Second Circuit NYC transport law upheld

press1280 · Jan 22, 2019

esqappellate said:
The standard of review is what at issue and that inquiry sweeps quite broadly. They didn't grant cert just to kick NYC on this peculiar law. The key paragraph is in petitioners' reply:

Moreover, even though New York’s ordinance stands alone, it does not mean that the circuits are not in disarray. The City does not and cannot explain why New York City should be allowed to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges outside city limits if it is unconstitutional for Chicago to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges inside city limits. See Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 697 (7th Cir. 2011). The need for this Court’s intervention and further clarification of the proper analysis of various efforts to treat that right like no other constitutional right is acute.

If that's the case, what happens with Rogers, Gould and those cases petitioning (or about to petition) that used a different standard of review?
Do they go on ice (relisted over and over or simply disappear from the docket) until this case is ruled upon and then get GVR'd?

jcutonilli · Jan 22, 2019

esqappellate said:
The standard of review is what at issue and that inquiry sweeps quite broadly. They didn't grant cert just to kick NYC on this peculiar law. The key paragraph is in petitioners' reply:

Moreover, even though New York’s ordinance stands alone, it does not mean that the circuits are not in disarray. The City does not and cannot explain why New York City should be allowed to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges outside city limits if it is unconstitutional for Chicago to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges inside city limits. See Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 697 (7th Cir. 2011). The need for this Court’s intervention and further clarification of the proper analysis of various efforts to treat that right like no other constitutional right is acute.

The standard of review is one of the issues and while that can sweep quite broadly, it can also be very narrow. The highlighted paragraph indicates to me that there is a problem, but they don't really know how to solve it. There certainly were other cases that presented similar issues including Jackson, which Clement was council. Unlike Jackson, the issue of deference to the legislature is not an issue. I don't see the arguments that have been presented, making anything more than a narrowly decided case.

delaware_export · Jan 22, 2019

iinal! just a layman thinking about this.

if we lose, what will that say? maybe this case, infringement, is so bad we can't lose.

if we win, how will the ruling be written. as a layman, it seems the courts thinks or rules on laws as if they exist only in isolation from any other infringements. look at heller, and the repeated use of "in the home". no wonder some of the libtards think laws such as this one is ok.

if the ruling goes in our favor, will scalia's, thomas' or gorsuch's words, about the 2a being a disfavored right, and rebuking of other district rulings be included? emphasized? and level of scrutiny dictated or discussed?

and if they take this case, will be be another 5-10 years for another?

and more importantly, aside from tRump getting another appointment, how do we get gun rights to be treated in a more favored light by scotus? they jump on LGBT/Voter/Abortion issues like stink on crap.

how we, 2a folks, get them to treat us that way?

press1280 · Jan 22, 2019

delaware_export said:
iinal! just a layman thinking about this.

if we lose, what will that say? maybe this case, infringement, is so bad we can't lose.

if we win, how will the ruling be written. as a layman, it seems the courts thinks or rules on laws as if they exist only in isolation from any other infringements. look at heller, and the repeated use of "in the home". no wonder some of the libtards think laws such as this one is ok.

if the ruling goes in our favor, will scalia's, thomas' or gorsuch's words, about the 2a being a disfavored right, and rebuking of other district rulings be included? emphasized? and level of scrutiny dictated or discussed?

and if they take this case, will be be another 5-10 years for another?

and more importantly, aside from tRump getting another appointment, how do we get gun rights to be treated in a more favored light by scotus? they jump on LGBT/Voter/Abortion issues like stink on crap.

how we, 2a folks, get them to treat us that way?

Preferably this will be in the majority opinion, not in a concurrence that isn't binding on the lower courts.

Kharn · Jan 22, 2019

I'm somewhat expecting Thomas to retire this summer, but if he did not, his rebuke in the majority opinion, or a concurrence, of the status quo would be epic.

danb · Jan 22, 2019

I just dont see the Supreme Court granting cert only for the conservatives to lose. Makes no sense, esp with RBG health. Too risky for the progressives to let the case go to merits.

GlocksAndPatriots · Jan 22, 2019

Rab1515 said:
Do you go out of your way looking for ways to bash everything LGBTQ?

Now back to the thread, FINALLY.

Given that the left stakes all of it's constitutional interpretation on this fantasy, I think it's important to point it out.

GlocksAndPatriots · Jan 22, 2019

jcutonilli said:
The CA2 never took that position. Nowhere in their opinion did they defer to the legislature. They simply accepted the evidence. They do not have to deal with that issue and I doubt they will.

I don't see them holding that strict scrutiny will apply. If the argument "intermediate scrutiny is really rational basis" is argued the same way it was in the CA and petition, I doubt they will do much to change the situation and simply declare it did not meet the standard.

If you want the court to issue a broader ruling, you need to argue the case better. I suspect they took the case because it can be a very narrow ruling.

I don't agree with any of this, but we've already had this discussion ad nauseum.

Decoy · Jan 22, 2019

I'm sure Roberts will find a way to rewrite the law into a tax. :rolleyes:

GlocksAndPatriots · Jan 22, 2019

esqappellate said:
The standard of review is what at issue and that inquiry sweeps quite broadly. They didn't grant cert just to kick NYC on this peculiar law. The key paragraph is in petitioners' reply:

Moreover, even though New York’s ordinance stands alone, it does not mean that the circuits are not in disarray. The City does not and cannot explain why New York City should be allowed to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges outside city limits if it is unconstitutional for Chicago to preclude its residents from honing the safe and effective use of their handguns at shooting ranges inside city limits. See Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 697 (7th Cir. 2011). The need for this Court’s intervention and further clarification of the proper analysis of various efforts to treat that right like no other constitutional right is acute.

I hope so. Still frustrating though that even with a win, it will take years for cases filed in light of the new precedent to make it through the courts. So you're talking another 3-4 years for shall issue in the leftist states.

CrueChief · Jan 22, 2019

GlocksAndPatriots said:
I hope so. Still frustrating though that even with a win, it will take years for cases filed in light of the new precedent to make it through the courts. So you're talking another 3-4 years for shall issue in the leftist states.

More likely double that at least. Since this case's decision won't be released til june 2020. Then cases would need to percolate up to SCOTUS. The only hope for the earlier time frame would be SCOTUS taking the case from ca9 without it going enbanc, if they don't then 6-8 years at the earliest and we in MD would be looking to the late 2020's or 2030 for shall issue at best.

And the is no doubt this will be a win of some sort they wouldn't have taken it otherwise, the only question is what a ruling does for the nation as a whole or only NY.

delaware_export · Jan 22, 2019

given what is happening / has happened with regard to RGB, her age and health, this is something that should at least be considered.

RBG's desire to remain may end up being the liberal lament for a generation. if thomas makes the same choice, ??mistake??, it could offset the one big benefit of tRump.

Kharn said:
I'm somewhat expecting Thomas to retire this summer, but if he did not, his rebuke in the majority opinion, or a concurrence, of the status quo would be epic.

esqappellate · Jan 22, 2019

jcutonilli said:
The standard of review is one of the issues and while that can sweep quite broadly, it can also be very narrow. The highlighted paragraph indicates to me that there is a problem, but they don't really know how to solve it. There certainly were other cases that presented similar issues including Jackson, which Clement was council. Unlike Jackson, the issue of deference to the legislature is not an issue. I don't see the arguments that have been presented, making anything more than a narrowly decided case.

It's the difference between a cert petition and a merits brief. My guess is that the merits brief will focus on this standard of review much more than the cert petition did -- it is fully preserved by the petition. We shall see. My guess is that Clement will ask for text, history and tradition as the standard, not tiers of scrutiny ala Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II and that holding would be profoundly important. I don't think decision will be limited to this NYC law. That would make it pretty senseless to grant cert. As for the prior cases, we have new a new majority on the Court and that means that the 4 to grant have figured out that they have 5 to a majority. In any event, any win would be better than what we have now.

esqappellate · Jan 22, 2019

CrueChief said:
More likely double that at least. Since this case's decision won't be released til june 2020. Then cases would need to percolate up to SCOTUS. The only hope for the earlier time frame would be SCOTUS taking the case from ca9 without it going enbanc, if they don't then 6-8 years at the earliest and we in MD would be looking to the late 2020's or 2030 for shall issue at best.

And the is no doubt this will be a win of some sort they wouldn't have taken it otherwise, the only question is what a ruling does for the nation as a whole or only NY.

Rogers v. Grewal on carry outside the home (3d Circuit) is presently before the Court on a cert petition filed Dec. 22, 2018. The Second Circuit case and the Fourth Circuit case will be likely up on cert. petitions by June. Pena (microstamping) and Mance (interstate sale of handguns) are presently before the Court on petitions for cert. The Court has lots of options on the table.

AliasNeo07 · Jan 22, 2019

Decoy said:
I'm sure Roberts will find a way to rewrite the law into a tax.

Why? He voted in favor of McDonald and Heller. This case seems to be even more obvious than those two.

GlocksAndPatriots said:
I hope so. Still frustrating though that even with a win, it will take years for cases filed in light of the new precedent to make it through the courts. So you're talking another 3-4 years for shall issue in the leftist states.

Unless I'm missing something in this case, which I may be, this case has nothing to do with concealed or open carry. I don't see how it would affect loaded carry in any state, only transport of an unloaded firearm.

I suppose they could hear this case and make a ruling that was so broad as to encompass shall issue carry permits, but that seems incredibly unlikely if not impossible.

Inigoes · Jan 22, 2019

AliasNeo07 said:
Unless I'm missing something in this case, which I may be, this case has nothing to do with concealed or open carry. I don't see how it would affect loaded carry in any state, only transport of an unloaded firearm.

I suppose they could hear this case and make a ruling that was so broad as to encompass shall issue carry permits, but that seems incredibly unlikely if not impossible.

This case is about guns in the public domain.

The lower courts have held McDonald and Heller only apply in the home. The lower courts have also totally ignored Caetano because it was different because it was a stun gun, and not a handgun.

CrueChief · Jan 22, 2019

esqappellate said:
Rogers v. Grewal on carry outside the home (3d Circuit) is presently before the Court on a cert petition filed Dec. 22, 2018. The Second Circuit case and the Fourth Circuit case will be likely up on cert. petitions by June. Pena (microstamping) and Mance (interstate sale of handguns) are presently before the Court on petitions for cert. The Court has lots of options on the table.

Well that is certainly good news that there are more things cooking. the thing I keep thinking would be that even a win at SCOTUS ( if not by a MD case ) the powers that be here would force us to use the courts to get our rights applied to this state like how McDonald needed his case to get Heller applied to IL. Not because the MD powers think it wouldn't apply to us but just for the sake of making us peons to MAKE them apply it. That is the reason for my time frame of double.

press1280 · Jan 22, 2019

esqappellate said:
Rogers v. Grewal on carry outside the home (3d Circuit) is presently before the Court on a cert petition filed Dec. 22, 2018. The Second Circuit case and the Fourth Circuit case will be likely up on cert. petitions by June. Pena (microstamping) and Mance (interstate sale of handguns) are presently before the Court on petitions for cert. The Court has lots of options on the table.

If the standard of review is text, history, and tradition, does that effectively wipe out any intermediate scrutiny opinions and return everything to a blank slate?

danb · Jan 22, 2019

I am honestly not sure what we get with "text, history, and tradition." The 2nd was incorporated against the states only recently. Before, states were allowed to do just about anything. Texas banned carry for 100 years, although it was not really enforced. The history and tradition of what? Federal rules? The Federal rule was mostly to leave it to the states. At the state level, we have a mismash of historical legislation.

whistlersmother · Jan 22, 2019

This particular law is so egregious to be on [almost] on par with Heller and McDonald total bans.

It seems the court does not like total bans, so I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

We can count on liberal overreach to get a slap down from the court. Also, I'm thinking there will be clear, direct, unambiguous language that goes with this decision - not like the ambiguity in the 2A...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Second Circuit NYC transport law upheld

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Banned

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Peace through strength

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics