New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

jcutonilli · Jan 1, 2022

camo556 said:
I cant tell if its been mentioned, but there are now three cases on hold.

Aposhian v Garland appears to be on hold as well, according to MSI litigation tracker.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html

idk what people are arguing about in this thread regarding Alito, he going to rule against NYSRPA.

Over at fantasy scotus, the odd of a 6-3 reversal have only gone up since nov 3rd. The weakest justice remains Roberts not Alito. It will be 5-4 or 6-3 against NYSRPA. I have not heard or read anything that makes me think otherwise. In many ways I'd prefer the strong 5-4 to the watered down 6-3.

But with abortion, SB8, covid mandates, Trump papers, immigration, and a whole lot of other high profile cases this term, gun rights will be the 7th or 8th thing the press complains about from this court. Whatever they do on Dobbs (abortion) will suck most of the oxygen.

https://fantasyscotus.net/case-prediction/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/

It is unlikely that Aposhian is being held. It is currently listed as rescheduled, which happens regularly when one of the justices wants more time before discussing a petition at conference. Cases usually do not get rescheduled or relisted until the Mon before the next conference (typically). There have been no additional conferences since it has been rescheduled. We will likely know more on Mon which should be the day when petitions get relisted or rescheduled due to the next scheduled conference on Fri.

motorcoachdoug · Jan 1, 2022

So let me ask,Why are some of you arguing or trying to make your points ah "forcefully" ?? when someone has opened their mouth or in this case used their keyboard as their mouth peace and removed all doubt about their understanding of the 2A.....but then everyone is free to express their thoughts even if it is a clowns expression ....

Texasgrillchef · Jan 1, 2022

We can all hypothesize whatever we want and back it up with statements and rulings out of context.

The fact is, we don’t know what will happen till it happens. SCOTUS can for the most part do whatever they want. They have broken stare decisis before and probably will again. They have overruled previous precedent. They will do so again.

Many SCOTUS opinions have said one thing yet still done another thing. They struck down a ban on handguns in the home while saying that constitutional rights aren’t unlimited.

My point being…. Is we can hypothesize what we think they will do, based on previous statements and opinions and questions that have said in the past, as well as who appointed them. Yet they for the most part do almost anything they wish that they can explain away.

We have those here that are convinced We will loose this case big time and won’t gain a thing. Yet others who think we will have a major win.

We can hope, and all we have is hope at this point. Because we don’t know for sure what will be said. Personally I think everyone will end up being surprised.

Sadly it won’t be till May or June till we know… same as with the Mississippi and Texas Abortion cases.

mikem623 · Jan 1, 2022

Truer words were never spoken

Allen65 · Jan 1, 2022

Texasgrillchef said:
Many SCOTUS opinions have said one thing yet still done another thing. They struck down a ban on handguns in the home while saying that constitutional rights aren’t unlimited.

And we also don't know how lower courts will interpret any SCOTUS decision. Like how "the right is not unlimited" has morphed into a defacto doctrine of "any restrictive law short of an outright complete ban on possession in the home is acceptable" at Appellate level in several circuits.

press1280 · Jan 2, 2022

Texasgrillchef said:
We can all hypothesize whatever we want and back it up with statements and rulings out of context.

The fact is, we don’t know what will happen till it happens. SCOTUS can for the most part do whatever they want. They have broken stare decisis before and probably will again. They have overruled previous precedent. They will do so again.

Many SCOTUS opinions have said one thing yet still done another thing. They struck down a ban on handguns in the home while saying that constitutional rights aren’t unlimited.

My point being…. Is we can hypothesize what we think they will do, based on previous statements and opinions and questions that have said in the past, as well as who appointed them. Yet they for the most part do almost anything they wish that they can explain away.

We have those here that are convinced We will loose this case big time and won’t gain a thing. Yet others who think we will have a major win.

We can hope, and all we have is hope at this point. Because we don’t know for sure what will be said. Personally I think everyone will end up being surprised.

Sadly it won’t be till May or June till we know… same as with the Mississippi and Texas Abortion cases.

They don't need to overturn anything to rule for NYSRPA. Robertson v. Baldwin wasn't about CCW or the 2A. All it said was the 2A wasn't violated by CCW restrictions. And if NY had unlicensed or shall issue open carry I suspect the case (if there was one) would be much differently decided.

777GSOTB · Jan 3, 2022

press1280 said:
Yes, absolutely Alito sides with NYSRPA. If he's stuck on open carry why would he get into the back and forth with NY's attorney talking about how criminals are armed on NY subways but people who have to live and work in those neighborhoods don't qualify for a CCW?
Again, Robertson is no impediment here. Paul Clement made it simple for the court. Open carry was the preference at the time. It isn't anymore for both plaintiffs and defendants. The Peruta dissent goes completely contrary to your interpretation of Robertson.

First of all, this case has nothing to do with carrying in the subway. It has nothing to do with carrying on a college campus. It has nothing to do with carrying in sensitive places. NONE of the plaintiffs were carrying in those places, and to be clear, the court won't address, ANY, of those places as the plaintiffs have no standing to do so. So, basically, your argument is solely based on conjecture. I would guess, Alito's discussion was just to show how nonsensical NY State's position is.

I never said Robertson was an impediment. Robertson v Baldwin, decided in 1897, clearly shows that the highest court in this country, understood the 2nd Amendment as not protecting a right to carry concealed firearms. Notice that we haven't gone into the 20th-century, which according to what Alito said at orals, IS NOT the time period to understand the limits of the 2nd Amendment. Here, I'll support my position, yet again, with Alito's statement at orals. Notice the time period...From year 1791 to 1868. Do you see the 20th-century in there? I don't, and thus my position. To be clear, New York's concealed carry permitting came into effect in the 20th-century.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen
From oral arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and --and I will stop after this -- Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.

Peruta's majority agree completely with my understanding of Robertson...A MAJORITY, is far better than a, MINORITY, in decision making. Notice how I support my position(see below) with fact, not conjecture.

From Peruta v San Diego:

"Finally, and perhaps most importantly,in Robertson v.Baldwin,165 U.S. 275 (1897), the United States Supreme Court made clear that it, too, understood the Second Amendment as not protecting the right to carry a concealed weapon. The Court wrote:[T]he first 10 amendments to the constitution,commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,”were not intended to laydown any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms(article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons[.]"

zoostation · Jan 3, 2022

777GSOTB said:
Why would Alito not go with what he said at NYSRPA v Bruen orals concerning the text, history and tradition of 2A rights? Which was just a reaffirmation of what they said in Heller in 2008...I mean, are you not following along or do you just not comprehend any of this?

That'll be enough of the insults for a while.

jcutonilli · Jan 3, 2022

camo556 said:
I cant tell if its been mentioned, but there are now three cases on hold.

Aposhian v Garland appears to be on hold as well, according to MSI litigation tracker.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html

idk what people are arguing about in this thread regarding Alito, he going to rule against NYSRPA.

Over at fantasy scotus, the odd of a 6-3 reversal have only gone up since nov 3rd. The weakest justice remains Roberts not Alito. It will be 5-4 or 6-3 against NYSRPA. I have not heard or read anything that makes me think otherwise. In many ways I'd prefer the strong 5-4 to the watered down 6-3.

But with abortion, SB8, covid mandates, Trump papers, immigration, and a whole lot of other high profile cases this term, gun rights will be the 7th or 8th thing the press complains about from this court. Whatever they do on Dobbs (abortion) will suck most of the oxygen.

https://fantasyscotus.net/case-prediction/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/

jcutonilli said:
It is unlikely that Aposhian is being held. It is currently listed as rescheduled, which happens regularly when one of the justices wants more time before discussing a petition at conference. Cases usually do not get rescheduled or relisted until the Mon before the next conference (typically). There have been no additional conferences since it has been rescheduled. We will likely know more on Mon which should be the day when petitions get relisted or rescheduled due to the next scheduled conference on Fri.

As expected, the bump stock case has been scheduled for the next conference Fri.

camo556 · Jan 3, 2022

jcutonilli said:
As expected, the bump stock case has been scheduled for the next conference Fri.

press1280 · Jan 3, 2022

777GSOTB said:
First of all, this case has nothing to do with carrying in the subway. It has nothing to do with carrying on a college campus. It has nothing to do with carrying in sensitive places. NONE of the plaintiffs were carrying in those places, and to be clear, the court won't address, ANY, of those places as the plaintiffs have no standing to do so. So, basically, your argument is solely based on conjecture. I would guess, Alito's discussion was just to show how nonsensical NY State's position is.

I never said Robertson was an impediment. Robertson v Baldwin, decided in 1897, clearly shows that the highest court in this country, understood the 2nd Amendment as not protecting a right to carry concealed firearms. Notice that we haven't gone into the 20th-century, which according to what Alito said at orals, IS NOT the time period to understand the limits of the 2nd Amendment. Here, I'll support my position, yet again, with Alito's statement at orals. Notice the time period...From year 1791 to 1868. Do you see the 20th-century in there? I don't, and thus my position. To be clear, New York's concealed carry permitting came into effect in the 20th-century.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen
From oral arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and --and I will stop after this -- Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.

Peruta's majority agree completely with my understanding of Robertson...A MAJORITY, is far better than a, MINORITY, in decision making. Notice how I support my position(see below) with fact, not conjecture.

From Peruta v San Diego:

"Finally, and perhaps most importantly,in Robertson v.Baldwin,165 U.S. 275 (1897), the United States Supreme Court made clear that it, too, understood the Second Amendment as not protecting the right to carry a concealed weapon. The Court wrote:[T]he first 10 amendments to the constitution,commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,”were not intended to laydown any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms(article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons[.]"

You're relying on a 9th Circuit precedent from judges who are not on the SCOTUS over 2 justices' dissent of the very same case? And not to mention several of those CA9 judges would later turn around and say that OPEN CARRY isn't protected either? Relying on CA9 for 2A guidance is dubious at best.
What Alito is saying is that there's a right to carry that can't be conditioned on the government's "need" test, as it never existed in 1791 or 1868. This is not a sly way of him saying it HAS to be open carry.
As I said before the oral argument goes a lot differently if one or more of the conservatives is angling toward open carry.

camo556 · Jan 11, 2022

more opinions this thursday

Texasgrillchef · Jan 12, 2022

camo556 said:
more opinions this thursday

Don’t expect an opinion released on this case though.

More then likely the opinions issued on Thursday will be about the Vaccine Mandates

camo556 · Jan 13, 2022

Trolled. Nothing interesting released today.

motorcoachdoug · Jan 13, 2022

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.
ON APPLICATIONS FOR STAYS
[January 13, 2022]
PER CURIAM. The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently enacted a vaccine mandate for much of the Nation’s work force. The mandate, which employers must enforce, applies to roughly84 million workers, covering virtually all employers with at least 100 employees. It requires that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday. OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact
2 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v.
OSHA
Per Curiam
any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.
Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizationschallenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country. The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to takeeffect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from thisCourt, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

Link

camo556 · Jan 13, 2022

Apparently they released this way after the normal time.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

OSHA slapped down, HHS health care mandate upheld. Not sure why either was a per curiam opinion. The HHS rule had 4 dissenters. Alito, Gorsuch, Barret, Thomas.

lazarus · Jan 13, 2022

camo556 said:
Apparently they released this way after the normal time.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

OSHA slapped down, HHS health care mandate upheld. Not sure why either was a per curiam opinion. The HHS rule had 4 dissenters. Alito, Gorsuch, Barret, Thomas.

Neither were determining the merits. They were only determining if the regulations should held prior to hearing the cases. This decision allows the HHS requirement for health care providers to vaccinate to go in to effect while the case is decided, but stays the requirement that large employers require their employees to be vaccinated until the case is resolved.

De facto decision on the merits. But not actual.

I’d expect states to turn around and begin requiring employers to vaccinate their employees next now that SCOTUS has effectively said OSHA cannot require large employers to vaccinate employees, require testing or even require masks in the work place.

Mark75H · Jan 13, 2022

lazarus said:
Neither were determining the merits. They were only determining if the regulations should held prior to hearing the cases. This decision allows the HHS requirement for health care providers to vaccinate to go in to effect while the case is decided, but stays the requirement that large employers require their employees to be vaccinated until the case is resolved.

De facto decision on the merits. But not actual.

I’d expect BLUE states to turn around and begin requiring employers to vaccinate their employees next now that SCOTUS has effectively said OSHA cannot require large employers to vaccinate employees, require testing or even require masks in the work place.

FIFY

BeoBill · Jan 14, 2022

lazarus said:
Neither were determining the merits. They were only determining if the regulations should held prior to hearing the cases. This decision allows the HHS requirement for health care providers to vaccinate to go in to effect while the case is decided, but stays the requirement that large employers require their employees to be vaccinated until the case is resolved.

De facto decision on the merits. But not actual.

I’d expect states to turn around and begin requiring employers to vaccinate their employees next now that SCOTUS has effectively said OSHA cannot require large employers to vaccinate employees, require testing or even require masks in the work place.

Now, what are the sages here projecting about the ruling that we're REALLY following? Discussion/opinions please.

I read the tea leaves as saying that the decision will be split, with the Constitutional faction winning and the Socialist faction dissenting vociferously. Other cases held may be decided individually or remanded to avoid making an overly broad decision that may affect their "legacy" as jurists.

delaware_export · Jan 15, 2022

I too am wondering how the scotus mandate breakdown will effect the gun case.

6/3 5/4 in favor of the 2a. But what level of clarity/firmness of ruling
4/2/3 some weak knee “compromise”
4/5 2a loss because 4 wanted a very strong pro 2a ruling and overplayed and 2 go anti

About 5 months until we get the real ruling

New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

, ,

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics