NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

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!
  • lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    His vote (assuming the other 5 conservatives agree) would make a per curiam possible, although I don't see them making a straight up call on the merits without oral argument.

    Based on composition, I think it is likely Roberts will vote with the other conservatives. And I see him writing a narrowly tailored opinion. Any mildly competent chief justice knows how it works. They vote with the majority if it is going to pass anyway. Then they get to write the opinion if they have a hankering to.

    It is rare that the chief justice votes in the minority unless it is some decision they just absolutely abhor.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,689
    If I'm reading everything correctly, there's an extension granted to permit filing briefs opposed to cert until Feb 22.

    I presume that once all briefs are filed, we wait while the Court digests all that ink, then eventually coughs up a decision on whether they will take up the case.

    Then we either weep quietly into our beer, or hunker down until the end of term decision. Am I getting the timeline right?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    If I'm reading everything correctly, there's an extension granted to permit filing briefs opposed to cert until Feb 22.

    I presume that once all briefs are filed, we wait while the Court digests all that ink, then eventually coughs up a decision on whether they will take up the case.

    Then we either weep quietly into our beer, or hunker down until the end of term decision. Am I getting the timeline right?

    SCOTUS will wait several weeks for the petitioner to file a reply brief. They will then schedule it for a conference. They may reschedule if they want some additional time before a conference. They will usually relist cases that they will eventually take. It would guess it would not get to a conference until the middle/end of March at the earliest.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV

    I see once again NYC is trying to fool SCOTUS into thinking that the pre-Wrenn scheme in DC was somehow much more restrictive than NYC. It's amazing how they think that there's some magical percentage of issuance (based on good cause) that makes it constitutionally permissible.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    I love NY state's argument here:

    "In assessing whether an applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must consider wholly objective factors such as “population density, composition, and geographical location,” among others."

    That totally does not sound like there would be disparate impacts between different racial and economic groups. Not the slightest. :rolleyes:
     

    fred55

    Senior
    Aug 24, 2016
    1,772
    Spotsylvania Co. VA
    I love NY state's argument here:

    "In assessing whether an applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must consider wholly objective factors such as “population density, composition, and geographical location,” among others."

    That totally does not sound like there would be disparate impacts between different racial and economic groups. Not the slightest. :rolleyes:

    Bingo, it’s the Democrats/socialists dog whistle against all. fred55
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I love NY state's argument here:

    "In assessing whether an applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense, licensing officers must consider wholly objective factors such as “population density, composition, and geographical location,” among others."

    That totally does not sound like there would be disparate impacts between different racial and economic groups. Not the slightest. :rolleyes:

    You fail to understand the real problem of why we keep losing. It is not possible to demonstrate a non-speculative need for self-defense of an average individual. This is because that type of future event is not knowable or provable.

    The case is lost once you fail to challenge the fact that the government does not really provide public safety. While they do provide some component of public safety they do not protect any specific individual. The only way to really provide public safety to everyone is through individual self defense. You need to be able to make a non speculative argument if you want to have any chance of winning.
     

    rob

    DINO Extraordinaire
    Oct 11, 2010
    3,099
    Augusta, GA
    What also needs to be recognized is that the Bill of Rights is not supposed to be a statement of rights granted by a benevolent government. It is a recognition of certain God given Rights that should not be compromised.

    Rob.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    What also needs to be recognized is that the Bill of Rights is not supposed to be a statement of rights granted by a benevolent government. It is a recognition of certain God given Rights that should not be compromised.

    Rob.

    Amen.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I am predicting a denial because they never really address how this case will resolve the split. The real issue that none of these cases address is why the other courts were wrong deciding the case under intermediate scrutiny.

    I think it’s pretty well summed up in the first few paragraphs of the reply. They obviously want Scotus to follow The DC Circuit’s reasoning and aptly point out that the split is clearly acknowledged even though NYC is doing there best to claim that DCs form of may issue was somehow light years apart from theirs.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I think it’s pretty well summed up in the first few paragraphs of the reply. They obviously want Scotus to follow The DC Circuit’s reasoning and aptly point out that the split is clearly acknowledged even though NYC is doing there best to claim that DCs form of may issue was somehow light years apart from theirs.

    The first few paragraphs simply demonstrate that there is a split. Splits can be resolved by picking one side or the other. This petition does not help the court to explain why the other side is wrong. SCOTUS not only has to pick a side, but they have to provide a well reasoned explanation as to why. There is still not enough explanation for a majority of them to write a well reasoned explanation and they are apparently waiting patiently for the first case that does.

    How is this case any different than Rogers? They cited the DC Circuit as well.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The first few paragraphs simply demonstrate that there is a split. Splits can be resolved by picking one side or the other. This petition does not help the court to explain why the other side is wrong. SCOTUS not only has to pick a side, but they have to provide a well reasoned explanation as to why. There is still not enough explanation for a majority of them to write a well reasoned explanation and they are apparently waiting patiently for the first case that does.

    How is this case any different than Rogers? They cited the DC Circuit as well.

    The cases are similar, yes, but Rogers had a court with Ginsburg, now ACB takes that seat. Your portrayal seems to be that once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes. We've seen 3 members of the court write dissents for public carry cases (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). That leaves only 1 vote needed for a grant, 2 if they're wanting to secure a winning vote. I'm also leaving aside an outside possibility that Roberts or Alito may have also voted to hear the case but for one reason or another did not join the dissents.

    I believe that none of the liberals (including Ginsburg on the court) would ever vote to hear a public carry case. That leaves the other 6.....
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The cases are similar, yes, but Rogers had a court with Ginsburg, now ACB takes that seat. Your portrayal seems to be that once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes. We've seen 3 members of the court write dissents for public carry cases (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). That leaves only 1 vote needed for a grant, 2 if they're wanting to secure a winning vote. I'm also leaving aside an outside possibility that Roberts or Alito may have also voted to hear the case but for one reason or another did not join the dissents.

    I believe that none of the liberals (including Ginsburg on the court) would ever vote to hear a public carry case. That leaves the other 6.....

    While I can understand why you might think I am saying that "once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes". The issue is more nuanced than that. Composition changes certainly can lead the Court to take up a similar issue they previously denied. It really depends on the two competing issues.

    In this case there are two competing views on how to decide 2A cases. One is a more categorical approach that the DC circuit took with CCW, while the other is an intermediate scrutiny approach. Both sides claim that intermediate scrutiny should give the correct ruling but almost every Court determines that just about any law survives intermediate scrutiny, yet no real explanation is given as to why the Court keeps getting it wrong.

    Intermediate scrutiny is used much more often in constitutional cases compared to a categorical approach. Why should the Court reject the more frequently used intermediate scrutiny approach that both sides agree is appropriate and that neither side can identify as being missapplied? All that can be really said is that you don't like the result and that you agree that a categorical approach gives an answer you think is appropriate. It seems like a weak response given how prevalent scrutiny is used to decide cases.

    As for how the justices will rule, we know that Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Scalia voted for Heller and McDonald. Yet everyone was claiming that Kennedy was the problem as to why no other 2A case was accepted (except the per curiam Caetano case that at least one of the liberal side of the court joined). When Kennedy was replaced with Kavanaugh everyone is blaming Roberts. Yet Roberts apparently agreed to take the NYSRPA case, where no real data substantiated the intermediate scrutiny ruling. Maybe the problem is with the arguments and not the justices.

    When you actually count the votes for the individual case you only get two known votes. While there are three known justices that have dissented in 2A cert petitions, only two have joined any particular dissent. Gorsuch did not join the Rogers dissent.

    My arguments do not depend on which justices vote on the issue. How to properly evaluate 2A cases have been an open issue since Heller and McDonald were decided. The problem is that they never really dealt with the issue and have yet to really understand how to address it. They are waiting on a case that will allow them to reach a consensus on the issue.

    Have you picked out your next reason why they will not take up another 2A case?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    While I can understand why you might think I am saying that "once a case is denied then any similar case taking a similar stand will also be denied even if the court composition changes". The issue is more nuanced than that. Composition changes certainly can lead the Court to take up a similar issue they previously denied. It really depends on the two competing issues.

    In this case there are two competing views on how to decide 2A cases. One is a more categorical approach that the DC circuit took with CCW, while the other is an intermediate scrutiny approach. Both sides claim that intermediate scrutiny should give the correct ruling but almost every Court determines that just about any law survives intermediate scrutiny, yet no real explanation is given as to why the Court keeps getting it wrong.

    Intermediate scrutiny is used much more often in constitutional cases compared to a categorical approach. Why should the Court reject the more frequently used intermediate scrutiny approach that both sides agree is appropriate and that neither side can identify as being missapplied? All that can be really said is that you don't like the result and that you agree that a categorical approach gives an answer you think is appropriate. It seems like a weak response given how prevalent scrutiny is used to decide cases.

    As for how the justices will rule, we know that Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Scalia voted for Heller and McDonald. Yet everyone was claiming that Kennedy was the problem as to why no other 2A case was accepted (except the per curiam Caetano case that at least one of the liberal side of the court joined). When Kennedy was replaced with Kavanaugh everyone is blaming Roberts. Yet Roberts apparently agreed to take the NYSRPA case, where no real data substantiated the intermediate scrutiny ruling. Maybe the problem is with the arguments and not the justices.

    When you actually count the votes for the individual case you only get two known votes. While there are three known justices that have dissented in 2A cert petitions, only two have joined any particular dissent. Gorsuch did not join the Rogers dissent.

    My arguments do not depend on which justices vote on the issue. How to properly evaluate 2A cases have been an open issue since Heller and McDonald were decided. The problem is that they never really dealt with the issue and have yet to really understand how to address it. They are waiting on a case that will allow them to reach a consensus on the issue.

    Have you picked out your next reason why they will not take up another 2A case?[/QUOTE]

    How do you know Roberts voted to hear NYSRPA?

    If they don't take this case then I don't know. I don't know enough about the inner workings of SCOTUS to say for sure. For example, would the justices (or clerks) be aware of the lawsuits coming up from NJ, and perhaps try to steer the court away from this case in hopes of taking that case since NJ doesn't differentiate between open and concealed carry? NYC hasn't tried to steer them away or make any big deal over CC/OC, which they could have done.

    Maybe you can answer what magic phrases were written in NYSRPA that got the court to bite in that case?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,879
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom