Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[danb]

Lol

John M. Gatbois
Comment

For the safety of all New Yorkers, I implore the mayor, the city legislature, and the NYPD to leave this rule in place. That’s at a minimum. What we really need is for this rule to be strengthened. Why can people just carry their guns willy-nilly to ranges in the city? That just leads to people being stopped by the police and wasting the police’s time. I saw one guy who didn’t even have a gun, but the police thought he had one so they had to shoot him. It is unbelievable that we allow people to waste the NYPD’s time like that. If nobody was allowed to have guns at all, then only the police would have them and we wouldn’t have to worry about all these criminals legally carrying guns around. Take away their permits, and boom, no more criminals carrying guns. Only the police, who are trained to be expert marksmen. That’s why they give them 12-pound triggers — because they’re so skilled and knowledgeable about firearms. So please, don’t just leave this rule in place. Strengthen it for all New Yorkers and make people just keep their gun safely in a locker at the range all the time. And when you’re done with that, I was at Williams-Sonoma shopping for cookware, and I saw knives just laying out in the open, for sale to anyone who walks in! I mean, I grew up using paring knives and butter knives, we have a long tradition in this country of cutting apples and making PB&J. But an 8” chef’s knife? That’s only designed to kill people as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Nobody needs an 8” blade. So once you’re done implementing common sense gun safety policies, please ban these assault knives. They do not belong on our streets. Don’t let this absurd Supreme Court lawsuit scare you. I saw some people on the internet saying you’re considering this rule change purely in a doomed, bad-faith attempt to moot the case. That’s BS, I believe in you. So I believe that Mayor de Blasio can stand up to the gun and knife lobbies and finally rid New York of this outrageous scourge of individuals being responsible for themselves instead of just calling the police.

 

[jcutonilli]

Four Amicus Briefs have been filed today. There will likely be more tomorrow.

National African American Gun Association, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...onal African American Gun Association Inc.pdf

Pink Pistols, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99443/20190513134714859_38014 pdf Koukoutchos.pdf

The Madison Society Foundation, Inc., http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99476/20190513154608272_Amicus Brief.pdf

ACADEMICS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99485/20190513160948713_18-280 Amici Brief.pdf

 

[Blacksmith101]

Four Amicus Briefs have been filed today. There will likely be more tomorrow.

National African American Gun Association, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...onal African American Gun Association Inc.pdf

Pink Pistols, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99443/20190513134714859_38014 pdf Koukoutchos.pdf

The Madison Society Foundation, Inc., http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99476/20190513154608272_Amicus Brief.pdf

ACADEMICS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99485/20190513160948713_18-280 Amici Brief.pdf

From page 17 of the brief from National African American Gun Association:

Maryland made it unlawful “for any negro or mulatto . . . to keep any . . . gun, except he be a free negro or mulatto . . . .” Chap. 86, § I (1806), in 3 Laws of Maryland 297 (1811). It was unlawful “for any free negro or mulatto to go at large with any gun . . . .” § II,id. at 298. However, this did not “prevent any free negro or mulatto from carrying a gun . . . who shall . .. have a certificate from a justice of the peace, that he is an orderly and peaceable person . . . .” Id.

That was made stricter to require a license not just to bear, but merely to keep a firearm: “No free negro shall be suffered to keep or carry a firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead,without first obtaining a license from the court of the county or corporation in which he resides . . . .” Art.66, § 73, 1 Maryland Code 464 (1860).

Maryland's modern gun laws were originated by Jim Crow his self.

 

[BeoBill]

...Maryland's modern gun laws were originated by Jim Crow his self.

We have been saying that very thing for years. Maybe now someone in authority will listen.

 

[rseymorejr]

From page 17 of the brief from National African American Gun Association:


Maryland's modern gun laws were originated by Jim Crow his self.

It was easy for them, all they had to do was replace "negro or mulatto" with "person" anywhere it appeared and they had the laws already written

 

[danb]

Amicus Pink Pistols files this brief to dispel the misguided assumption that the right to bear arms is an atavistic constitutional curiosity, of interest only to gap-toothed, tobacco-chewing rednecks who have a firearms fetish or to camouflage-wearing survivalists and militia-wannabes who exhibit an adolescent fasci-nation with firepower.

nice!

 

[rockstarr]

what am I missing here aside from a transport law case that likely means nothing to us?

whats all the hoo ha about?

 

[Occam]

what am I missing here aside from a transport law case that likely means nothing to us?

whats all the hoo ha about?

This goes to the heart of "bearing" arms outside your home. Heller didn't go far enough in that regard. This may also turn into a situation where SCOTUS correctly re-sets the bar for when/how such cases are reviewed with stricter scrutiny (deference to the Bill of Rights, 2A in particular in this case) instead of deferring to local legislators and executives and their claims that their own standard for what helps with public safety trumps enumerated rights.

There could be some very far-reaching consequences, here, depending on how the court decides to engage with it. At the very least, it's almost guaranteed to be a solid smack-down against NY's absurd restrictions, and that's still worth it no matter what, because it will give certain NYers (say, Bloomberg?) a day worth of heartburn. That would be rewarding all by itself. But the outcome could quite possibly undo a too-long infestation of local laws that claim (pretty much always without ANY substantiation whatsoever) that the public safety interest in infringing on your right to keep and bear arms is more important than the fact the founders put it right up there with things like your freedom of speech and assembly.

A lot of nuances, here, but there are Justices like Thomas who are, I think, feeling quite pent up on this topic, and don't like seeing specific enumerated rights relegated to second-class status for what amount to craven political reasons at the local political level. This is why NYC is trying (so badly, lamely) to make this thing go away. Because they are getting a lot of pressure from other gun-grabbers to prevent NYC's outrageous but very local policy from gelding gun-grabbers all across the country. Could be very interesting.

 

[krucam]

what am I missing here aside from a transport law case that likely means nothing to us?

whats all the hoo ha about?

It's believed that SCOTUS will dictate what level of Scrutiny is to be used in 2A cases OR that they will drop Scrutiny in its tracks and instead instruct Courts to use 'Text, History, and Traditional' understanding of the Second Amendment.

My crystal ball is out of calibration so this is only conjecture. The Opening Brief hits on this though...

ARGUMENT ............................................................. 17
I. New York City’s Restrictive Premises License And Transport Ban Violate The Second Amendment ....................................................... 17

A. New York City’s Restrictive Premises License and Transport Ban Are Inconsistent With the Text, History, and Tradition of the Second Amendment ......... 18
B. The City’s Regime Is Unconstitutional Under any Mode of Analysis ...................... 29
C. The Second Circuit Failed to Conduct the Meaningful Scrutiny that this Court’s Cases Require ............................................. 38​

 

[wolfwood]

https://www.scribd.com/document/409953260/18-280-Amicus-Young-1

We just filed a amicus brief

 

[delaware_export]

That looks awesome. In particular I like that you compare the 2a rights to others, particularly those the liberal members are in love with.

https://www.scribd.com/document/409953260/18-280-Amicus-Young-1

We just filed a amicus brief

 

[Fedora]

It's believed that SCOTUS will dictate what level of Scrutiny is to be used in 2A cases OR that they will drop Scrutiny in its tracks and instead instruct Courts to use 'Text, History, and Traditional' understanding of the Second Amendment.

For those who might be interested, Darrell Miller has written on Text, History, and Tradition.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/author/darrell-ah-miller

 

[press1280]

what am I missing here aside from a transport law case that likely means nothing to us?

whats all the hoo ha about?

My bet is the scrutiny standard will change and thus all the horrible decisions we've gotten since McDonald would essentially be wiped out.

I'm not sure how much we get out of the NYC law specifically.

 

[jcutonilli]

Four more amicus briefs have been posted. The day is not over.

George K. Young, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99589/20190514093818327_18-280 Amicus Young.pdf

National Rifle Association of America, Inc., http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ational Rifle Association of America Inc..pdf

Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...14113501803_18-280 ac Giffords Law Center.pdf

Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...190514120741629_comm2a_amicus_brief_FINAL.pdf

 

[danb]

I love Gura:

A one paragraph order with citations to Heller and McDonald, by the district court or, if needed, by the Second Circuit, would have sufficed to dispense with New York’s unconstitutional ordinance. Commitment to following Heller’s categorical example would have spared the tremendous waste of litigation and judicial resources poured into this case over the years.

 

[Occam]

The Giffords brief is simply ridiculous. Essentially:

"Dear SCOTUS,

You really don't even need to weigh in on this, since NYC is going to make this pesky, tiny, irrelevant little twist of law go away anyhow, so nothing to see here.

But if you DO feel some need to act, even though that's obviously not necessary, you should act in a way that doesn't change anything because the current situation is just fine and nobody is having their core 2A rights infringed in any important way."

Right, other than ... not being able to bear arms, which the 2A expressly protects. I'd love to pin down the author of that brief and have them read the Young brief, and explain to me - with a straight face - how there's no infringement going on.

 

[danb]

Gifford is arguing for 2-step strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny.

But if the Court must address the methodo-logical question Heller left open, it should adopt the consensus, bifurcated approach embraced by the Courts of Appeals, under which either intermediate or strict scrutiny is applied depending on “on the relative severity of the burden and its proximity to the core” of the Second Amendment right.

Reading Gura's brief (Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...rief_FINAL.pdf), I see why,

The fact that Giffords is for strict scrutiny should tell you all you need to know about that.

 

[Boxcab]

You can feel the panic...

From "Giffords":

CONCLUSION
If the Court reaches the Second Amendment question,
it should adopt the consensus two-step test, pursuant
to which the courts select a tier of scrutiny for
laws that implicate the Second Amendment based on
“the relative severity of the burden and its proximity
to the core” of the Second Amendment right. Ezell, 846
F.3d at 899 (quoting Ezell, 651 F.3d at 708). This
methodology appropriately respects both rights and
public safety, empowering governments to protect
their citizens from the grave threat of gun violence
while respecting constitutional limits that are determined
according to normal principles of constitutional
jurisprudence.

.

 

[CrabcakesAndFootball]

I love Gura:

Reads like something Justice Thomas will love, if not quote.

 

[danb]

Giffords brief is terrible. They repeat an argument rejected by the court per curium in Caetano, and are basically looking to overturn Chicago v McDonald with their states rights argument, nevermind the fact that the court very recently referred to McDonald as good law.

Their brief is so bad I doubt even the minority dissent will pay it much attention.

But I am thankful that they wasted their donors money on such a bad brief. I hope that they wasted all of it and they have no more money.