Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[nedsurf]

I was thinking just the opposite here.

With so much new crap, laws, being flung against the wall every year, by the usual offender state legislatures, trying to get “stuff to stick”,

Years spent challenging. and the associated $$$.

And the lower courts getting it all wrong... as in the NY case, evidenced by the mooting attempt/success. Only after scotus takes the case.

And zero consequences for the under courts for this failure. Where to the under courts get publicly punished for allowing this?

The subtleties are lost in this. They must be explicitly told “you screwed up”.

Maybe the next law won’t be identical but it’ll be infriniging enough, take years in the courts, and as Alito posits, will changed only when it gets to scotus, and through each circus, in an attempt to moot.

Without declaring constitutionality here, it hurts damage claims. ?or does it? What damage can be recovered when a law is mooted vs declared unconstitutional? When filing for damages against .gov?

I guess time will tell, but as noted, delayed/denied. Let’s see what happens with the Cali ammo case. With 16% of eligible legal purchasers being denied, an injunction and an “emergency” stay thereof, what have the lower courts learned.

Just a non lawyer pondering here..hope I am wrong. Several other articles I’ve read leave me with the opinion that the courts will disavow the 2a. As several circus’ are and have been trying for years.

Agreed. I'd really like to see a vehicle to recover damages and attorney's fees to refill the pro-2A war chest.

 

[danb]

Agreed. Calling a loss a "win"and visa versa, is standard in DC.

No. If you get everything you ask for in litigation, but you are still unhappy, you should have asked for more. Just like when the dealer agrees to your offer too quick, you think you should have gone lower.

Bottom line: Plaintiffs got what they asked for, its a win. If what they really wanted was more then they should have asked for it. Some people here (you) wanted more, but were not plaintiffs!

Esteemed litigator wolfwood pointed out early on (go through the thread you will see it, post 364), plaintiffs forgot to ask for compensatory damages and some other things. It ended up hurting them in the end.

I doubt people will make that mistake again.

 

[nedsurf]

No. If you get everything you ask for in litigation, but you are still unhappy, you should have asked for more. Just like when the dealer agrees to your offer too quick, you think you should have gone lower.

Bottom line: Plaintiffs got what they asked for, its a win. If what they really wanted was more then they should have asked for it. Some people here (you) wanted more, but were not plaintiffs!

Esteemed litigator wolfwood pointed out early on (go through the thread you will see it, post 364), plaintiffs forgot to ask for compensatory damages and some other things. It ended up hurting them in the end.

I doubt people will make that mistake again.

Agreed it was a unfortunate omission that I can't figure out why if it was deliberate. Damages and attorney's fees should be boilerplate in a prayer for relief.

 

[JMangle]

While Roberts may not want to go past Heller necessarily, what happens when cert is granted in a case where the government doesn’t fold and the case is clear cut?
It’ll be a binary choice. Status quo won’t be a choice.

I'm not trying to be cynical, but with rare exception, historically the Status Quo has always been to allow government infringement on personal liberty until it becomes grossly morally unacceptable (such as Brown vs. Board of Education), or until there is great political will (Obergefell vs. Hodges).

We'll end up getting shafted if he needs to decide. At best by a weak ruling that ends up being twisted and disregarded, such as what should have been the great victories of 2008 and 2010.

It is significant that Kavanaugh thought it was moot and he is the best judge I've ever been in front of.

For lawyers, is this like seeing a band play some small venue before they make it big? (Seeing a future Supreme Court justice before they made it to SCOTUS?)

If they consolidate all the carry cases, good luck getting MD, NJ, and MA to all modify their laws in time to halt the proceedings.

Does it work out this way? - If so, I say the more consolidation the better for us!

 

[press1280]

I'm not trying to be cynical, but with rare exception, historically the Status Quo has always been to allow government infringement on personal liberty until it becomes grossly morally unacceptable (such as Brown vs. Board of Education), or until there is great political will (Obergefell vs. Hodges).

We'll end up getting shafted if he needs to decide. At best by a weak ruling that ends up being twisted and disregarded, such as what should have been the great victories of 2008 and 2010.



For lawyers, is this like seeing a band play some small venue before they make it big? (Seeing a future Supreme Court justice before they made it to SCOTUS?)



Does it work out this way? - If so, I say the more consolidation the better for us![/QUOTE]

I don't think they can be consolidated because they are not the same law, albeit very close. The MA case would definitely not be the one we would want to take since that deals with localities who could easily change their standard and moot the case.
One of the NJ cases (Ciolek?) has a plaintiff who specifically didn't put down he was in any danger and didn't carry cash/valuables as part of his job. NJ can't moot him out without basically going shall-issue.

 

[RepublicOfFranklin]

I'm not trying to be cynical, but with rare exception, historically the Status Quo has always been to allow government infringement on personal liberty until it becomes grossly morally unacceptable (such as Brown vs. Board of Education), or until there is great political will (Obergefell vs. Hodges).

I agree. Brown v Board was a case that packaged a bunch of “legally grey area” cases with some that were clear cut in order to make a hard and fast ruling covering everything. Basically stopping (or at least trying to stop) states from getting segregation through loopholes. What irks me is that whereas the SC was willing to do that for segregation; they have yet to have any will to do that for the second amendment, arguably one of the clearest amendments in the entire constitution.

The court under its various makeups could’ve stopped the 68 GCA, Hughes Amendment, 90’s AWB but chose not to, only for political reasons.

We’re forced to cling onto two rulings from a decade ago while states continue to sling spaghetti at the wall unfettered by either of them. Honestly until I see otherwise, the only friends the Constitution has on the court are Alito and Thomas; I’m hoping Kav and Gorsuch can prove me wrong, I don’t hold out such hope for Roberts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[press1280]

I agree. Brown v Board was a case that packaged a bunch of “legally grey area” cases with some that were clear cut in order to make a hard and fast ruling covering everything. Basically stopping (or at least trying to stop) states from getting segregation through loopholes. What irks me is that whereas the SC was willing to do that for segregation; they have yet to have any will to do that for the second amendment, arguably one of the clearest amendments in the entire constitution.

The court under its various makeups could’ve stopped the 68 GCA, Hughes Amendment, 90’s AWB but chose not to, only for political reasons.

We’re forced to cling onto two rulings from a decade ago while states continue to sling spaghetti at the wall unfettered by either of them. Honestly until I see otherwise, the only friends the Constitution has on the court are Alito and Thomas; I’m hoping Kav and Gorsuch can prove me wrong, I don’t hold out such hope for Roberts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Gorsuch has proven himself through this dissent as well as the Peruta cert denial dissent.

 

[ironpony]

Sorry, this thread is way over my head, after 8? years is this case over? or what ever the latin/legal term is for no more actions available.



If not complete is there another date to watch for? ... almost comical, rights infringed and we seem to have hired mercenaries to toss pebbles at the castle gate.

 

[RepublicOfFranklin]

I think Gorsuch has proven himself through this dissent as well as the Peruta cert denial dissent.

I can agree with that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[E.Shell]

Sorry, this thread is way over my head, after 8? years is this case over? or what ever the latin/legal term is for no more actions available....

Yes, mooted.

 

[jcutonilli]

Sorry, this thread is way over my head, after 8? years is this case over? or what ever the latin/legal term is for no more actions available.

If not complete is there another date to watch for? ... almost comical, rights infringed and we seem to have hired mercenaries to toss pebbles at the castle gate.

Technically it got remanded to the lower court to determine if there is anything else to litigate. NYSPRA may drop the case or continue. The SCOTUS case is done though.

 

[jcutonilli]

Do we have any examples of where SCOTUS acted as the trier of fact and rejected the statements made as a result of acting in that role?




Do you happen to know off the top of your head what precedent exists for that?

Look at how the opinion in Heller was written. SCOTUS certainly did not rely on the district court to determine all of the facts. They rejected many arguments/facts made by the dissent.

I don't know the specific precedents off the top of my head. I would look at the briefs for mootness in this case as a start.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Do not forget if we are waiting for one more conservative justice what lies ahead.

It will only happen if Trump gets reelected, and 'Rona has clouded those waters.

And if he gets the chance to replace a liberal the confirmation battle will be epic.

Confirmations have greatly changed from the past and each one seems to be an order of magnitude more difficult than the last, at least on the conservative side.

 

[E.Shell]

Do not forget if we are waiting for one more conservative justice what lies ahead...

I NEVER forget that I am waiting...well into my 60s now, and STILL waiting. I guess I'll pass the reigns to the next generation and encourage them to wait also.

Some old indian: "Endeavour to persevere."

 

[press1280]

Do not forget if we are waiting for one more conservative justice what lies ahead.

It will only happen if Trump gets reelected, and 'Rona has clouded those waters.

And if he gets the chance to replace a liberal the confirmation battle will be epic.

Confirmations have greatly changed from the past and each one seems to be an order of magnitude more difficult than the last, at least on the conservative side.

Yea just look at all the fake crap that came out of the woodwork at the last minute against Kavanaugh who was just replacing a moderate.
Just imagine if RBG retires/dies and someone like William Pryor gets nominated. It'll be World War 3.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Yea just look at all the fake crap that came out of the woodwork at the last minute against Kavanaugh who was just replacing a moderate.
Just imagine if RBG retires/dies and someone like William Pryor gets nominated. It'll be World War 3.

You could see riots in the streets.

 

[Fedora]

You could see riots in the streets.

Don't you think that would be a net positive for Trump?

 

[Bullfrog]

Yea just look at all the fake crap that came out of the woodwork at the last minute against Kavanaugh who was just replacing a moderate.
Just imagine if RBG retires/dies and someone like William Pryor gets nominated. It'll be World War 3.

They will use it as a rallying cry, claim it is a great injustice, and when they get control of the Presidency and Senate again they will pack the court.

 

[Fedora]

. . . and when they get control of the Presidency and Senate again they will pack the court.

So, if things go well this November, why don't we do that?

 

[niftyvt]

They will use it as a rallying cry, claim it is a great injustice, and when they get control of the Presidency and Senate again they will pack the court.

They will pack the court anyways. They dont need an excuse because they only care about power over us.