Woo Hoo!
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
Party time 
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
This is potentially huge. Here is the question presented, as taken from the cert petition (attached):
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.
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.
Trump MAGA!
2nd=Good+Substantial
Ultimate Member
We've been disappointed far too often. I'm afraid to get my hopes up.
krucam
Ultimate Member
The Transport issue getting addressed is nice, however the underlying question of how the lower Courts have "thumbed their noses" at McDonald and Heller will be the real prize. From the Petition:
Kharn
Ultimate Member
I hope someone works in the Williams quote of "they must state so more plainly" from the MD courts into a brief or one of the court's opinions.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The "outside the home" carry issue (Williams) s presented only indirectly, at most. The real prize is the standard of review test and the 2d Circuit's shameless use of rational basis while calling it intermediate scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how Clement argues that in the merits brief.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
At least 5-4 win for petitioners. The 2d Circuit's opinion and the underlying law is just irrational.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
I have no doubt we'll win this case, as even the squishy Roberts won't allow a rule so moronic. My concern, however, is that the decision will be so narrow that it doesn't really help us in any other scenario. Ideally, the court will hold that restrictions on guns need to be reviewed under strict scrutiny. A less favorable approach (but still one better than what we have now) would be to allow intermediate scrutiny, but not give unlimited deference to the legislatures in "weighing" the evidence and determining the "fit" between the regulation and the government interest.
However, they could rule in our favor but just hold that the rule didn't comport with the level of scrutiny the 2nd Circuit laid out, while leaving that patently absurd standard itself alone. That would be a bad result.
However, they could rule in our favor but just hold that the rule didn't comport with the level of scrutiny the 2nd Circuit laid out, while leaving that patently absurd standard itself alone. That would be a bad result.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
Future timeline:
Petitioner brief in 45 days (March 8?)
Respondent brief 30 days later (April 7, Sunday, so April 8)
Petitioner reply 30 days after, but no later than 2pm one week before oral argument. (May 8)
The last oral argument for the term is scheduled for April 24, I believe they filled that schedule with last week's flurry of grants, so it could fall into next term with the opinion released in June 2020.
Petitioner brief in 45 days (March 8?)
Respondent brief 30 days later (April 7, Sunday, so April 8)
Petitioner reply 30 days after, but no later than 2pm one week before oral argument. (May 8)
The last oral argument for the term is scheduled for April 24, I believe they filled that schedule with last week's flurry of grants, so it could fall into next term with the opinion released in June 2020.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
Hmm, all the news articles are saying June for a decision, but who knows?
krucam
Ultimate Member
Hopefully with Mance/Pena/Rogers in tow....one can dream....
danb
dont be a dumbass
Argument has not been set yet. If they squeeze argument in by April, then June would be the time-frame. But there is a decent chance they cannot schedule this until Sept. They took 8 cases on Friday, canceled one set for Feb argument, and then took another. Scotusblog said they only had about 8 slots left before May.
There is also the Ginsburg wild card. I might even go so far as to say that the opinion is 5-3 given her health status.
There is plenty of precedent btw for a Jan case being argued in Oct. The very first case in Oct, argued Oct 1, was granted Jan 22 2018.
Actually, this scenario would even better news give RBG health status.
Oct 2019 argument would mean Dec 2019 ish opinion.
There is also the Ginsburg wild card. I might even go so far as to say that the opinion is 5-3 given her health status.
There is plenty of precedent btw for a Jan case being argued in Oct. The very first case in Oct, argued Oct 1, was granted Jan 22 2018.
Actually, this scenario would even better news give RBG health status.
Oct 2019 argument would mean Dec 2019 ish opinion.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Yes, this will likely be argued next term. Unless it is an emergency, the Court does not sit for arguments in May. So if is going to argued it will have be be in April. That would be unusual, given the docket is pretty much full. All NYC has to do is ask for one extension and even that is off the table.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
Yep, the Court only considers it an "emergency" when homosexuals are denied marriage licenses. Then expedited schedules are imperative.
18-280
NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012219zor_8759.pdf
NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012219zor_8759.pdf
Reading the petition, it's hard to imagine a loss, here. But it's also hard to imagine a win being anything other than annoying to NY gun grabbers, and otherwise little if any help to the broader 2A cause. I suppose it's possible a sufficiently annoyed SCOTUS might bring the hammer down, sort of like with Citizens United, and clobber something broader than the narrow issue at stake. But I'll remain non-optimistic on the broader issues. Hoping for the best, of course.
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
My feelings exactly. All of the problems from the lower court decisions stem from the fact that the courts are applying an entirely inappropriate level of scrutiny. Unless it's settled that the courts must be treating it the way they do other constitutional rights, which means no prior restraint or rational basis, this will continue.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Awareness/Mindset/Q&A get together with Bob "Ninja" Porras. Delta/CIA guy. Thursday April 18,2024 (8 Viewers)- Latest: holesonpaper
-
-
-
-
