NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[swamplynx]

I agree, but don't hold your breath for SCOTUS to do the right on the 2A. They will kick the can down the road.

Exactly. If for no other reason than even if a majority knows granting cert is the right thing to do, they are terrified that a ruling favorable to 2A rights would result in the dems packing their precious institution (a reasonable fear in the current political environment).

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

Exactly. If for no other reason than even if a majority knows granting cert is the right thing to do, they are terrified that a ruling favorable to 2A rights would result in the dems packing their precious institution (a reasonable fear in the current political environment).

Which they’ll do anyway.

 

[press1280]

At this point, a ruling on the merits is the only thing to get my hopes up.
Maybe a strongly worded per curiam, but that would just barely move the needle.

A per curiam would have the same effect as a ruling. I don't see it happening in a CCW case since they've denied so many in the past.

 

[press1280]

SCOTUS docket page is up: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

Response due January 22nd

NYC's extension was granted. So we hurry up and wait some more until February 22nd.

 

[Kharn]

Boooo.
Thomas should write the per curiam so it is ready to go before NY can moot the case or anyone can stack the court.

 

[press1280]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...210122154401104_20-843 Amici Brief States.pdf

Brief of 23 state attorney generals in support of the plaintiffs

 

[wjackcooper]

NYSR&PA v. Corlett, (“to be, or not to be” pessimistic?)

NYSR&PA v. Corlett, (“to be, or not to be” pessimistic?)

N.Y. law: “Carry” depends on “a special need . . . .”*

The question is:

Does . . . “the Second Amendment allow the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” (?) **

What is the approach to be . . . cert denial, per curiam, interest – balancing (rejected in Heller) or text, history & tradition as required by Heller?

It seems (to me anyway) Heller has been distorted almost beyond recognition by Democrat Judicial appointees who (fearing an armed citizenry) use interest – balancing via intermediate scrutiny to sanction Democrat 2A legislation.***

Kagin, Breyer, & Sotomayor are Progressives (the Constitution means what they “feel” it should mean) and will very probably support interest - balancing. Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch,& Kavanagh are generally acknowledged to be originalists (the Constitution means what it means) and will very probably support granting cert and a text, history & tradition approach.**** Roberts often bends (as did Kennedy) with the political wind and it appears he (and Kennedy before his retirement) were responsible for previous 2A cert denials. *****

The outcome of this case does not depend on some esoteric argument pointing out how Progressive Judges were wrong to distort Heller & McDonald then use interest - balancing via intermediate security, followed by judicial deference (as in Turner) to rule against the 2A. The argument will not appeal (pun) to those Justices who while scrutinizing “feel” the right is a danger to the progressive agenda, or to Roberts who may think (especially now) “carry” is a “bridge to far.” The 2A approach mandated in Heller and in McDonald is text, history and tradition.****** This has been pointed out (time after time) in in previous cert petitions, the difference now is five Justices on the bench who think the 2A means what it says.

Pointing out the obvious: Roberts has three votes from the Liberals and needs one vote from a conservative to deny cert, or to moot the case, or to give N.Y. a 5 – 4 win on the merits. Failing that, he is likely to join the five originalists and make it a 6 – 3 win for the 2A . . . whereupon he will assign himself to write the opinion and curtail “carry” as much as 4 of the conservatives will tolerate. Otherwise Thomas (senior Justice) gets to pick himself as the opinion writer; Roberts is not apt to let that happen.

A per curiam holding as in Caetano (the issue was “common use”) is possible, but may be unlikely (my unsupported opinion) because “carry” is the subject of a deeper circuit split and has much broader ramifications. If N.Y. voluntarily goes “shall issue” a majority of justices might then agree to moot, but the other “may issue” states (having cases in the pipeline) probably will encourage N.Y. to resist until the bitter end.

The arithmetic looks very favorable; however, one (or more) of the five originalists (now fearing blood in the streets, or court packing) may wimp out, or court packing on an accelerated timeline might actually occur, or there might be a compromise holding that adopts “strict scrutiny” as a controlling test for 2A restraints. Given what almost all Democrat (and a few Republican) lower court judges did to Heller/McDonald . . . Democrat judicial appointees in the lower courts would immediately commence to camouflage “intermediate” as “strict scrutiny” and continue to make sure the “state always wins.”

Paul Clement (whose integrity and competence are conceded in any court where he appears) has at least two reasons to not to take a case to the Supreme Court that is not (in his professional judgement) winnable. Conservative Justices (thanks to Donald Trump) are in control of the outcome of a 2A case for the first time since Heller/McDonald became law. These eight factors (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, Barrett, Clement, Heller and McDonald) add up to a text, history and tradition win.

In love, war and litigation nothing is ever absolutely certain . . . but, the overwhelming weight (absent actual court packing - the threat may not be enough) of current, readily available, supported, credible information shows . . . no reason based in math, fact, or law to be pessimistic about the outcome of this case at this juncture.

Regards
Jack

*https://casetext.com/case/ny-state-rifle-pistol-assn-inc-v-beach Part A.
**https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/15 11334/2020-12-17-nra-corlett-cert-petition-final.pdf See “Question presented” p. 1.
*** “It is in the very nature of the tiers of scrutiny that they contradict the constitutional provisions in question, by purporting to find those rights "outweighed" by the government's interest in violating them.” Stephen A. Siegel, , 48 Am. J. Legal Hist. 355, 407 (2006) The Origin of the Compelling State Interest Test and Strict Scrutiny,
**** In Turner “The outcome supported Congress's right to judge what approach would best . . . .” https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-992 : See conclusion.
For those who think Democrat Judges have not been wrongfully evading Heller. . . “Breyer’s dissent explicitly advocated an approach based on Turner Broadcasting; that the Heller majority flatly rejected . . . .” https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/deca496973477c748525791f004d84f9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf See Kavanagh’s dissent in Heller 11 at pages 21 & 22,
And / or his concurrence in mooting the previous N.Y. case,
“Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion . . . to agree with the dissenting justices in their interpretation of the leading Second Amendment cases, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).” https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-280 Scroll down to the Conclusion, para. 2:
For those who still have doubts, see: Symposium: Barrett’s history-first approach to the Second Amendment
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/...story-first-approach-to-the-second-amendment/ (Easy to read summary here).
*****John Roberts May Not Be the Ally Gun-Rights Advocates Hoped For “All 10 cases presented the justices with the major open questions on the Second Amendment’s scope, and featured leading and respected Supreme Court advocates.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...lly-gun-rights-advocates-wanted-it-be/613105/ (Another easy to read summary).
******”Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf McDonald p.1.
“Strict and intermediate scrutiny are balancing tests and thus are necessarily encompassed by Heller’s more general rejection of balancing.” Judge (now Justice) Kavanagh dissenting in Heller 11.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf See pages 5, 22,24,& 25 of the Kavanagh dissent.
“As this Court made clear in both Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, at its core, guarantees a right to keep and bear arms for self- defense. . . . That commonsense conclusion is compelled by the text and structure of the Second Amendment, by the history of the right it protects, and by any fair reading of both Heller and McDonald.”
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...020-12-17-nra-corlett-cert-petition-final.pdf Clement’s cert. petition, Page 8.

 

[Ponder_MD]

Whew, that was a hell of a read. Thanks.

 

[jcutonilli]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...210122154401104_20-843 Amici Brief States.pdf

Brief of 23 state attorney generals in support of the plaintiffs

You might as well include the other amici

Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/166912/20210121154400654_20-843-FPC-Amicus Brief.pdf

Korte Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Korte Tree Care http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/167047/20210122190737595_Amicus Brief.pdf

Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ef of LE and firearms rights groups FINAL.pdf

 

[press1280]

You might as well include the other amici

Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/166912/20210121154400654_20-843-FPC-Amicus Brief.pdf

Korte Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Korte Tree Care http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/167047/20210122190737595_Amicus Brief.pdf

Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ef of LE and firearms rights groups FINAL.pdf

A tree care company, eh?

 

[Occam]

A tree care company, eh?

If the US citizen who happens to own a tree care company can't be considered informed and vested in the topic at hand, then nobody is. Because that's the ENTIRE POINT of the 2A specifically, and the BoR generally: the tree guy isn't less important than the government, he's MORE important than the government.

 

[wjackcooper]

Twenty three State Attorneys General

Press 1280

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...f States.pdf

“Brief of 23 state attorney generals in support of the plaintiffs”

Thanks for posting.

Twenty three State Attorneys General are arguing that interest – balancing (public safety v the 2A) and original public meaning (text, history & tradition) both compel “shall issue.” I like the argument, but interest – balancing is a subjective process, and the record shows Democrat Judicial appointees almost always will (when “balancing”) uphold “gun control.”

No matter all of the NRAs troubles, at this point in time they are backing the most important 2A case pending. I will continue to ante up.

Regards
Jack

 

[teratos]

Press 1280

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...f States.pdf

“Brief of 23 state attorney generals in support of the plaintiffs”

Thanks for posting.

Twenty three State Attorneys General are arguing that interest – balancing (public safety v the 2A) and original public meaning (text, history & tradition) both compel “shall issue.” I like the argument, but interest – balancing is a subjective process, and the record shows Democrat Judicial appointees almost always will (when “balancing”) uphold “gun control.”

No matter all of the NRAs troubles, at this point in time they are backing the most important 2A case pending. I will continue to ante up.

Regards
Jack

The original intent was Constitutional Carry.

 

[Mark75H]

The original intent was Constitutional Carry.

Agreed. Original intent was CONSTITUTIONAL PRE-EMPTION. What is generally not fully acknowledged is that there actually was some opposition to this from day one, but it went under the radar. If it was truly originally fully accepted, it wouldn't have even needed to be put in writing and there would not have been any need to explain it in The Federalist Papers.

 

[press1280]

If the US citizen who happens to own a tree care company can't be considered informed and vested in the topic at hand, then nobody is. Because that's the ENTIRE POINT of the 2A specifically, and the BoR generally: the tree guy isn't less important than the government, he's MORE important than the government.

He’s certainly well within his rights to do so. I’ve just never seen briefs be filed by an organization that seemingly has no connection to the case.
His take is pretty interesting. You can’t terrify the people if they can’t see you carrying!

 

[Occam]

an organization that seemingly has no connection to the case.

That's the point. Every single person has a connection to the case.

 

[Athelney878]

You’ve noted the first name on the brief, Paul Clement, who is great. But it’s the second name on it that might be more important - Erin Murphy. She was previously a clerk for . . . Chief Justice Roberts. We don’t really need his vote anymore, but if anyone knows how to get it, it will be her.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

And now we play the waiting game and pray that cert will be granted..

 

[press1280]

You’ve noted the first name on the brief, Paul Clement, who is great. But it’s the second name on it that might be more important - Erin Murphy. She was previously a clerk for . . . Chief Justice Roberts. We don’t really need his vote anymore, but if anyone knows how to get it, it will be her.

His vote (assuming the other 5 conservatives agree) would make a per curiam possible, although I don't see them making a straight up call on the merits without oral argument.

 

[Kharn]

He’s certainly well within his rights to do so. I’ve just never seen briefs be filed by an organization that seemingly has no connection to the case.
His take is pretty interesting. You can’t terrify the people if they can’t see you carrying!

My read of it is the company paid the history professors to write the brief. I bet he gets audited.