Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

press1280 · Apr 13, 2019

But how does the court see it if NYC actually does change the law?
"Proposed" changes mean nothing.

swinokur · Apr 13, 2019

NYC isn’t even changing the law, only a regulation designed as a last minute attempt to delay SCOTUS ruling.

Hopefully the Justices will see this stunt for what it is. Just a delay tactic on the way to Nationwide Shall Issue

pdsmith505 · Apr 13, 2019

pdsmith505 said:
Forget em. It's just a proposed rule change. It's not even a city ordinance for christ's sake. There's nothing stopping NYC from reverting once the case is dropped.

Citations of court rulings are in the footnotes from the web-page I pulled it from.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22599.html#_Toc230583185

danb said:
Exceptions to mootness doctrine:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22599.html

Anyone have any doubt NYC could return to it's old ways the day after the case was mooted?

No.

The Surpreme Court should foreclose the possibility.

Woohoo! I wasn't the only one who remembered that!

Kharn · Apr 13, 2019

press1280 said:
One of the applicants got a permit but there were other applicants who didn't get one. Reason they gave the one permit was because it was so egregious and probably feared it looked bad enough that Scotus would take it

The case I'm thinking of was even more blatant than that, and it wasn't just issuing a permit.

Pope414 · Apr 13, 2019

Kharn said:
Didn't Jersey swear they would change or have a state-level loss they used to claim a SC cert petition was moot, then immediately went back to the same ol' crap once cert was denied? Might have been Drake?

yes it was Pantano the Attorney was Evan Nappan. The NJ Supreme Court granted Cert. after all the briefs and responses were done the Court refused to put it on the callender putting off arguments. The NJ AG used the Pantano case as reason to not grant Cert in Drake citing qn identical case was in the state courts. Once the NJ AG pulled the wool over the SCOTUS eyes to get Cert denied less that 3 weeks later NJSC Chief Justice Stewart Grabbner put out a one sentence statement "Pantano was improvidently granted cert.and is nearby dismissed" Pantano was funding the case himself and could not afford to appeal so the case died.

mk10 · Apr 14, 2019

Voluntary Cessation
If a defendant voluntarily terminates the allegedly unlawful conduct after the lawsuit has been filed but retains the power to resume the practice at any time, a federal court may deem the case nonmoot. The "heavy burden" of persuading the court that a case has been mooted by the defendant's voluntary actions lies with the party asserting mootness, and the standard for such a determination is a "stringent" one: "if subsequent events ma[ke] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior [can] not reasonably be expected to recur." This exception is supported by the Supreme Court because, in addition to ensuring that the defendant is not "free to return to his old ways," there is "a public interest in having the legality of the practices settled."

NYPD's continuing support of the current regulation, and their obvious reluctance to modify it, is not very reassuring that they won't revert back to the old rule:

The Police Department has strongly believed, and continues to maintain, that the present Rule furthers an important public-safety interest. However, in light of the Osterweil decision and the ongoing NYSRPA case, the Police Department has reviewed the Rule, and has determined that it is possible to modify it...

Quoted from:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...152613471_nysrpa v cny 18-180 ltr 4 12 19.pdf

motorcoachdoug · Apr 14, 2019

I really hope that SCOTUS does not drop the case but does take NYPD and the city to task .... What do our legal eagles think SCOTUS might do??? and what grounds would they have to keep the case going ???

press1280 · Apr 14, 2019

swinokur said:
NYC isn’t even changing the law, only a regulation designed as a last minute attempt to delay SCOTUS ruling.

Hopefully the Justices will see this stunt for what it is. Just a delay tactic on the way to Nationwide Shall Issue

However they could change the law and do it quite easily. These city councils are overwhelmingly Dems who think the same. If their counsel convinces them that they're in trouble then they can have this law changed overnight.
This isn't like the US Senate where 60 votes is impossible even to agree on lunch.

swinokur · Apr 14, 2019

Wouldn’t changing the law make their intentions even more obvious to the Court? It would take slightly more effort but also reveal their intentions to avoid a decision against their actions?

Inigoes · Apr 14, 2019

The Den city council will never change the law, because that goes against the party plank of gun control.

The NYC to appear genuine, they need to change the law, not the regulations that interpret the law.

swinokur · Apr 14, 2019

Yeah because changing the reg gives the politicians cover as they can blame the NYPD and not themselves and it is easier to rewrite a reg than change a law.

Weasels

press1280 · Apr 14, 2019

swinokur said:
Wouldn’t changing the law make their intentions even more obvious to the Court? It would take slightly more effort but also reveal their intentions to avoid a decision against their actions?

In the end, that's the relief plaintiffs are seeking. If the city effectively gives them that relief then there's no complaint, lawyers fees aside.

danb · Apr 14, 2019

press1280 said:
In the end, that's the relief plaintiffs are seeking. If the city effectively gives them that relief then there's no complaint, lawyers fees aside.

Is it relief? What stops them from going back 3 minutes after the Supreme Court dismisses the case?

press1280 · Apr 14, 2019

Inigoes said:
The Den city council will never change the law, because that goes against the party plank of gun control.

The NYC to appear genuine, they need to change the law, not the regulations that interpret the law.

I'm not sure they don't change the law. This is very low hanging fruit.
You can bet other anti AGs are probably begging them to change the law right now.

press1280 · Apr 14, 2019

danb said:
Is it relief? What stops them from going back 3 minutes after the Supreme Court dismisses the case?

That's the big question. We've seen numerous jurisdictions fold over stun gun bans, so, what makes those different other than the timing (They fold as soon as the complaint hits)?

danb · Apr 14, 2019

press1280 said:
That's the big question. We've seen numerous jurisdictions fold over stun gun bans, so, what makes those different other than the timing (They fold as soon as the complaint hits)?

Well, first I'd like to see a change in law not a regulation.Who knows how it'll be enforced. A stay based on a proposed regulation is too ephemeral.

But: a win is a win. If NYC does moot the case, it's a concession either way, and in my mind it gives the Supreme Court a lot of confidence they were right to take this case and it substantially raises the odds of them taking NJ carry case (or another case).

Kharn · Apr 14, 2019

press1280 said:
That's the big question. We've seen numerous jurisdictions fold over stun gun bans, so, what makes those different other than the timing (They fold as soon as the complaint hits)?

Folding now denies the plaintiffs a win for Section 1988 purposes, they can't recover attorney fees on a moot case.

esqappellate · Apr 14, 2019

Kharn said:
Folding now denies the plaintiffs a win for Section 1988 purposes, they can't recover attorney fees on a moot case.

Well, they need court ordered relief to get fees. If NYC moots out the case like this, the SCT will enter a Munsingwear order, vacating the 2D Circuit decision and ordering the 2d Circuit to remand the case to the district court with orders to vacate the DCt's decision. I wonder if that is enough "court ordered" relief to satisfy the test.

wolfwood · Apr 14, 2019

this is the case on point re fees

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1848

Kharn · Apr 14, 2019

esqappellate said:
Well, they need court ordered relief to get fees. If NYC moots out the case like this, the SCT will enter a Munsingwear order, vacating the 2D Circuit decision and ordering the 2d Circuit to remand the case to the district court with orders to vacate the DCt's decision. I wonder if that is enough "court ordered" relief to satisfy the test.

You and NYC are really making us work for our dinner on this one.

SCOTUSBlog's primer on Mootness and Munsingwear

My previous post missed that Munsingwear was distinguished by the mootness being caused unilaterally by the respondent vs the usual bilateral mootness from a negotiated settlement. So NYC would still technically lose the case and pay fees, but without precedent being set, if the Court agrees that it is moot. :mad54:

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Head'n for the hills

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics