Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

Allen65 · Dec 2, 2019

danb said:
I think that you made that up!

Only 3% of it.

Adolph Oliver Bush · Dec 2, 2019

danb said:
No one on the steps, Moms or otherwise, will be controlling the narrative. Heck I doubt most people will even get in.

All the media will see is a bunch of protestors. The journalists with a pass are the ones with the narrative.

Schipperke is this you?

Kharn · Dec 2, 2019

SCOTUSBlog argument analysis

motorcoachdoug · Dec 3, 2019

Very interesting. I would like to hear from our legal Eagles on what they think as well. If they do moot the case then I wonder if they would hear any of the other cases that they are holding then?

HaveBlue · Dec 3, 2019

They aren’t posted yet but I believe this is where the placeholder for the audio will show up:

https://www.c-span.org/supremeCourt/calendar/

HaveBlue · Dec 3, 2019

fidelity said:
So Ginsburg appeared to at least challenge the wisdom (if not the constitutionality) of the NYC ordinance in considering public safety ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/second-amendment-supreme-court.html

But even if it's obvious to her now after New York labored mightily to walk back the transport restriction, remember ...

... that the lower courts were completely fine with the regulation.

I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard RBG point out that the transport ban made guns more accessible to criminals.

It seemed to me that they focused on mootness because the 2A aspects of the law were so obvious.

danb · Dec 3, 2019

Josh Blackman at Volokh thinks its moot, has a different interpretation of the transcript than I do:

https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overv...sociation-v-city-of-new-york/#comment-8033278

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Dec 3, 2019

As some have already pointed out...four conservative Justices will vote for the Second Amendment...the four liberal Justices will vote against it to moot the case. It will come down to Chief Justice Roberts...and he's proven squishy enough to not want to upset the apple cart any more than he feels necessary...and that I find disturbing that he may not stand for the Constitutional principles that are obviously at risk here. He can go either way...and that's scary.

HoCoShooter · Dec 3, 2019

So failing to ask for damages might have sunk the whole thing - isn't that legal 101 and if so, why wasn't it done? It's hard to imagine that as an oversight given the possible magnitude of the case.

MigraineMan · Dec 3, 2019

Transcript is available.

Occam · Dec 3, 2019

I’m torn. If it gets mootified, doesn’t that reduce the risk of a rare 2A opportunity being squandered on a very narrow ruling, and leave the other pending cases out in the open? Because those also raise plainly broad 2A issues and seem not as fragile on other ways.

danb · Dec 3, 2019

Occam said:
I’m torn. If it gets mootified, doesn’t that reduce the risk of a rare 2A opportunity being squandered on a very narrow ruling, and leave the other pending cases out in the open? Because those also raise plainly broad 2A issues and seem not as fragile on other ways.

There are at least a half dozen 2A cases waiting in the wings (being held) that could be granted as early as Friday.

I am torn, but not for the same reason. Mootness muddies this case, so the opinion in this case will always have an asterisk. This is not (now) a great case on which to issue an opinion.

The main problem with mootness as I have said before is that the case is moot if and only if the underlying law was constitutional. If it was constitutional, plaintiffs got everything that they asked for. If it was unconstitutional, plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction, all that goes with that, and to sue for damages. Its now impossible to disentangle mootness with the merits.

Mootness is ok with me if they grant cert on another case. Better yet, I think that they should grant another case, hold this one, and GVR this one in June. Then have the lower court sort out the mootness mess.

Kharn · Dec 3, 2019

HoCoShooter said:
So failing to ask for damages might have sunk the whole thing - isn't that legal 101 and if so, why wasn't it done? It's hard to imagine that as an oversight given the possible magnitude of the case.

Because if you ask for damages early in the case, they can just settle the case and pay you off instead of fixing their behavior. Especially when the monetary damages are a few hundred dollars in increased range membership fees and some gun rentals in NJ.

Boxcab · Dec 3, 2019

HoCoShooter said:
So failing to ask for damages might have sunk the whole thing - isn't that legal 101 and if so, why wasn't it done? It's hard to imagine that as an oversight given the possible magnitude of the case.

I'm surprised that the homeless have not been addressed as well. Do they not have a right to self defense? How do you register a gun to your home, when you do not have a home?

There were many issues that could have been addressed. I assume they thought they had it in the bag (the law was so bad) that it was a slam dunk at SCOTUS. Once the law was changed, they did not adjust accordingly.

.

Kharn · Dec 3, 2019

You can't adjust your lawsuit at the SC, you're stuck with the claims you made at the district court and maintained on appeal. Thus the fight over if 1983 damages are assumed or not, and Alito asking how anyone could have anticipated NYC/NY's attempt to moot the case after cert was granted when drafting their district court filing back in 2013.

ironpony · Dec 3, 2019

I can sense Frosh looking over COMAR to see where the NYC law might fit in. Win or lose.

Occam · Dec 3, 2019

Boxcab said:
I'm surprised that the homeless have not been addressed as well. Do they not have a right to self defense? How do you register a gun to your home, when you do not have a home?

Remember that you have to actually produce someone with standing, and they have to stick around - at least at only arm's length - from the entire process, which will last years. It's going to be hard to find a homeless complainant that could go along for this kind of ride through the end.

Kharn · Dec 3, 2019

ironpony said:
I can sense Frosh looking over COMAR to see where the NYC law might fit in. Win or lose.

The list of allowed destinations and the continued debate over stopping for pizza after a range trip.

ericahls · Dec 3, 2019

Boxcab said:
I'm surprised that the homeless have not been addressed as well. Do they not have a right to self defense? How do you register a gun to your home, when you do not have a home?

There were many issues that could have been addressed. I assume they thought they had it in the bag (the law was so bad) that it was a slam dunk at SCOTUS. Once the law was changed, they did not adjust accordingly.
.

That's a good point. Another issue for me is the VERY specific places that one is permitted to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. It's like saying your first amendment right is only protected in your home and while traveling to an authorized library.

Fox123 · Dec 3, 2019

Thing is they took this 2A case, the least impactful one of all before them. Held all the others, who’s to say they don’t not this one and deny all the others.

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

HaveBlue

HaveBlue

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Attachments

Not Even ONE Indictment

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

MSI EM

Ultimate Member

Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics