NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[jcutonilli]

Ive been convinced by the commandos in this forum open carry is the real right so SC will pass on NYC and rule in Young.

I've already bought my open carry rifle for NYC.

"I've already bought my open carry rifle for NYC."

AR 15, I hope.

Regards
Jack

I heard those "commandos" saying that they are canceling the oral arguments. The answer is obvious. It is going to be 10-0. The opinion is going to be really short, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

You may want to wait for the opinion. Additionally NY passed the "SAFE Act" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act that limits the type if rifles that you can carry. The courts ruled the act was mostly constitutional (except the 7 round mag limit) https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Shew-v-Malloy_Opinion-in-NYSRPA-v-Cuomo.pdf SCOTUS denied the petition after the first conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-1030.htm One of the many problems with the case is that they failed to articulate why the lower courts got intermediate scrutiny wrong. The plaintiffs in this case failed to articulate why also.

 

[eruby]

I wish that SCOTUS would be live during the arguments but we will have to wait and see if they will or not. It will also be interesting to see what the SCOTUS blog has to say after the case is argued before the court..

I must have missed it but what time can we listen to the oral arguments?

10am on 11/3 I thought.

They have already said the oral arguments would be live. There is a link to the live audio on the supremecourt.gov main page in the quick links section. They also seem to be archiving the recordings the same day so you can hear it relatively soon afterward if you miss the live recording.

This is a link for the audio, from John Josselyn's email:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx


.

 

[camo556]

I heard those "commandos" saying that they are canceling the oral arguments. The answer is obvious. It is going to be 10-0. The opinion is going to be really short, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

You may want to wait for the opinion. Additionally NY passed the "SAFE Act" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act that limits the type if rifles that you can carry. The courts ruled the act was mostly constitutional (except the 7 round mag limit) https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Shew-v-Malloy_Opinion-in-NYSRPA-v-Cuomo.pdf SCOTUS denied the petition after the first conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-1030.htm One of the many problems with the case is that they failed to articulate why the lower courts got intermediate scrutiny wrong. The plaintiffs in this case failed to articulate why also.

2016... meh. We now have empirical evidence Kennedy / Roberts were the problems, not the cases. Kavanaugh dissented when the DC assault weapons ban was upheld, now he's on the Supreme Court. Barrett authored a dissent that felons should have their gun rights restored, now shes on the court.

Clement has this case extremely well positioned for a win.

The Heller majority was squishy. Now its solid. The only real question is whether the SC reverses 6-3 or 5-4. Roberts is 50-50 in my mind. Will it be 6-3, 5-4, or 5-3-1. Does it even matter? The questions tomorrow will be interesting.

I see either Thomas or Barrett writing the majority opinion. Thomas because hes wanted to for 30 years, Barrett because she would deliver an opinion as devastating as M82A1 and I like the allegory.

But hey, just in case I have a 0 gauge shotgun I can open carry in NYC.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

2016... meh. We now have empirical evidence Kennedy / Roberts were the problems, not the cases. Kavanaugh dissented when the DC assault weapons ban was upheld, now he's on the Supreme Court. Barrett authored a dissent that felons should have their gun rights restored, now shes on the court.

Clement has this case extremely well positioned for a win.

The Heller majority was squishy. Now its solid. The only real question is whether the SC reverses 6-3 or 5-4. Roberts is 50-50 in my mind. Will it be 6-3, 5-4, or 5-3-1. Does it even matter? The questions tomorrow will be interesting.

I see either Thomas or Barrett writing the majority opinion. Thomas because hes wanted to for 30 years, Barrett because she would deliver an opinion as devastating as M82A1 and I like the allegory.

But hey, just in case I have a 0 gauge shotgun I can open carry in NYC.

I would be willing to bet it will be Thomas that writes the opinion, since he has seniority and has been dying to write an opinion about this for a while. I am sure he will work closely with Kavanagh, Barrett and Gorsuch as well.

Sadly like what happened in the Heller case I am afraid the other 2 Justices might require certain limitations statements in the opinion to get their vote. Just like what happened in the Heller opinion.

 

[Inigoes]

Sadly like what happened in the Heller case I am afraid the other 2 Justices might require certain limitations statements in the opinion to get their vote. Just like what happened in the Heller opinion.

As Roberts can be ignored...

Would Alito force concessions?

 

[camo556]

maybe Kavanaugh. Even though he wrote the dissent in DC assault weapons ban, his spine was wobbly this year in a few cases like the CDC moratorium.

He the one IMO most likely to be concerned about a bloodbath in the streets because people are carrying.

 

[teratos]

I would be willing to bet it will be Thomas that writes the opinion, since he has seniority and has been dying to write an opinion about this for a while. .

I hope Thomas writes it. His concurring opinion in McDonald was great.

 

[MJD438]

This is a link for the audio, from John Josselyn's email:





https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx





.

All i want to say is Thank You! There is at least one person in this thread that understands how to use the Gorram Multi-Quote function!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Fox123]

Is the schedule posted somewhere, when they will discuss this case today?

 

[Fox123]

Nvmd, found it, won’t be heard until afternoon.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

As Roberts can be ignored...

Would Alito force concessions?

Possible… While most everyone will agree that Roberts is on the fence for sure, and that Alito is less on the fence then Roberts. He isn’t an absolute like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Barrett are.

I fell Alito might just push for a less radical opinion then Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh.

We need five, and while Roberts can be ignored to some degree. Either of those two can be ignore entirely as we need at least one more vote.

We may get a 6-3 vote. However I would be willing to bet we get a 5-4 vote.

 

[trickg]

Is there a chance that we could lose it? Every time a 2A case makes its way to SCOTUS, what hope I have is always peppered with a lot of fear that we might lose.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

maybe Kavanaugh. Even though he wrote the dissent in DC assault weapons ban, his spine was wobbly this year in a few cases like the CDC moratorium.

He the one IMO most likely to be concerned about a bloodbath in the streets because people are carrying.

There is a big difference between what the CDC was trying to do and what NY and many others are trying to do.

Big difference between a disease and guns as well.

While I am against forcing a person to wear a mask or get a vaccine, that doesn’t mean though that I don’t believe that one should wear a mask at certain times, or that one should not get the vaccine under certain conditions. Some people under certain condition SHOULD be required to wear a mask and get a vaccine. However even then it should still be a choice. That’s just my opinion

Firearms are a different matter entirely. While We don’t want certain people to have them, or in certain locations. We also aren’t forcing people to own one or carry one either. Someone owning or carrying a firearm will never effect me as long as that person is practicing firearm safety and is being law abiding citizen.

Someone NOT wearing a mask or taking the vaccine, COULD effect directly effect me.

Again, I am totally against mask/vaccine mandates and forcing someone to do so. It should always be a choice. Again barring some people in certain sensitive locations. (No different the. Firearms)

 

[Inigoes]

Possible… While most everyone will agree that Roberts is on the fence for sure, and that Alito is less on the fence then Roberts. He isn’t an absolute like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Barrett are.

I fell Alito might just push for a less radical opinion then Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh.

We need five, and while Roberts can be ignored to some degree. Either of those two can be ignore entirely as we need at least one more vote.

We may get a 6-3 vote. However I would be willing to bet we get a 5-4 vote.

I think it will be a strong 5-4 vote, instead of a watered down 6-3.

I do not think Alito will force concessions, after reading how pissed he was on the last NY case:

The bait-and-switch incensed members of the court who delayed in the dismissal of the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas specifically called out New York for "manipulating" the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gun-rights-victory-new-york-supreme-court-jonathan-turley

 

[777GSOTB]

Alito, Breyer, Gorsuch, Kagan, Roberts, and Sotomayor for the win.

 

[camo556]

I think it will be a strong 5-4 vote, instead of a watered down 6-3.

I do not think Alito will force concessions, after reading how pissed he was on the last NY case:



https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gun-rights-victory-new-york-supreme-court-jonathan-turley

The showdown with New York and the Second Circuit in that sense was merely delayed, but not forgotten by the court. Ironically, the earlier law would have presented a narrower platform for reconsidering the Second Amendment. By gaming the system a year ago, New York may have delivered a far greater opportunity for Second Amendment advocates in the case.

Also, destroyed credibility by claiming at the last minute the plaintiffs permits cover self defense in back country areas.

Maybe they took this case specifically to smack NY peepee

 

[Inigoes]

Maybe they took this case specifically to smack NY peepee

I hope it's more of a castration, than a smack!

 

[Fox123]

Tomorrow

 

[eruby]

There is a big difference between what the CDC was trying to do and what NY and many others are trying to do.

Big difference between a disease and guns as well.

While I am against forcing a person to wear a mask or get a vaccine, that doesn’t mean though that I don’t believe that one should wear a mask at certain times, or that one should not get the vaccine under certain conditions. Some people under certain condition SHOULD be required to wear a mask and get a vaccine. However even then it should still be a choice. That’s just my opinion

Firearms are a different matter entirely. While We don’t want certain people to have them, or in certain locations. We also aren’t forcing people to own one or carry one either. Someone owning or carrying a firearm will never effect me as long as that person is practicing firearm safety and is being law abiding citizen.

Someone NOT wearing a mask or taking the vaccine, COULD effect directly effect me.

Again, I am totally against mask/vaccine mandates and forcing someone to do so. It should always be a choice. Again barring some people in certain sensitive locations. (No different the. Firearms)

???

If something is required, it is no longer a choice.

 

[jcutonilli]

2016... meh. We now have empirical evidence Kennedy / Roberts were the problems, not the cases. Kavanaugh dissented when the DC assault weapons ban was upheld, now he's on the Supreme Court. Barrett authored a dissent that felons should have their gun rights restored, now shes on the court.

Clement has this case extremely well positioned for a win.

The Heller majority was squishy. Now its solid. The only real question is whether the SC reverses 6-3 or 5-4. Roberts is 50-50 in my mind. Will it be 6-3, 5-4, or 5-3-1. Does it even matter? The questions tomorrow will be interesting.

I see either Thomas or Barrett writing the majority opinion. Thomas because hes wanted to for 30 years, Barrett because she would deliver an opinion as devastating as M82A1 and I like the allegory.

But hey, just in case I have a 0 gauge shotgun I can open carry in NYC.

Didn't Roberts and Kennedy voted for Heller and McDonald? Why did they take NYSRPA v NYC? Roberts was the fifth vote there. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that there was no empirical evidence used in intermediate scrutiny, and it really has to do with the arguments.

Does your allegory also indicate that the outcome may not apply to all of the states and/or may be difficult to interpret? .50 BMG is banned in CA and MD has banned the "Barrett light .50 cal. semi-auto".