Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

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!
  • Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,014
    I'll be curious now to see if they go through with changing the law. Changing enforcement of the law wont really do.

    Me too.

    The NYC officials have pretty much shown a lot of personal disrespect to each of the Supreme Court's Judges. Any Supreme Court Judge, including the Clinton/Obama appointees, should be offended by the "rule changing" farce and request for delay that the City of New York has attempted.

    I maintain that the City of New York is pretty much calling the Supreme Court Judges, each and all, a bunch of incompetent and/or corrupted chumps.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    This is indeed good news for us! Now NY must take the next step since i bet they were hoping their request would be granted ...

    Next step as in filing briefs? Because I almost don’t care if they do change city ordinances. They need to be called to the carpet, smacked down hard, strict scrutiny needs to be the rule of the day for 2A (All A’s!) cases, and this transportation restriction BS needs to be done away with.

    I can understand when a firearm isn’t allowed in certain places without some restrictions (lets be honest, should you be allowed to carry in court? In to a prison?), but “in public”, especially in your vehicle or openly on your person shouldn’t have any real restrictions or else the whole self defense thing is a mockery as is “shall not be infringed”.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    Since SCOTUS denied the delay, there seems to be little point in a reg change. SCOTUS saw through this last minute ploy by NYC. Since it won’t help their case, I don’t see them doing any more

    But you never know.
     

    WildWeasel

    Active Member
    Mar 31, 2019
    468
    MI>FL>MD
    I can understand when a firearm isn’t allowed in certain places without some restrictions (lets be honest, should you be allowed to carry in court? In to a prison?), but “in public”, especially in your vehicle or openly on your person shouldn’t have any real restrictions or else the whole self defense thing is a mockery as is “shall not be infringed”.

    Well from the definition of infringement, those are infringements...

    That said, NYCs firearm ownership, 2A, and self defense are basically null and void until the court does something. If/when we win this, it should open more opportunities to gain freedom back. I see it having a very positive impact on 'may issue' crap, or at least making it the next hot topic. Bringing these asinine laws to scrutiny only shows how they go against rights, common sense, logic, reason, fact, etc.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Since SCOTUS denied the delay, there seems to be little point in a reg change. SCOTUS saw through this last minute ploy by NYC. Since it won’t help their case, I don’t see them doing any more

    But you never know.

    I could see NY playing a passive-aggressive incremental delay game. Their next step would be to actually change their regulation, then ask SCOTUS again to dismiss on mootness. Then if there's another denial, introduce a bill to change the underlying statute and ask again for delay. Next step would be to actually change the statue, then ask once more. Then go back and change the statute back later and make NYSRPA start all over again.

    There's really no significant cost to NY to do this, and by doing it they'd be probing SCOTUS to discover what the current threshold is for mooting similar cases.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I actually think they may change the law. If they do then I don't see them changing back even if Scotus moots the case.
    That would be way too obvious.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    maybe. But the comment period IIRC is not even until May 19th. Amazon HQ was a fait accompli until it wasnt. Who knows what kind of comments they will get. They may simply choose the political cover of being "forced" by the court. Or, Grewal v Rogers may be granted. In which case, NYC may also simply decide to wait and see. All these things will be known by late August when briefs are due.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,234
    Montgomery County
    That would be way too obvious.

    The political left has now completely given up on any concerns that their motivations and tactics are transparently obvious. They simply don't care anymore. They have a press working full time to spin and obfuscate that for them, or to indeed cheer it on even when it's obvious nonsense. They really don't care if they're caught doing BS like that, because they've officially decided that the ends justify the means, no matter how transparently sleazy. Just look at the Kavanaugh proceedings. They're done with shame. It no longer impacts their thinking in any way.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    maybe. But the comment period IIRC is not even until May 19th. Amazon HQ was a fait accompli until it wasnt. Who knows what kind of comments they will get. They may simply choose the political cover of being "forced" by the court. Or, Grewal v Rogers may be granted. In which case, NYC may also simply decide to wait and see. All these things will be known by late August when briefs are due.

    I'm skeptical they get any useful feedback from the public comments. Other than gun owners in the city, probably no one else is even aware of this aspect of the law.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I'm skeptical they get any useful feedback from the public comments. Other than gun owners in the city, probably no one else is even aware of this aspect of the law.

    "useful" is a matter of debate. They will for sure get a lot (its NYC, the crazies cannot help themselves), and they have to consider and respond to all of them.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,142
    i am a skeptic as well.

    iirc, feedback to the ATF was against criminalization of bump stocks both times it was requested. definitely the first time, i think the second period as well.

    imo, when .gov takes feedback, they've already decided what they are going to do before feedback came in. they are only taking feedback because it's required by some process. if the feedback isn't what they want, they'll either ignore it and continue, or they'll keep asking until they get a result that they wanted all along.

    they only exception is when something/someone, like say.. scotus, or other big stick, comes along and says WRONG.

    the only exception here are when the battle is .gov vs .gov. you can never tell about those. usually the bigger .gov wins. (unless it's trump related...)

    I'm skeptical they get any useful feedback from the public comments. Other than gun owners in the city, probably no one else is even aware of this aspect of the law.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    News from the Department of Let the Stupid Flow Through You:

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-brief-supporting-new-york-style-gun-control/

    Prosecutors Against Gun Violence proudly announced the filing of their amicus brief this week in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v City of New York case at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the brief, the prosecutors use arguments recycled from the Jim Crow era that were used to keep poor, ‘undesirables’ disarmed through a patchwork of state and local regulations.

    amicus here:
    https://prosecutorsagv.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/amicus-brief-2019.05-filed.pdf

    its not up on Scotus yet. What I find curious is that the brief says:

    The key issue before this Court is whether a state may require that a citizen show a “proper” reason for an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

    really? I thought NYSRPA was just about transporting... This seems more like Rogers v Grewal, the NJ carry case...

    d391eafb2ac1cf528cb5d16efbe439de41fbb851ef2650481aca4c52b1371610.jpg
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I have to say:

    For the foregoing reasons, PAGV respectfully asks this Court to affirm the district court’s opinion and to uphold New York’sconstitutional and common-sense requirement of a “proper cause” for the public carry of firearms. Licensing regimes that vest discretion in local and state authorities are fully consistent with the Second Amendment, effectuate the government’s duty to promote public safety, and reflect the will of the body politic responsible for electing such officials.


    This seems more apt for Rogers v Grewal. Was there a NY carry case in addition to NJ carry case? ... Do they know something we dont?

    But at the same time, let them file it and make NYSRPA about discretionary licensing too...
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,234
    Montgomery County
    I always wonder how these people would feel about being asked to defend locally varying “safety”-minded protections under the 1st, or 4th, or 5th chunks of the Bill of Rights.
     

    ShafTed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 21, 2013
    2,213
    Juuuuust over the line
    There seems to be some blurring of cases here. The thread originally started to address the challenge to the NYC possession law, where NYC residents can't take their licensed handgun to a range or any other place outside the city limits. There have also been additional state level cases brought in Federal District courts in NY, NJ, and MD challenging May Issue in the wake of Wrenn winning in DC. The Prosecutors Against Guns brief seems more directed at May Issue carry licensing, which would be the NY state (not NYC) suit.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I now think TTAG is mistaken. This is for the NYC carry case on appeal at the 2nd circuit, not the supreme court case. I wondered why it did not appear on the docket and the case no did not match.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    As a bit of a side bar, it's interesting that even a writer for the AP is pointing out the increasing influence that Thomas has within the SCOTUS, and that he's not planning on retiring any time soon. Hang in there, Justice Thomas!

    https://www.apnews.com/fbb07af9d5254aecbbab9422faf405ba
    Maybe he found a empathetic ear to (D) abuse in Kavanaugh and a sympathetic ear from the rest of SCOTUS...

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

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

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom