Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

jcutonilli · Jun 25, 2019

Oneqwickr6 said:
With all these rulings coming out of the supreme Court should we expect to hear from them soon on this ?

The Supreme Court is not going to rule on the issue until NYC brings it up again through a new motion or through their reply brief. All the other rulings are based on previously heard cases, which need to be resolved by the end of June.

cdstraw · Jun 25, 2019

SCOTUS Quote

I'm not 100% sure this Quote can be used in future arguments before any Judge when discussing 2A cases... But... I found it very enlightening that this was the reasoning used by the four liberal judges and Justice Gorsuch in their reasoning in United States V. Davis.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-davis-2053

"In our republic, a speculative possibility that a man's conduct violated the law should never be enough to justify taking his liberty." Page 26 of the ruling...

This case involved the constitutionality of a federal criminal statute — Section 924(c). Section 924(c) makes it a crime to use a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence, and Section 924(c)(3)(B) (now defunct) defined a crime of violence as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

rascal · Jun 25, 2019

Occam said:
Not sure I'm following the chain of events, here. Are you saying that if it's mooted, it will motivate enough voters to guarantee that Trump is re-elected, and that the Senate remains in the hands of the team that will seat his nominees (presumptively, A.B. among them)?

Or are you assuming Trump WILL be re-elected, and thus will be around when RGB goes, and that A.B. will be seated, and that a moot-ment of NYSRP will put the next friendly-to-us case in front of a court featuring her presence?

Either way, there's a lot of variables involved that would sure have to line up the right way.

I agree. At this point it is getting more likely with each passing day that we will see a Democrat president replacing a conservative justice on SCOTUS, which will kill the prospect of any and every pr 2a case in the federal courts -- and put Heller itself at risk.

wolfwood · Jun 25, 2019

Millions of dollars spent on this litigation and Supreme Court review will be denied because of a poorly thought out prayer for relief. So you can't sue a State for damages when trying to overturn a law due to this doctrine called sovereign immunity. If a State repeals a law you are suing over the case is moot or dead in almost all cases because there is no longer anything for the court to rule on since the law is already gone. this is because what you are asking for is prospective relief which means help from the court as life moves forward to not be impacted by the law at issue. That doctrine does not apply to cities such as New York City so you can ask for damages. If the NRA had sued for damages there would still be a case or controversy before the court. This is because when you are asking for damages you are asking the court to make you whole based on injury that occurred in the past and even if the law in the future is gone that does not make up for what was done for you in the past. If the NRA had asked for damages NYC could not moot the case because even if the law is gone that does not make up for what happened in the past. Not including damages is a mistake that also impacts whether the NRA can recoup the attorney fees they have paid out i.e. their donors money.

danb · Jun 25, 2019

All true except NYC can change the law back as quickly as they changed it to frustrate court review. The change of law was not a genuine change of heart either, it did not come until cert was granted.

I am not super familiar with voluntary cessation doctrine but everything I've read says NYC has a substantial burden to show why the case is now moot.

Honestly though, the Supreme Court called NYC bluff and NYC lost. NYC signaled they know they will lose badly. It's a win, evening a small one, and it will give the court a lot of confidence to take another case.

lazarus · Jun 25, 2019

Fedora said:
What Mr. Press says.

There have been only 9 incumbent presidents who ran and lost, so the odds are very good that Trump will (a) earn a second term, (b) that the Ginsberg seat will be available sometime before 2024, and (c) Trump will nominate another Gorsuch / Kavanaugh to replace Ginsberg. He has indicated his nominee will probably be Amy Barrett.

I should have been more clear. Thank you for correcting me.

I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in that though. He could surprise again, but he also has some of the lowest approval ratings of any modern president and has been making a lot of the swing voters who voted for him “for change” pretty upset with his trade fights and what not.

At any rate, for SCOTUS picks, I’d plan on the worst and hope for the best.

lazarus · Jun 25, 2019

danb said:
All true except NYC can change the law back as quickly as they changed it to frustrate court review. The change of law was not a genuine change of heart either, it did not come until cert was granted.

I am not super familiar with voluntary cessation doctrine but everything I've read says NYC has a substantial burden to show why the case is now moot.

Honestly though, the Supreme Court called NYC bluff and NYC lost. NYC signaled they know they will lose badly. It's a win, evening a small one, and it will give the court a lot of confidence to take another case.

Yup. At a minimum NYC is going to have to make a strong showing on why the case is moot. SCOTUS can still review and plaintiffs could argue that the regulation/law change doesn’t actually moot the damages being done. SCOTUS can also review under voluntary cessation. There NYC would have to show good reason that they can’t simply change the law/regulation back once the case has been dismissed.

All around NYC is almost certainly going to lose getting it dismissed. Even if they manage to win an argument in it being mooted, if they did change it back, or even close to it, you can almost certainly guarantee an expedited review back to the court and they will rain hellfire down upon NYC. The justices already appear unhappy with NYC over their actions. Not even just the conservative justices.

This may end up being a case where it is more than 5/4 against NYC and have multiple majority opinions.

Kharn · Jun 26, 2019

NYC's new rule still doesn't appear to allow gun ranges outside NYC, wouldn't that keep the case from becoming moot?

press1280 · Jun 26, 2019

Kharn said:
NYC's new rule still doesn't appear to allow gun ranges outside NYC, wouldn't that keep the case from becoming moot?

It does allow for transport outside the city to gun ranges under the new law. What it doesn't allow for is transport to another state for public carry. Unfortunately plaintiffs don't mention this.

Some Guy · Jun 26, 2019

press1280 said:
It does allow for transport outside the city to gun ranges under the new law. What it doesn't allow for is transport to another state for public carry. Unfortunately plaintiffs don't mention this.

Will plaintiffs or amicae (sp?) have an opportunity to address this in a response to the newly filed rulings?

press1280 · Jun 26, 2019

Some Guy said:
Will plaintiffs or amicae (sp?) have an opportunity to address this in a response to the newly filed rulings?

If they didn't address it in the complaint then it's too late now.

danb · Jun 26, 2019

I think that if the NYC case is mooted, the standard practice would be to vacate the lower circuit court decision.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/practice-pointer-mootness-and-munsingwear-vacatur/

Curious what other people think.

press1280 · Jun 28, 2019

danb said:
I think that if the NYC case is mooted, the standard practice would be to vacate the lower circuit court decision.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/practice-pointer-mootness-and-munsingwear-vacatur/

Curious what other people think.

It should be since to moot the case they are effectively giving in and admitting it's unconstitutional.
Leaving the lower court ruling in place means someone else in the 2nd circuit can pull the same stunt and be guaranteed victory until/unless Scotus hears their case.

Knuckle Dragger · Jun 29, 2019

If NYC wants to moot this case, they'll have to file a motion to do so. That will open the doors for petitions to file an opposition. Because NYC could easily amend their regulation again thus evading review, I don't think the high court will let them off so easily.

Kharn · Jun 29, 2019

Knuckle Dragger said:
If NYC wants to moot this case, they'll have to file a motion to do so. That will open the doors for petitions to file an opposition. Because NYC could easily amend their regulation again thus evading review, I don't think the high court will let them off so easily.

And to go hunting outside the city requires a discretionary permit. They're minutely changing the goalposts.

esqappellate · Jun 29, 2019

danb said:
I think that if the NYC case is mooted, the standard practice would be to vacate the lower circuit court decision.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/practice-pointer-mootness-and-munsingwear-vacatur/

Curious what other people think.

That's called a Munsingwear order and you are quite correct, if it moots out on appeal, the Court vacates the lower court decision with instructions to order the district court to vacate its decision and dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

press1280 · Jun 30, 2019

esqappellate said:
That's called a Munsingwear order and you are quite correct, if it moots out on appeal, the Court vacates the lower court decision with instructions to order the district court to vacate its decision and dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

I'd be curious how many times the scenario we are seeing has played out before, where a party wins throughout the lower courts only to do an about face when Scotus grants cert.
I've read about other cases where someone dies or a government contract ends, exc, but nothing like this where a law gets voluntarily changed

krucam · Jul 1, 2019

Don't forget that it's not just NYC moving the goal post. The NY State Legislature is doing the same...new Legislation (A-7552) has passed both sides of the Legislature and is on its way to Governor Cuomo's desk...

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752

motorcoachdoug · Jul 1, 2019

In other words in case the NYC case is not moot before SCOTUS the new law presented in NYState will almost be the same as the law in NYC. I guess gov como and his minions the demorats were really afraid that SCOTUS would take the case and strike it down. Now I wonder if a new lawsuite will have to be filled or can be filled at all over this..

Kharn · Jul 1, 2019

Here's some interesting reading: National Health Law Program: Q & A: The Heavy Burden of Proving a Case Moot

But, the repeal of a law does not necessarily render a case moot. For example, in City of Mesquite v. Aladdin?s Castle, the Supreme Court held that the case was not moot, notwithstanding the city?s repeal of a challenged ordinance because there was no barrier to the city reenacting precisely the same provision if district court?s judgment were vacated. 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982). But see Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige, 211 F.3d 112, 116 (4th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing City of Mesquite and finding that ?statutory changes that discontinue a challenged practice are usually enough to render a case moot, even if the legislature possesses the power to reenact the statute after the lawsuit is dismissed.?) (citations and quotations omitted).

SCOTUS: City of Mesquite v Aladdin's Castle

4th Circuit:Valeroa Terrestrial Corp v Paige, with this gem:

For example, in U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556 (1986), a unanimous Supreme Court dismissed as moot a former mental patient's challenge to a firearms statute, because, after certiorari had been granted but before the case was decided, Congress amended the statute to permit former mental patients to apply for an exemption from the bar on firearms purchases by current and former mental patients. The Court did so without once inquiring whether the United States could be said to have "voluntarily c[eased]" its prior practice of categorically refusing to permit former mental patients to purchase firearms. Accordingly, the dismissal of Valero's complaint as moot is affirmed.

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics