NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

Talking with folks, gun folks, but not lawyers, the idea of discussing the states like NY as a case about restrictions is not accurate.

It is about 100% prohibition of ANY carry by the people. Common, law abiding citizens. Touching the 14th amendment, iirc.

Before discussing reasonable regulation, maybe the focus should be exclusively on the fact that .gov is full on prohibition. Push for shall issue first.

Then, when .gov actually try’s to use “restrictions” to effectively prohibit carry attack back again.

$1mil to apply
No carry within 20miles of a sensitive place
10year review prior to a permit valid for 1 year

But those are points for argument later. Back to waiting ...

And for completely out of left field: Regulate handgun carry to prevent blacks from being shot by LEOs

A decision by the Supreme Court that would lift existing restrictions or licensing requirements for publicly carrying handguns will only exacerbate this dynamic wherein police disproportionately perceive people of color to be armed...

...To address police violence, the court should find an opportunity to reassess its use-of-force precedent, given the evidence of the current standard's failure to protect people, particularly people of color, from unnecessary police violence. And while it may seem unrelated, to address police violence, the court should also allow cities and states to continue to regulate handguns in public...

Click to expand...

I skipped the last 6 pages , any actual developements ?

Biggfoot44 said:

I skipped the last 6 pages ,

Click to expand...

I wish I had. I fell asleep at my desk more than a few times.

Two weeks months until NYSRPA's merits brief is due, so keep napping unless you want to enjoy the frantic musings of any liberal with five fingers.

Kharn said:

And for completely out of left field: Regulate handgun carry to prevent blacks from being shot by LEOs

Click to expand...

That's a special type of racism known as "white paternalism." That is to say that a white person derives power believing that they are protecting minorities, and thus feels morally justified. Being a Northerner living in the Deep South (and loving museums and history), so much of slavery was 'justified' by a similar thought process that blacks needed to be protected by their masters.

That idiot has the savior mindset that by limiting the freedoms of the law abiding, he can help the innocent. With all the insanity through which we've lived in the past few years, one of the few good things is that minority gun ownership has been on the rise. Seeing as so much gun control here in the South was about keeping blacks from protecting themselves with guns, it's a good thing that minorities have armed up to protect themselves against anarchy and bucked the historic trend.

He's conflating issues at will to attempt to make a nonsensical argument.

My wife is a minority, and has experienced discrimination. She figured out very quickly that it is all the more reason to be armed.

Kharn said:

Two weeks months until NYSRPA's merits brief is due, so keep napping unless you want to enjoy the frantic musings of any liberal with five fingers.

Click to expand...

Keep your eyes and ears open for any wind of them looking to moot the case. I'll say that I do not think they will try to do this, but if they try to do this look for it to happen before oral arguments, just like the previous NYSRPA case.

Petitioners NYSRPA have requested an extension for filing their initial Brief to July 2nd

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...RPA-Corlett Joint Extension Request FINAL.pdf

Full docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

press1280 said:

Keep your eyes and ears open for any wind of them looking to moot the case. I'll say that I do not think they will try to do this, but if they try to do this look for it to happen before oral arguments, just like the previous NYSRPA case.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure NY could moot this one because IIRC the plaintiffs smartly included issues of past violations as well as the present, ongoing violations of rights and due process. So changing the law won't address redress for past wrongs.

Allen65 said:

I'm not sure NY could moot this one because IIRC the plaintiffs smartly included issues of past violations as well as the present, ongoing violations of rights and due process. So changing the law won't address redress for past wrongs.

Click to expand...

I’m assuming they’d still be liable for fees at that point, but that they could still technically avoid review just like the previous case.

JMangle said:

That's a special type of racism known as "white paternalism." That is to say that a white person derives power believing that they are protecting minorities, and thus feels morally justified. Being a Northerner living in the Deep South (and loving museums and history), so much of slavery was 'justified' by a similar thought process that blacks needed to be protected by their masters.
...
My wife is a minority, and has experienced discrimination. She figured out very quickly that it is all the more reason to be armed.

Click to expand...

I've observed the same two things during my time in the deep south. Also to my surprise the "happy negro" slavery myth persisted as well when visiting some of the historic houses open to the public.

SO now we wait and see what NY State tries to do at all cost in order to keep SCOTUS from hearing the case. One thing they do NOT want is to go before SCOTUS and tell them why they want to infringe upon the little man and in the meantime here in MD,Frosh and company are having kittens while on the phone to the AG of NYS saying NOOOOOOOO do not take one for the team and please please find a way to win because Herr Frosh knows this will also effect Maryland and he can not live with that thought. I do not care if he stands besides the NY AG squats and makes grunting noises

nedsurf said:

I've observed the same two things during my time in the deep south. Also to my surprise the "happy negro" slavery myth persisted as well when visiting some of the historic houses open to the public.

Click to expand...

I also thought that was weird. I have noticed a change just in the past few years. I did one tour in 2019 and again in 2021 and that awkward part was thankfully absent.

Young filed for cert, so now we have a possibility of that getting merged with NY. We should have been done with this back at Woolard, but we didn't have SCOTUS. (Speaking of myths, the 'Trump did nothing for guns' myth is slowly dying.)

Nothing new

Nothing new --- just a look at the Supreme Court’s question in NYSRPA v. Corlett:

“Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

It is unlikely that any combination of 4 Justices would have voted for cert in the face of a 5/4 defeat on the merits. Conversely (given the question) it looks like at least 5, maybe 6 Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito, Thomas, and perhaps Roberts ) reached a negotiated agreement on the question to be presented which resulted in the answer being shaped before cert was granted, i.e: Yes . . . there is a 2A protected right to “bear” (carry) in public “for self-defense.” The state, within the bounds of “text, history, tradition” and “longstanding prohibitions” can regulate “bear” (who, what, when, where and how) but cannot constitutionally completely preclude “carry” simply because it perceives “no proper cause,” or “particular need.” *

Any other answer would undermine the plain text of the 2A and the approaches mandated by Heller/McDonald. Roberts might have influenced how the question was worded and may assign himself to write a 6/3 opinion.

N.Y.’s lawyers probably will be recommending to the politicians that the applications be approved and that a highly regulated form of “concealed-carry, shall-issue,” be enacted . . . changing the game in an attempt to get the court to moot (once again) a N.Y. 2A case. Other states with pending carry litigation are apt to follow the lead of N.Y.’s legislatures.

United the five originalists can completely control the case. There is no guaranteed outcome, but 2A supporters have math and law based reasons for continued optimism. Other cases are in the pipeline . . . time to double down on support of the 2A. For us seniors (maybe all of us) it may be now, or never. **

Regards
Jack

*(54) https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/ [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions . . . .”

**Tip of the hat to Trump, the NYRPA & the NRA who made it possible for this case happen!

wjackcooper said:

N.Y.’s lawyers probably will be recommending to the politicians that the applications be approved and that a highly regulated form of “concealed-carry, shall-issue,” be enacted . . . changing the game in an attempt to get the court to moot (once again) a N.Y. 2A case. Other states with pending carry litigation are apt to follow the lead of N.Y.’s legislatures.

Click to expand...

But in the new case, unlike the previous NSYRPA case, the plaintiffs are asking for redress for prior wrongs, not just injunctive relief going forward. That short-circuits NY's ability to completely moot the case by a law change because even if NY went full constitutional carry, it still wouldn't address damage from the past.

Allen65 said:

But in the new case, unlike the previous NSYRPA case, the plaintiffs are asking for redress for prior wrongs, not just injunctive relief going forward. That short-circuits NY's ability to completely moot the case by a law change because even if NY went full constitutional carry, it still wouldn't address damage from the past.

Click to expand...

I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...020-12-17-nra-corlett-cert-petition-final.pdf

wjackcooper said:

I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...020-12-17-nra-corlett-cert-petition-final.pdf

Click to expand...

There is that.

This is the second case from NY, in as many sessions that has to deal with 2A. The court might stipulate enough is enough, and let their opinion be known.

wjackcooper said:

I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...020-12-17-nra-corlett-cert-petition-final.pdf

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was incorrect about that issue being with this case, I confused it with another case.

wjackcooper said:

I would appreciate a quote from Clément’s petition and page number re “asking for redress for prior wrongs.”*

At any rate, a party (N.Y.) to a case has no power to moot the case. N.Y. can by going “shall issue” (in the absence of other viable issues, e. g., “redress”) posture this case so the court might choose to moot it rather than making a decision on the merits.

Thanks
Jack

*https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...020-12-17-nra-corlett-cert-petition-final.pdf

Click to expand...

IANAL but I would say that NY can moot the case if it's willing to agree to never enforce the "need" provision (or the state re-writes the law) and an agreement is reached as far as damages go.
Would they do this though? Highly highly unlikely. First off to agree to all of the above would be an absolutely humiliating endeavor. Second, the only reason for them to do so would be because other states put pressure on them to take a dive in order to hold things off maybe in the hope that a justice can be packed or replaced in the meantime. Well, right now you have Young and Russell (NJ) also at SCOTUS. The court can simply allow NY to moot out and then take one of the other cases and then NY's "moot out" scenario is, well, moot.

press1280,

Some lawyers will say that a party can “moot” a case, but only a Court can make a binding determination that a petitioner’s claim (i.e., pending litigation) is (1) “resolved” and only then can the claim be said, in a strictly legal sense (2) “therefore moot.”*

As indicated above (post # 474) my guess is N.Y.’s lawyers will recommend that an attempt be made to have the court “moot” the case. Any recommendation will be confidential. N.Y.’s politicians may (or may not) take the advice . . . you have pointed out some of the considerations.

Regards
Jack

*“Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule had changed is therefore moot.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf page 1

"Because Federal Courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy) legal actions cannot be brought or continued after the matter at issue has been resolved, leaving no live dispute for a court to resolve. In such a case, the matter is said to be "moot". For Supreme Court decisions focusing on mootness, see, e.g., Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) and Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)."