLVER, (II) AN INDOOR OR OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGE THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO OPERATE AS SUCH, (III) A SHOOTING COMPETITION AT WHICH THE LICENSEE MAY POSSESS SUCH PISTOL OR REVOLVER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 265.20 OF THIS CHAPTER OR CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW APPLICABLE AT THE PLACE OF SUCH COMPETITION, OR (IV) ANY OTHER LOCATION WHERE THE LICENSEE IS LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED TO HAVE AND POSSESS SUCH PISTOL OR REVOLVER; PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT DURING SUCH TRANSPORT TO OR FROM A LOCATION SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (I) THROUGH (IV) OF THIS PARAGRAPH, THE PISTOL OR REVOLVER SHALL BE UNLOADED AND CARRIED IN A LOCKED CONTAINER, AND THE AMMUNITION THEREFOR SHALL BE CARRIED SEPARATELY; PROVIDED FURTHER, HOWEVER, THAT A LICENSE TO HAVE AND POSSESS A PISTOL OR REVOL- VER IN THE LICENSEE'S DWELLING OR PLACE OF BUSINESS PURSUANT TO PARA- GRAPH (A) OR (B) OF SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION THAT IS ISSUED BY A LICENSING OFFICER OTHER THAN THE POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHALL NOT AUTHORIZE TRANSPORT OF A PISTOL OR REVOLVER INTO THE CITY OF NEW YORK IN THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO DO SO BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THAT CITY. THE TERM "LOCKED CONTAINER" SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE GLOVE COMPARTMENT OR CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE.

Click to expand...

NYC has its own permitting process and can be more restrictive than the rest of the state. I believe one of the provisions of the NYC amended law pertains to hunting as is as follows: "An authorized area for hunting, provided that the licensee requested and received an appropriate amendment to the handgun license from the Police Department."


If someone wants to take their gun to another state to hunt, why does NYPD have to authorize that?


Licensees also have to get written permission from NYPD to take their gun to a gunsmith.

Here is the blurb I am referring to:

As the firearms-licensing officer for the City of New York, the Police Commissioner has promulgated rules governing the possession, carry, and transport of handguns by licensees. Section 5-01 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York defines the types of available handgun licenses in the City and generally describes the restrictions imposed by the different types of licenses. Section 5-01(a) defines a premises license as a restricted handgun license issued for a specific business or residence. Section 5-23 sets forth in greater detail the restrictions and conditions imposed by the different types of handgun licenses available in the City. Section 523(a) governs the possession and transport of handguns by holders of a premises license. Subdivision a provides that any handguns listed on a premises license may not be removed from the address specified on the license except as provided in Chapter 5 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York. Section 5-23(a) authorizes a premises licensee to remove a handgun from the premises listed on the license to take it directly to and from one of the following destinations, provided that the handgun is transported unloaded, in a locked container, with the ammunition carried separately: • An authorized small arms range/shooting club, to maintain proficiency in the use of a handgun, where all such authorized ranges/clubs are located within New York City; or • An authorized area for hunting, provided that the licensee requested and received an appropriate amendment to the handgun license from the Police Department.
- 2 -

Separately, section 5-22(a)(16) authorizes a licensee to transport the handgun to a gunsmith, with written authorization of the Police Department’s License Division, provided that the handgun is transported unloaded, in a locked container. Additionally, Chapter 16 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York generally governs the transport or delivery of weapons into or within the City. Chapter 16 applies to circumstances described in that chapter not otherwise addressed by the Rules, including the transport of handguns by premises licensees.