danb
dont be a dumbass
They took the mootness seriously and wrote a proper brief. Nothing like getting slapped and having one's submissions rejected to wake one up from a stupor.
Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York
- Thread starter Bigfoot21075
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Kharn
Ultimate Member
So much for them spending their entire response brief on mootness and ignoring the constitutional issues.
danb
dont be a dumbass
So much for them spending their entire response brief on mootness and ignoring the constitutional issues.
This is not really their response brief. According to NYC. They also filed a motion to delay that until Sept 30th.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
That's my point, they're backing off from that approach instead of going all-in.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Believe this case may indeed be Moot however the Court is holding several other cases that wont be as narrow a ruling as NYSRPA. I suspect this is no accident...
danb
dont be a dumbass
NYC just made fools of any justice who voted not to take this case. NYC folded in record time. They basically undercut any argument they made to the lower courts on the way here. Their merits brief may as well have read "just joking." How will it affect future cases? I think that the court will now put a lot less weight on parties (ahem NJ) with ridiculously bad arguments. Justices will now completely discount if not ignore the entire parade of horribles presented. Someone will be looking to see if some other party folds similarly, like a cheap suit.
People say this is not a win... far from it. NYC spent a lot of time spouting the parade of horribles if people could transport their guns, then did a 180 in a few months. This shows everyone that they were 100% bloviating, and similar claims about carry will now be met with extreme skepticism.
People say this is not a win... far from it. NYC spent a lot of time spouting the parade of horribles if people could transport their guns, then did a 180 in a few months. This shows everyone that they were 100% bloviating, and similar claims about carry will now be met with extreme skepticism.
JPG
Ultimate Member
Do you think things like this will make Judges move toward the strict scrutiny with the 2nd Amendment?
danb
dont be a dumbass
I am not sure whom you are asking. My 0.02 is that the conservatives will adopt a "history, text, and tradition" standard.
krucam
Ultimate Member
NYSRPA was a very narrow on the Merits case. Can one freely transport their gun? Underlying was the thought of defining Scrutiny in #2A cases. Believe they held other cases just in case NYC played games. Pena is the remaining Narrow case being held, vs Rogers (Public Carry) and Mance (Breaking down Federal Law on out of state handgun purchase). Pena deals with unobtainable purchases of a 6 year old gun because it doesn’t have micro stamping ability.
This I believe is the narrowest remaining case if NYSRPA is mooted and the one they will take if NYSRPA is eventually Mooted. My ..02...
Can I ask why you think this case is moot?
The NYPD is the licensing official for all licenses in NYC. They have established "rules" regarding the transport conduct of premise license holders. These are in addition to the state criminal laws regarding firearms. Upstate NY does not require the permitting of long guns. NYC requires a premise permit for all guns. If a NYPD premise license holder wishes to take their gun to a place outside of NYC that is not a residence of the license holder or a "lawful firearms range" (whatever the Eff that is), that may not be a crime by state standards but it is a violation of NYPD transport rules. The NYPD can revoke someone's premise permit over it. This means you have to give up your guns or you are a criminal. This sounds to me that the 2nd amendment is still a privilege in NYC. They are still playing games and relying on people's unfamiliarly of their "rules' vs criminal laws. I still don't see how this case is moot. Where am I going wrong?
Kharn
Ultimate Member
It would be moot if Clement can't thread the needle of a public interest in taking the case, which requires a three part test:
“(1) the question presented is of a substantial public nature; (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question.”
Part 1 is easy, NYSRPA is claiming their constitutional rights are being violated and they have Heller and McDonald to back them up.
Part 2 is evident from the 2A two-step the Circuit Courts have been pulling.
Now if NYC's laws are so unique throughout the country, it fails part 3. But they're not, MD doesn't recognize taking your firearm to an out-of-state destination as a valid reason for transporting it IIRC. And the new regulatory scheme in NYC requires written NYPD permission before you can take a firearm to a gunsmith, would any sensible court accept requiring written permission before someone takes their copy of the Kama Sutra to a book binder? They could anticipate another case on that portion of the regulatory scheme, or given how they have four other cases pending before them at the moment, there is obviously a need for guidance.
Or they dump NYSRPA and go with Rogers or Pena and let the chips fall where they may, but I suspect they would rather have Clement as the advocate before them due to his history before the court (no argument for P&I incorporation will sneak in
).
“(1) the question presented is of a substantial public nature; (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question.”
Part 1 is easy, NYSRPA is claiming their constitutional rights are being violated and they have Heller and McDonald to back them up.
Part 2 is evident from the 2A two-step the Circuit Courts have been pulling.
Now if NYC's laws are so unique throughout the country, it fails part 3. But they're not, MD doesn't recognize taking your firearm to an out-of-state destination as a valid reason for transporting it IIRC. And the new regulatory scheme in NYC requires written NYPD permission before you can take a firearm to a gunsmith, would any sensible court accept requiring written permission before someone takes their copy of the Kama Sutra to a book binder? They could anticipate another case on that portion of the regulatory scheme, or given how they have four other cases pending before them at the moment, there is obviously a need for guidance.
Or they dump NYSRPA and go with Rogers or Pena and let the chips fall where they may, but I suspect they would rather have Clement as the advocate before them due to his history before the court (no argument for P&I incorporation will sneak in
).It would be moot if Clement can't thread the needle of a public interest in taking the case, which requires a three part test:
“(1) the question presented is of a substantial public nature; (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question.”
Part 1 is easy, NYSRPA is claiming their constitutional rights are being violated and they have Heller and McDonald to back them up.
Part 2 is evident from the 2A two-step the Circuit Courts have been pulling.
Now if NYC's laws are so unique throughout the country, it fails part 3. But they're not, MD doesn't recognize taking your firearm to an out-of-state destination as a valid reason for transporting it IIRC. And the new regulatory scheme in NYC requires written NYPD permission before you can take a firearm to a gunsmith, would any sensible court accept requiring written permission before someone takes their copy of the Kama Sutra to a book binder? They could anticipate another case on that portion of the regulatory scheme, or given how they have four other cases pending before them at the moment, there is obviously a need for guidance.
Or they dump NYSRPA and go with Rogers or Pena and let the chips fall where they may, but I suspect they would rather have Clement as the advocate before them due to his history before the court (no argument for P&I incorporation will sneak in
Thanks for the insight.
Kidd07
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Petitioners fire back! It will be interesting to see how the Court responds to petitioners’ latest opposition to granting an extension. Although I agree that there are much better cases behind this one addressing directly the issues that plague us here in Maryland, I’d like to see this one play out due to the Supreme Court expertise of petitioners’ counsel, Paul Clement. He’s an outstanding advocate, and you’d be hard pressed to find another counselor with his experience and skills practicing before the Supremes. Despite that, I’m not sure this one survives. We’ll see.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...43_2019-7-24 NYSRPA response letter FINAL.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...43_2019-7-24 NYSRPA response letter FINAL.pdf
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
It would be moot if Clement can't thread the needle of a public interest in taking the case, which requires a three part test:
“(1) the question presented is of a substantial public nature; (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question.”
Part 1 is easy, NYSRPA is claiming their constitutional rights are being violated and they have Heller and McDonald to back them up.
Part 2 is evident from the 2A two-step the Circuit Courts have been pulling.
Now if NYC's laws are so unique throughout the country, it fails part 3. But they're not, MD doesn't recognize taking your firearm to an out-of-state destination as a valid reason for transporting it IIRC. And the new regulatory scheme in NYC requires written NYPD permission before you can take a firearm to a gunsmith, would any sensible court accept requiring written permission before someone takes their copy of the Kama Sutra to a book binder? They could anticipate another case on that portion of the regulatory scheme, or given how they have four other cases pending before them at the moment, there is obviously a need for guidance.
Or they dump NYSRPA and go with Rogers or Pena and let the chips fall where they may, but I suspect they would rather have Clement as the advocate before them due to his history before the court (no argument for P&I incorporation will sneak in
That public interest exception is a matter of state law, not Article III case or controversy jurisprudence (Article III, of course, does not apply to the States, or State courts). It does not exist under federal law. The arguably applicable doctrine under federal law is the "voluntary cessation doctrine." See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env. Servs. 528 U.S. 167, 174 (2000) ("A defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case."); City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982) ("In this case the city's repeal of the objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision if the District Court's judgment were vacated."). But it is hardly a slam dunk. See, e.g., United States v. Microsoft Corp., 138 S.Ct. 1186, 1188 (2018) (holding that a change in the federal statute at issue meant that "[n]o live dispute remains between the parties over the issue with respect to which certiorari was granted").
It would be moot if Clement can't thread the needle of a public interest in taking the case, which requires a three part test:
“(1) the question presented is of a substantial public nature; (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question.”
Part 1 is easy, NYSRPA is claiming their constitutional rights are being violated and they have Heller and McDonald to back them up.
Part 2 is evident from the 2A two-step the Circuit Courts have been pulling.
Now if NYC's laws are so unique throughout the country, it fails part 3. But they're not, MD doesn't recognize taking your firearm to an out-of-state destination as a valid reason for transporting it IIRC. And the new regulatory scheme in NYC requires written NYPD permission before you can take a firearm to a gunsmith, would any sensible court accept requiring written permission before someone takes their copy of the Kama Sutra to a book binder? They could anticipate another case on that portion of the regulatory scheme, or given how they have four other cases pending before them at the moment, there is obviously a need for guidance.
Or they dump NYSRPA and go with Rogers or Pena and let the chips fall where they may, but I suspect they would rather have Clement as the advocate before them due to his history before the court (no argument for P&I incorporation will sneak in
danb
dont be a dumbass
Yeah I wondered the same thing. Considering many people have a carry permit elsewhere.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
Section 4-203 doesn't give a "just taking it for a walk in another state" exemption, the closest is (b)(2), but that requires specifically an MD permit.
(b)(3) is between "bona fide" residences, repair shop, place of purchase or a business owned by the firearm's bearer, so most people would not meet those criteria.
(b)(4) includes "organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show" and to/from the same, but that doesn't include just going to another state to go about daily tasks.
etc, etc.
From my read of it, you're pretty much skewered as none of the exemptions to the law really apply to either just taking a handgun with you (visiting PA, where you can't get an out-of-state CCW without an MD permit, and then this discussion is moot) or going to another state where you can CCW.
That's for transporting intrastate. Nothing in MD law says that you can't go to Peacemaker for the day for some pew pew pew.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (8 Viewers)
- Started by Tool
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
-
