BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies Motion to Declare New York State Rifle & Pistol Case Moot…For Now

Supreme Court gun control new york state rifle & pistol

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

If you’ve been following the Second Amendment case currently before the Supreme Court, there’s some marginally good news today. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v City of New York (see many of our posts on the case here).

The anti-gun left is so afraid of an adverse ruling in the case that the city of New York changed the law that is at the center of the case. The law prevents most pistol license holders in the city from transporting their firearms anywhere outside their homes other than seven shooting ranges within New York City.

Once the law was changed, the city’s attorneys filed a motion with the court to have the case declared moot. But the ploy was so transparent that — the thinking of those who know goes — the Court won’t give the city what it wants. If they allow a respondent like New York City to sidestep a case by changing the offending law, it sets a dangerous precedent that would allow other respondents to do the same. They could then reinstate the law once the Court kills their cases.

Last week, the Supreme Court held their “long conference” meeting at the beginning of their new term. One of the matters under consideration was the city’s mootness claim. This morning the Court announced that they’ve denied the city’s motion for now (bottom of page 10 here [PDF]).

But the question hasn’t been decided yet. They’ve decided to carry the question over. The Court will listen to both sides as to the merits of the city’s mootness claim, as well as those in the underlying case, on December 2 when the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York has the potential for being as groundbreaking a decision for gun rights in this country as Heller or McDonald. For that reason, TTAG will have an attorney friend, LKB, at the Supreme Court on December 2 to hear the arguments and report on them here.

Will the city prevail in its naked attempt to kill the case? Will Roberts go wobbly and side with the four left-leaning judges and vote for mootness? Will the Court hear the case, apply strict scrutiny, and end the Second Amendment’s status as a second-class right?

Don’t touch that dial.

 

comments

  1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    “it sets a dangerous precedent that would allow other respondents to [retire a bad law], then reinstate the law once the Court kills their cases.”

    Exactly. Go after those cockroaches and kill this bad law once and for all. We already have Heller and McDonald, but we need one more to make for a case reference trifecta that can be used to squash bad gun laws across the nation. States have been ignoring Heller, for example, for years, and this needs to end. We need to give FPC, GOA, et al, a solid “set of three” rulings to push back against Sacramento’s madness here in CA.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      The pessimist in me says that if Heller and McDonald are being ignored, then why would an additional SCOTUS ruling not be ignored as well?

      The process is the punishment. Even if people prosecuted under state laws that infringe can eventually get their cases overturned, they still spent a small fortune in lawyer fees to do so. It’s a battle of public money vs. individual finances, and most individuals can’t compete.

      Until the politicians, DAs, and prosecutors who push unconstitutional laws/charges are held personally liable, states like New Yorkistan and California will continue to walk all over their citizens’ 2A rights.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The pessimist in me says that if Heller and McDonald are being ignored, then why would an additional SCOTUS ruling not be ignored as well?”

        Indeed.

        When the social contract (agreement to abide by “the rules” until changed) is broken at the courts, what is not permissible? The SC has no means to discipline lower courts.

        1. avatar Dan from Detroit says:

          “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”

          And?

        3. avatar lawyer stuff says:

          …because heller and mcdonald have intermediate scrutiny applied to them..which gives states and cities leeway to abuse and not abide by the decisions. If this court case sets strict scrutiny the ruling majority will set the bounds (per my understanding of limited law knowledge) by which states and cities can make laws, no gun bans of any sort, no mag bans, no overbearing rules for carrying concealed. Pretty much the only thing left will be the three national firearms acts and everything else will be considered an illegal infringement. The way it should always have been.

          It would be a total game changer and essentially the end to the anti-gun movement as we know it. The only way to change would be an overturn of the supreme court case or a repealing of the second. Neither of which is likely to occur.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I understand all the futile hope about “strict scrutiny”. Point is, SC has no way to enforce “strict scrutiny”, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. The only recourse SC has for disciplining lower courts is overturning lower court rulings. Meanwhile, the lower courts rule as they please.

          I can see strict scrutiny applied to 2As cases, where the lower courts side with the regulations ruling the government employed the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government objective, the government proved that its objective is compelling, or undeniably necessary, and that no similarly effective, but less restrictive, means are available to achieve its goal.

          Under the above, the SC would have to rule that the lower courts were unreasonable. Presuming that such a ruling issues, the lower courts would be required to re-visit the ruling, whereupon the lower courts could determine the SC is incorrect, and the lower court ruling stands. Such a development would then require a subsequent appeal to the SC, and the beat goes on.

          The important issue is that the SC cannot enforce its own rulings if lower courts declare themselves separate and sovereign in their geographical boundaries. The matter is actually more important than just the Second Amendment.

          As a final note, never forget that since Heller/McDonald, the SC ruled in three cases, over four years, regarding whether unions can compel non-union employees to pay dues to the union. Again, an enumerated right was ignored in favor of cases of less distinct rights.

        5. avatar Dwo888 says:

          There was no way to enforce “Brown vs, Board of Education” either. Till the federal troops arrived.

          A state’s registration/licensing system could be “seized” for a case. And all backups. You don’t just need the army to show up with guns. Homeland Security and the FBi can show up with Search warrants.

          Be kind of hard to run your registration/licensing of guns and gun owners when the Feds cart off all the documents and seizes the servers and carts them off. Then when you kick in the backups, they seize that system.

          Cut off all LE funding to the state, or just most. Cut back Federal fugitive task forces to bare minimum in that state. All sorts of nasty things.

          Criminal cases at state level over gun laws invalidated? Toss them out at Federal appellate level. They keep prosecuting anyway? Arrest the local DA or state Attorney for violating civil rights of the defendants. Allow Federal civil lawsuits after convictions of overturned laws. Civil lawsuit judgements assessed against state/local officials, as in seizing their house and assets for judgements, not JUST against local/state governments.

          All depends on how “Hard Ball” the Federal government via the DOJ can be ordered by their boss to be.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It is not police enforcement of court rulings at issue. It is the inability to discipline lower courts. If the lower courts had decided to ignore B v. BOE, and render an array of rulings permitting “separate but equal” to remain, SC could have done noting about it. The SC could declare 2A absolute in every way, and the lower courts could uphold infringing law as they please. The lower courts are subject to congress, not the SC.

        7. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “And?”

          … and that’s from the declaration of independence. Draw your own conclusions.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “… and that’s from the declaration of independence. Draw your own conclusions.”

          Yes, I realize that. Someone drawing the conclusion that a third civil war is a serious possibility does not understand where we really are, and the full implications of an internal shooting war.

        9. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          @lawyer stuff –
          “the only thing left will be the three national firearms acts”

          Help me out- how does NFA survive strict scrutiny, considering it’s literally nothing but infringements? TBH I don’t see how GCA survives either.
          Also what is the third? PLCAA?

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Help me out- how does NFA survive strict scrutiny, considering it’s literally nothing but infringements?”

          “Compelling government interest” (public safety at large), restrictive laws that are the only way to achieve the “compelling interest” (no mass murders on city streets from illegal use and possession of restricted/regulated fire arms, but not a restriction on all firearms).

        11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Eric in Oregon,

          Assuming that the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the courts must apply strict scrutiny to Second Amendment cases:

          I can see the U.S. Supreme Court upholding parts of the National Firearms Act of 1934, parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and parts of the Brady law.

          National Firearms Act of 1934:
          I can see the U.S. Supreme Court striking down all the short-barreled rifle and shotgun laws and probably even the suppressor laws. I can also see the U.S. Supreme Court strike down the $200 tax while upholding the rigorous background check and registration requirement of full-auto firearms.

          Gun Control Act of 1968:
          I can see the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the requirement that people in the business of buying and selling firearms must have a federal firearm license. And I can see the U.S. Supreme Court strike down laws which prohibit an out-of-state visitor from purchasing a handgun from a federal licensed firearm dealer in another state while visiting in that other state.

          Hughe’s Amendment of 1986:
          I can see the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the Hughes Amendment and allow common citizens to purchase full-auto firearms manufactured after 1986 pursuant to the extended background check and registration requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

          Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993:
          I can see the U.S. Supreme Court upholding instant background checks of people purchasing firearms at federal firearm licensees. I can even see them upholding the background check requirement if the background check takes a few days to complete.

          Generally bearing arms outside the home:
          I believe the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that states must allow citizens to bear arms outside the home in most private and public locations. And I think they would allow a fair degree of “prohibited places”. I think they would also force states to allow out-of-state visitors to bear arms subject to the same restrictions as state residents. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court would probably even allow licensing to stand since some government would produce some data (however obscure) claiming to show that training and licensing reduces injuries and deaths to citizens.

          That is what I believe the U.S. Supreme Court would do. The remaining laws would still be infringements of course. However, some government entity would be able to claim (and maybe even provide data from some obscure source) that the remaining infringements reduce injuries and deaths to the public without obliterating our core right to keep and bear arms.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The SC could do all the things you list, at great cost to the liberty of the nation. That cost being the requirement to launch successful appeals at the SC. Which, in turn, means great cost to get through the lower courts; great costs of money and time. All the while, the laws stand and do their damage, much of it irreversible.

          This is the same SC that ruled actual innocence is no bar to valid conviction at trial, and jail time as a consequence. Keep in mind that the SC has been put on notice that given the right numbers, congress will step in to alter the makeup and direction of the SC. During the FDR presidency, the court packing scheme was raised as a means to control the SC that had been thwarting elements of the New Deal. Although cooler heads prevailed, and the scheme was discarded, the SC changed direction. Politics is the coin of the realm, and SC judges are not immune.

        13. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          @uncommon_sense:
          “I can see” …
          So this is your list of things you think would make sense. That’s cool but I was hoping the “lawyer stuff” guy was an actual lawyer who could explain it for a layman.

        14. avatar Scott says:

          As a lawyer for over 20 years, I disagree that the SCOTUS has no means to discipline lower courts. Once they had to ambiguously threaten to arrest the Alabama Supreme Court when they refused to abide by a civil rights ruling in the 1960s. The U.S. Marshals Service act as bailiffs for the federal courts, including SCOTUS. If they ordered the Marshals to arrest lower court judges, whether federal or state, my guess is they would do it. However, the SCOTUS is very reluctant to use this power. To my knowledge they never have.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The U.S. Marshals Service act as bailiffs for the federal courts, including SCOTUS. If they ordered the Marshals to arrest lower court judges, whether federal or state, my guess is they would do it. However, the SCOTUS is very reluctant to use this power. To my knowledge they never have.”

          Was aware of the Marshals Service authority, but with no historical precedent, and ample reason to use Marshals, not a factor. The SC cannot be unaware of lower court defiance of Heller/McDonald. Thus, the SC has no way to discipline defiant lower courts.

        16. avatar Voldamort says:

          Sam: The “and” is real simple. “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”. Too bad that duty has become almost a thing of the past, isn’t it?

        17. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam: The “and” is real simple. “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government” ”

          The Veterans Bonus March didn’t do it. Waco didn’t do it. Ruby Ridge didn’t do it. Bundy I/II didn’t do it. Somehow a bunch of regulatory restrictions on property at least half the voters don’t consider important is suddenly gonna do it?

          This isn’t 1775. This isn’t 1860 (maybe like 1850). The first and second civil wars were fought in a much less complicated and organized nation. While there may be a few, small bands of rebels here and there, the enemy will not be just “government”, or just anti-gun zealots. The rebels will face the great mass of people who just want to be left alone (and a not small number of gun owners included).

          The time for war is long past. Right on national television, the nation saw government forces attack a religious compound because….who knows why? Right on national television, the nation saw Bundy I/II unfold. The nation reacted with a yawn, and went back to watching SouthPark. The ballot box, the TV, the Internet are the battlefields today.

        18. avatar Dwo888 says:

          Don’t believe people can’t fight. Somebody shot a Federal prosecutor, who was big time publicly anti-gun over a decade ago and the Feds ran out of leads.

          There is a book by John Ross, called “Unintended Consequences”. It’s rarely available in print. There are tons of copies in .PDF online though. The author never closes it down for copyright, he says no one but a vanity publisher will produce it anymore, due to Federal threats.

          He actually got a call from his soon to be ex-wife that BATF agents came and questioned her and implied she should file criminal complaints against him. She didn’t bite, there was no kids, the prenup was solid, she wasn’t a vindictive shrew.

          Why want her to file a complaint? So they could raid him. Never happened. Just Google, or Bing, or even DuckDuckGo “Unintended Consequences.pdf” and get a copy. Some of them have pages, mixed up, or pages missing. Download a couple of sources and you’ll figure it.

          In there is a very important lesson. One that Scooter Livy, Martha Stewart, and General Mike Flynn wish they had read and learned it themselves now.

          I know the “surveillance state” and video cameras are more rampant now, but it’s a very important lesson. My favorite part was the jogging trail and the guy with the hand weight.

          Read it, enjoy it, pass it around to select friends. They all can’t live in “Green Zones” like they did in Baghdad Iraq.

        19. Wrong. They disbarred the idiot who brought the motion of mootness. Oh snap

        20. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They disbarred the idiot who brought the motion of mootness.”

          Who disbarred whom? The SC disbarred lower court judges? Removed them? Directly punished defiant jurists?

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        The will not ignore it, but do as they did before: distinguish their case so that they can get as close to the line drawn by SCOTUS without actually crossing it. The San Francisco storage law did exactly that: it did one thing less than what Heller outlawed. It says guns have to be unloaded and locked up UNLESS in your immediate possession–meaning on your person. So the ordinance does not violate the terms of Heller, only its spirit. Other courts have done the same by saying that a specific law “falls outside the core” of the 2A and is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny. Note in this context that the court did NOT define the standard of review, holding that the DC law failed under ANY standard. After that, the “intermediate” scrutin test applied by the anti courts differs hardly, if any, at all from “rational basis,” i.e. if the government can articulate a plausible “public safety”rational (even if there is no evidence to support that basis), the anti courts have upheld the law. One example is the Highland Parks cases where the 7th Circuit held that that a “feeling” of greater safety trumped the rights of citizens to own “assault weapons.”

        The foregoing is why it is so critically important for the Court to step in and establish a standard that the anti courts will have a very difficult time side-stepping, as they have been doing for the last decade.

      3. avatar Kevin Nicholas Stich says:

        The fact that prosecutors and attorneys general get away with harming individuals without recourse is something that SCOTUS should take on. If attorneys wish to exercise power, then they should be personally responsible for any illegal or unconstitutional decisions. Congress is too full of cowards to re-instate the power of the citizen.

        1. avatar ex-exec says:

          I’d like to see that happen here in Massachusetts. Our AG has stepped all over the law and even twisted it, all because the manufacturers reworked the ars.

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          I get the feel of what you say, but as a practical matter that can’t work. For every prosecutor who truly needed to be sued there would be 1000 or more lawsuits from perps with nothing else to do in prison.

    2. avatar Aleric says:

      States will CONTINUE to ignore Heller unless the Federal Government puts its foot down and people lose their jobs. Till then its just a piece of paper.

  2. avatar million says:

    Roberts will go wobbly “to save the institution of the Court”.

    1. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

      If Roberts caves into the left wing outrage mob then our court system isn’t worth spit.

      1. avatar dph says:

        Our court system is already pretty much not worth spit, so I won’t be disappointed no matter how they rule.

  3. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    If RBG would pass away…

    1. avatar Mercutio says:

      Sorry, Cruzo, RBG is actually Keith Richards in drag; she’ll never die.

      1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        Weekend at Ginsbergs here we come.

      2. avatar Reason says:

        I’m thinking all this talk of her getting cancer treatment is cover for formaldehyde transfusions. She is shriveling to a bag of bones but is still kicking.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          I’ve said this many times before, but I think RBG is already dead. She just doesn’t know it. She kicked off back in 2012, but just kept showing up for work anyway.

      3. avatar JoeWay says:

        Wow, I’m got tears rolling down my cheeks thinking about that image! 😂😂🤣

    2. avatar million says:

      If that happens, the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments will be epic. Expect mass protests to shutdown the Court.

      1. avatar WARFAB says:

        Can’t help but wonder if this impeachment theater got rolling because they know RBG’s health took a turn for the worse. I’m sure they’ll make the argument that a president in the process of being impeached can’t nominate a justice.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Absolutely, even though they aren’t in the process of impeaching him, and probably won’t conduct actual impeachment hearings any time soon. If at all.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Well, McConnell said we shouldn’t confirm any justices in the year before the election and let the people decide. Remember Merrick garland, his nomination was held up for almost a year.

          Wouldn’t the same standard hold here for RBG, or do the Republicans get a special exemption?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Wouldn’t the same standard hold here for RBG, or do the Republicans get a special exemption?”

          It isn’t a special exemption. Whichever party controls the Senate writes the rules (just as Reid nuked the 60-vote requirement for lower court justices, in anticipation of also nuking the 60-vote rule for SC appointments). Rules of the Senate are rules of the Senate, not derived from some sentence/clause in the constitution.

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Yes, as the phoney impeachment clause applies. Screw the demtards.

  4. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

    Well if we weren’t going to be passing every bit of panic gun control legislation possible to gum up the courts prior to a decision I am sure it’s on the agenda now. Welcome news and long over due for downstate.

  5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    NY and NYC are going to be taking it in the shorts over their un Constitutional laws,no matter how narrowly tailored a ruling comes from the court,as to gun control/gun violence/safety in general,one can be hopeful.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      There would be a bit to choose from.

    2. avatar Xaun Loc says:

      Both sides are assuming that the original NYC ordinance was so egregious that there was no doubt how the current court would rule. That’s why “we” want the case heard and that is also why “they” want it declared moot and dropped without a ruling on the ordinance itself.

      We started out hoping for a ruling that would subject gun control laws to Strict Scrutiny, but many recognized that was unlikely and that even Intermediate Scrutiny would still be a win (although not The Big Win). As this case has progressed NYC began scrambling to find a way to kill it, and so far those efforts have failed. Throughout that time the pro-RKBA crowd has become convinced that The Big Win is within reach, with many assuming that The Big Win is inevitable if we can just get the court to rule on the case. No one talks about any other possible outcomes.

      There is another possibility. The court could declare the original NYC ordinance unconstitutional but could do so without handing “us” The Big Win that “we” keep talking about.

      Yes, the court could write a ruling around Strict Scrutiny based on the Second Amendment — The Big Win

      Or, the court could write a ruling around Intermediate Scrutiny, still based on the Second Amendment — still a win (but NOT The Big Win)

      But those are not the court’s only choices. The court COULD declare the original NYC ordinance unconstitutional but do so without even mentioning the Second Amendment. There are other potential grounds the court could use to invalidate the original NYC ordinance – for example, the original NYC ordinance interferes with interstate commerce which clearly exceeds the city’s legal authority. Or the court could invent some entirely new theory of law – just as the court has done several times in the past. Yes, such a ruling in this case would be criticized by many saying the court had side-stepped a contentious issue, but it would let the court rule “in our favor” without excessively angering the liberals.

      Is such an outcome possible? Absolutely. Is such an outcome likely? Maybe, maybe not.

      Much of the discussion so far has been rooted in the idea that the court would never have granted certiorari in a “Second Amendment Case” if they weren’t willing to rule on that basis. Certainly the justices knew this was being viewed as a “Second Amendment Case” when they agreed to hear the case – and again when they refused the city’s motion to declare it moot. So, yes, we have that going for us. But we also have the court facing an unprecedented degree of blatant political pressure. The real question today is how the court will react to that pressure. Anyone who believes the court is “non-political” or “above being influenced by politics” is a complete fool. Of course each and every justice is feeling the pressure of the Democrat threats — the question is how will they react.

      Most of “us” would like to think that the justices would be angered by the threats and that this anger would work in our favor. I think that is probably true for the conservative wing of the court. Meanwhile the liberal justices may not see anything wrong with Nancy et al merely “expressing their opinions.” The problem is that this case, and especially the wording of the opinion, will probably rest on that all important one swing vote from Chief Justice Roberts.

      Suppose Roberts wants to rule on the side of “Truth, Justice, And The American Way” by striking down the original NYC ordinance, but also wants to preserve the “integrity and independence” of The Court…. One way to placate both sides would be to strike down the original NYC ordinance using an opinion crafted on a narrow basis that doesn’t upset anyone’s apple cart.

      The court has written both broad and narrow opinions at various times throughout its history, and some of those opinions have been travesties. When the court issues an opinion on a controversial topic they have resorted to thinking outside the box and sometimes way outside the box to find a basis in some penumbra.

      1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        They could also rule the case moot BUT rule on the merits also right ?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          No. Once declared moot, there is no “case or controversy,” and thus the court has no jurisdiction (under its authority found in the constitution) to consider any other issue. do not know what that means for the underlying judgment..

      2. avatar Thomas says:

        Xaun Loc writes “…it would let the court rule “in our favor” without excessively angering the liberals.”

        AND

        “…One way to placate both sides would be to strike down the original NYC ordinance using an opinion crafted on a narrow basis that doesn’t upset anyone’s apple cart.”

        Your theory above is myopic in approach, in that it relies heavily, that only the ‘liberals’* would be angered by such a ruling, which misses a greater point. The ‘apple cart’ has already been upset, and this ruling is merely a chance to remedy the fact that it was violently thrown over and the apples were intentionally jumped and trampled on by the ‘liberals’*

        While it is true that the ‘liberals’* have made extreme and unprecedented threats toward the court, the bigger picture is the ‘liberals’* are slowly pushing free minded people’s back against the wall. You ignored this in your writings above, to which one could argue, of having ramifications far out-weighting mere threats.

        While the ‘liberals’* elites are quick to anger, the other side is tempered basically because “mankind (is) more disposed to suffer”. However, suffrage has limits, and as such, there is a pressure building that is both real and undeniable. As social norms, contracts, and the Laws of Nature, are increasingly violated and cast aside, it will, once again, become “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” by releasing this ever growingly, artificially, and intentionally applied pressure.

        Placation on either side, becomes, as the hands tick, ever more distant.
        .
        .
        .
        * Using the term ‘Liberals’, as the root word is Liberty, is grossly incorrect. Leftist (or even progressive/regressive) is vastly more accurate. The term ‘liberal’ as a description, should immediately be stricken as a defining term.

  6. avatar RA-15 says:

    If if if only New York was not run by a bunch of demtards, if we could have an upstate & a NY state separate from each other socialist NYC , conservative upstate. Or how about making the upper 1/2 of NY a second Amendment sanctuary. Oh well , one can have a dream , for now anyway.

    1. avatar HP says:

      Split NYC off, and upstate becomes a red state, if not a purple that’s damn close to red. It would be a dream come true for many of us.

      1. avatar napresto says:

        True enough, and I’d be in favor of it despite the many challenges of doing it… and there ARE a lot of challenges. Upstate NY benefits directly and indirectly from the wealth and national/international connectedness of downstate, not to mention the many, many social welfare programs in place here in NY. I am not saying either of those things are worth living under the thumb of Prince Andrew and his NYC cronies, but splitting the state would cause gigantic disruptions that would directly impact a lot of people in the short, medium, and possibly long term. Things can get hard to justify pretty quickly when the abstractions end and the direct, difficult challenges begin.

        But like I said, I’d still be for it. I’m well situated to weather such a storm and benefit from the result.

        1. avatar WARFAB says:

          If upstate split from downstate, there would be some turmoil in the short term, but I suspect people might be surprised how quickly upstate could change it’s course. Opening up the southern tier to fracking is one thing that comes to mind.

          Upstate New York isn’t exactly booming right now as it is, so it’s hard to imagine being tied to NYC is that much of a net positive.

        2. avatar HP says:

          New York State loses roughly 50,000 people a year, and upstate has historically been hit the hardest. The downstate fracking ban was a major blow to an already deeply impoverished Southern Tier. I agree with you. The way I’d phrase it – “you can’t fall off the floor”. Split the state. I think the key will be to convince those downstaters that we aren’t worth the trouble and should be cast off.

        3. avatar John says:

          The same argument is being made in California to split the state in two. And for the very same reasons.

      2. avatar Xythlord says:

        Fat chance of that happening….I saw a proposal from the liberal crowd a few months back about a proposal to split California off. They had is sliced into three neat little pieces, with San Diego, Los Angeles and San Fran placed one in each so that the largest population centers continue to dominate the local politics and they don’t loose control of it.

  7. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York has the potential for being as groundbreaking a decision for gun rights in this country…”

    “Potential” has strata of likelihood. Generally speaking, the term produces great optimism that “potential” means “great potential”. Yet, there have been many beers and martinis since this case first commenced, and still I find no clear indication that the SC will rule any more expansively than in the past.

    The basic issue is whether a state can prohibit the movement of legal property out of the state/city, or re-entry of that legal (in NY) property at a later date. Not seeing any “larger issue” placed before the court. The case can easily be settled without reaching a constitutional question regarding 2A: freedom of travel, and/or commerce clause.

    For the case to be “sweeping”, “ground-breaking”, or “historic”, the restriction on protections of 2A must be so egregious as to imperil RTKBA in such a way as to eliminate individual rights to the result that RTKBA is impossible to exercise.

    As noted before, the SC tends to rule bottom-up, not top-down. There is nothing intriguing about this case that would cause the SC to reverse its natural, historic, traditional approach to cases before it.

    1. avatar TommyGNR says:

      The Anti Gunners aren’t flipping out over this case because they have nothing to fear.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The Anti Gunners aren’t flipping out over this case because they have nothing to fear.”

        Not arguing that a narrow, single-state application would be welcomed by the anti-gunners. Ruling that the state cannot interfere with movement of a legal product would be removal of a gun control law. The loss of the law at hand would mean that a similar such law could not be implemented in other states without danger of being overturned. However, such a ruling would leave intact all the other anti-gun laws.

        Shutting down a single avenue for gun control does nothing to disturb the overall wave of gun control in this country. If the court could not find in Heller/McDonald the impetus to look first at the words of the Second Amendment, then determine that all gun control laws “infringe”, why should we generate an expectation that the NY case about legal transport would provide the excuse?

        1. avatar Dwo888 says:

          You never know what the court will rule. If Trump wins in 2020, and retains a Republican Senate, he WILL appoint other justices. He may just appoint another conservative or two to cover retiring conservative justices.

          He seems likely to get RBG because I don’t see surviving Pancreatic cancer a third time. You forget the court can be gradual. Everyone remembers the “Miranda” (Miranda Rights) case in 1966. But that was a culmination of cases starting in 1958. in 1963 the “Brady” case made the disclosure of “Brady material” mandatory. It was a slow expansion of defendant’s rights.

          I have heard the name and particulars of the 1958 case, but old age causes it to escape my mind now.

          Just because the court doesn’t create a huge new “right” like “Roe vs. Wade” and blow up state laws right and left, doesn’t mean they can’t EXPAND on something slowly. Especially since the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, like the 5th was with “Brady” and “Miranda”.

          After the 2nd, maybe the court will go back and look at some of the 4th Amendment rulings they made too.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “in 1963 the “Brady” case made the disclosure of “Brady material” mandatory.”

          Neither Miranda nor Brady overturned laws wholesale. Neither decision mandated re-litigating non-compliant cases. The effect was to establish new law where a vacuum existed (well 5A existed, but there were not a plethora of local laws forbidding legal aid to a suspect, nor a chorus of local laws preventing release of exculpatory evidence to the defense attorneys). 2A cases are almost entirely moves to overturn existing laws.

          Both Miranda and Brady applied to the extant individual cases, and future cases regarding the same issues…. each alleged violation required to be adjudicated. We should not expect retro-activity as a result of the NY case, but, at best, a new support from which to challenge thousands of laws existing – one at a time. Essentially status quo, attacking each infringement individually.

        3. avatar Dwo888 says:

          I tried to point they’re not going to issue “Roe vs. Wade” historic overturn of anything again. It never should happened back then. States are slowly (Ever so slowly) now putting in their own standards and restrictions. That should of happened in 1974, but the Court blew up the entire issue. The debris of the explosion is still falling down.

          The “Heller” case wasn’t an explosion. It basically said you have a right to own a gun, at home for self defense. The government (Local and state) can’t create a license on it for “Public Safety”, then turn around and say; “Oh yeah, we not issuing any more licenses, ever” and up yours.

          Next “McDonald” hit another local government for “License but we aren’t issuing licenses ever again” scheme, but included some language that may (Subject to interpretation) incorporate the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment.

          There’s a lot of wiggle room on local or states to “regulate” guns. How far, nobody knows, not many clues. On the bad part for gun controllers, they just can’t stop restricting. They want more, more, more.

          Eventually the Supreme Court’s likely to take up another case. Then another one. The NY state passing the law restricting NYC from bringing BACK those rules shows they want this sleeping bear to hibernate.

          They won’t stop poking it though. Now it’s no guns till 21 years old. Then it’s “One gun a month”. Outlaw and confiscate (Oh we’ll pay you!) what WE label “Assault Weapons”. Which now is the California “One Feature Test”, it accepts a detachable magazine. Then this restriction, oh yeah, this one too…………

          The Supreme Court can do this one case at at a time. They seem to lose when the Court looks at cases now. They are addicted to more restrictions. Any time a case hits the court they lose ground.

          Donald J Trump is President and has the Senate in his favor in 2021 (After January 20 because he won the election) they aren’t likely to be any pro gun control justices purposely (Not to say one won’t turn on their appointer’s policy views) appointed so they may be behind the eight ball 6-3 then. Or worse 7 – 2.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Incremental “wins” at the SC will take generations. All the while, restrictions remain and grow, each needing to be killed off somewhere in the future. Your great grandchildren may be fighting in the courts.

        5. avatar LKB says:

          I demur.

          Post-MacDonald, there has been a circuit split on the proper level of scrutiny on how to deal with 2A cases, with some claiming intermediate or even rational basis is appropriate. As Justice Thomas has pointed out, these cases all but ignore Heller’s finding that the 2A is indeed a fundamental right.

          In order to reverse the Second Circuit, the Court is likely going to resolve that split and set down what yardstick is required. Smart money is on either strict scrutiny or the potentially-even stricter Kavanaugh “language, history, and tradition” test he articulated in Heller II. If the Court adopted either of those, it’s game on for challenging just about everything out there . . . .

          Now, will Roberts wilt, and support getting rid of the case on narrow grounds (e.g., mootness)? That’s the $64k question. I would hope that recent events have taught him that if you let bullies push around, they will just keep doing it.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Two important elements to your comment: “…challenging just about everything out there . . . .”; “language, history, and tradition”.

          I agree that nothing can come of the NY case that is a blanket repeal/overturn of all gun laws that weren’t previously subjected to “strict scrutiny”. And SC will not issue a blanket ruling that no laws may restrict the Second Amendment. The one-at-a-time challenge will serve the anti-gunners well; all the infringements are effective until overturned individually (probably need two or more life times to achieve)

          The second element is the crushing weight of “language, tradition, history.” The NFA is tradition and history. Indeed, the entire idea of tradition/history blatantly states that if a constitutionally protected right has been successfully compromised by government along the arc of tradition and history, such rights are legitimately infringed, and infringeable. Continuous infringement adds to “tradition and history”, making the infringements more concrete and reinforced. Tradition and history are fact, not justification.

          To have a correct court ruling, the language of the constitution should be the starting point for all decisions, not the possible peak barring some intervening and convenient means of rendering a judgement without reaching constitutional issues.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “If the court could not find in Heller/McDonald the impetus to look first at the words of the Second Amendment, then determine that all gun control laws “infringe”, why should we generate an expectation that the NY case about legal transport would provide the excuse?”

          Exactly.

          IMHO, it isn’t that the courts can’t understand the plain language of the 2A; it’s that the courts don’t want to. There isn’t much wiggle room in the plain language and meaning. The courts are another part of government. Ultimately, it won’t be the courts that restore the individual exercise of the RKBA.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The courts are another part of government.”

          Something the courts would rather you not disclose to others.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        They clearly have nothing to gain here, they can only lose, so they’d fight it on that basis regardless.

    2. avatar reading makes thing easy to understand says:

      I advise you to go read the .pdfs on the supreme court website. NYSRPC original documentation and the majority of the friend of the court briefs on their behalf spend about 2 paragraphs on the actual case and the rest of multiple pages of documentation explaining why the court should accept this case to be used as a vehicle to get strict scrutiny applied to the 2nd amendment.

      Even though you did not read the .pdfs, as is obvious from your post, I assure you the justices read them thoroughly. They STILL accepted the case with the documentation written in such a way. There is nothing hidden or tongue and cheek, rather the aim of the Pro 2a side is readily apparent and easily understood in the documentation.

      The justices know what they have accepted and what the aim of this case is actually for. It has nothing to do with the NYC law.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        A truckload of amica briefs trying to stretch a narrow case to somehow declare the Second Amendment inviolable, or even arguing the position that strict scrutiny must be applied to any, no matter insignificant, limitation on RTKBA has no magic attached to it. The SC can “review and consider” a library of unsolicited opinions, and still decide that a law is not unconstitutional.

        The SC is never going to declare that every gun control law case must be re-litigated (or even reviewed), and suffer “strict scrutiny” as the standard of determining unconstitutional infringement. Nor is SC going to rule that every gun control law is immediately repealed/overturned. The most that can be expected is that “strict scrutiny” be applied to every case going forward. That requires each and every gun control law to be challenged, all the way to the SC. (this doesn’t even begin to address the recompense for everyone convicted of a gun control crime in the past)

        The constitution already presented/declared a universal test for denying the right of the people to be armed. That standard was discarded. What makes an SC ruling more forceful than a direct statement in the BOR?

        The lower courts can declare that public safety is a legitimate government interest in all its facets. The lower courts can then declare that the only way to meet the goal is to restrict firearm ownership to small arms when kept in the home, or in direct response to calls for militia to assemble and drill, where individuals may transport weapons to the location of the mustering for purposes of training and preparing the militia.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Spot on, Sam I Am.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Spot on, Sam I Am.”

          Thank you for the encouragement/endorsement, but anything I get right is assuredly a stopped clock moment.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      The problem with your argument is that this is not a commerce clause case and the movement of property, and the freedom of travel portion, perhaps the weakest part of the case standing alone, necessarily must consider the “to bear” arms portion of the 2A. In other words, it is not the right to travel per se, but to travel with arms, as protected by the 2A that is at the core of the case. To make matters worse for NYC< the ordinance–and I think even the new one–require a police "hall pass" before one may transport, reducing the right to a privilege exerciseable solely at the discretion of a public official. Requiring a hall pass "in the interest of public safety" and to allow NYPD to "keep tabs" on its residents as they transport their firearms outside the city's jurisdiction is fundamentally objectionable.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The problem with your argument is that this is not a commerce clause case…”

        Look deeper. ATI, Kahr and Remington manufactured guns in NY. Those companies required the ability to export their products beyond NY. I would make the case that there is no difference between free movement of manufactured firearms, and movement by private citizens. The commerce clause (and whatever regulations regarding shipping firearms to distributors apply to manufacturers) prohibits state legislation from interfering with legal commerce between states. The “right” to move commercial goods across state lines is a derived “right”. 2A is an enumerated right. Thus, NY unlawfully interferes with an enumerated right, while using the commerce clause to prosper state interests (revenues from taxes and fees), and facilitate business interests of internal manufacturing companies. Since individual rights are the equal of commerce rights, NY is also interfering directly with the legal movement of armed citizens. The constitution provides no categorization of free movement, commerce vs. individual. Certainly any law restricting the mode of transportation between states (only motorcycles may transport individuals across state lines) would be struck down. Barring armed individuals from legally transporting firearms, while leaving all other legal possessions untouched violates an enumerated individual right.

        As to a “hall pass”, if the state legally requires regulation of transport of firearms being distributed by manufacturers, some sort of regulation on the movement of individuals with firearms may be permissible. That is, there is a compelling government interest in public safety that would be at peril if the state did not ensure individuals transporting firearms had satisfied regulators that the purpose for transportation is legal (as in a certified statement as to purpose, that can be later used as evidence an individual engaged in arms trafficking, and lied about it). Since SC has not ruled that concealed carry permits infringe on the possession and movement of armed individuals, it should not be a stretch to assert that a license to leave and return to the state with the same firearm is a reasonable measure to ensure public safety.

        Of course, I am writing from a position that starts with the language of the constitution, and reasons down. This may be the fatal element of all my thinking.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          They could rule that carry outside the home is protected, and leave the mode of carry up to the individual states.

          That’s a nice shit sandwich to drop in their laps. It covers 50-state carry…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They could rule that carry outside the home is protected,…”

          Possibly, but more likely to stick to a narrow rule about transport. Was thinking last night that the court could rule that transporting firearms falls under dangerous cargo, which states can regulate.

    4. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” The case can easily be settled without reaching a constitutional question regarding 2A ”

      This is exactly why I could never figure out why it was this particular case selected to make some kind of ruling on the 2A. OK, it COULD go our way, but it doesn’t have to, and even if it does go our way, it could very easily not go far enough. So, right from the get-go I thought this was a very odd choice to make a stand on. There have got to be a ton of cases already in the system and qued up to go that would have forced a narrow interpretation, and maybe those will get to the SC in due time. In the meantime, unless this case is part of some obscure, grand strategy, it’s a strange one to jump on.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “In the meantime, unless this case is part of some obscure, grand strategy, it’s a strange one to jump on.”

        Given the long-standing reluctance of the SC to deal with the constitution as written, I also wonder “What’s up with that?”. Notwithstanding all the “analysis” on this case I provided, my suspicion is the SC wants to throw a bone by ruling on a very minor case, with little implication to the wider subject of “Shall Not Be Infringed”.

        The court is not ignorant of politics, or their own future. This may be a way of finding a case that side-tracks the court packing threat, while also doing nothing much to uphold the constitution (the pro-gun forces in this country pose no threat to the SC as an institution). Admittedly, the congressional threat letter to the SC happened after the appeal to the high court was lodged, so timidity by the court cannot be directly traced to the threat letter. But the turmoil over 2A was bubbling too much to ignore. Thus a small case to prove the court is not afraid of 2A cases, while also mitigating pressure to expand the court.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “The court is not ignorant of politics, or their own future.”

          That’s what concerns me the most. Roberts deciding to ‘protect’ his legacy considering the threat those three congressmen made with that ‘letter’ they wrote.

          I don’t understand how what they wrote cannot be seen for what it is – A naked threat that a Federal Justice rule on a case like they want, “or else”. Isn’t that act, on it’s own, a fucking felony?

  8. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I hope the entire antigun movement just had a movement in their collective panties.
    This takes us a large step closer to cleaning up the entire mess made by the lower courts not following Scalias writtings.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “I hope the entire antigun movement just had a movement in their collective panties.”

      Doubtful. They are convinced they have done with their ‘reminder’ letter what Obama did in 2012 when the ACA case was heard by SCOTUS.

      Obama instructed them not to dismantle his legislative legacy, and Roberts did as he was told with that convoluted ruling it was a ‘tax’, and OK.

      Don’t get all happy after oral arguments on this one, nearly everyone thought Roberts was gonna rule against the ACA based on the questions he was asking, and look what we got.

      Realistically, I’m expecting the same on this one. A little scrap thrown, and that’s it…

  9. avatar Alan1018 says:

    The Firearms Owner Protection Act invalidated that NY law years ago.

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      Yet locales like NYC enforced the law that prompted New York State Rifle & Pistol to sue them over. The antis are the types who shove new laws down our throats while on the same breath say it’s impossible to enforce laws on the books already.

    2. avatar LKB says:

      Nope. FOPA applies only to *interstate* transportation, from a place in one state where possession and transport is legal under state/local law, to a place in another state where it is also legal under that state’s law. E.g., if you are legal to possess / transport your gun at your home in Indiana, and you want to take you gat on a road trip to your lake house in Wisconsin (where, let’s further assume, it’s also legal for you to possess and transport it), if you have the gun unloaded and in the trunk the Chi-town cops are not supposed to arrest you for a putative violation of state/local firearms law merely because you were passing through their jurisdiction with a gun in the trunk. Nor should California cops be able to arrest you for merely crossing their state with your “high capacity assault weapons” in your trunk as you drive from your home in Reno to a 3-gun competition in Medford, Oregon.

      NYC’s argument is that once you step out of your house in NYC with your gun, it’s *not* legal under state law unless you are in route to one of the seven in-city ranges (or, of course, if you happen to have one of the all-but-unobtanium carry permits), and so the first prong of FOPA analysis isn’t satisfied.

      Of course, NYC (and NJ, and many other states/localities) routinely ignores FOPA anyway. I do so hope that Gorsuch, Alito, or Kavanaugh grills NYC’s attorney on that at argument.

    3. avatar Xaun Loc says:

      @ALAN1018 — obviously you have never visited New York, New Jersey, or Illinois. None of which recognize FOPA.

  10. avatar Ginder12 says:

    if the court rules in our favor Thomas should write the opinion. I predict his opinion will be in your face, kiss my ass scorched earth.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      I’d like to see that too . . . but Thomas would be constrained by the need to keep Roberts on board. Note how Scalia (who was pretty strong on 2A) had to water down his opinion Heller. Why did he do so? Because if he didn’t, Kennedy would not have joined the opinion, and thus they would not have “gotten to five.”

      My prediction is that Roberts will take the opinion himself. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get a front-row seat in December (in one of the “Members of the Supreme Court Bar” seats in the Courtroom), and will be able to read their faces and see how they hold their eyes, and report back to TTAG right after the argument (zero electronics are allowed in the Courtroom, so no live-blogging it).

      1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        Roberts could use Thomas ( or even Gorsuch or Kavanaugh ) as the stick and him writing the opinion as a carrot to get a 6 or more justice ruling.

  11. avatar Jack says:

    What the heck is the left baiting with laws on both coasts. The battle lines are being drawn and one wonders if police will actually enforce anti-Constitutional laws.

    1. avatar Xaun Loc says:

      The police have and will continue to enforce unconstitutional laws – even blatant ones.

      Occasionally you will hear an elected sheriff in some rural county saying he won’t enforce some law passed by the legislature that is dominated by the state’s one or two large urban areas; but that’s mostly political grandstanding because they know it will play well with the people who elect them.

      Urban police officers tend to be very much like the rest of the city dwellers they come from. They tend to be completely ignorant about firearms and either afraid of firearms or convinced that they are the only people who should have firearms.

  12. avatar MarkPA says:

    I take it that SCOTUS will hear oral arguments on the mootness issue at the same time that they hear arguments on the merits. If so, then SCOTUS is bending over backwards to give NYC it’s due-process on the mootness issue. That’s fine. If they were going to give NYC what it wanted they would have done this today; they didn’t; they won’t. They will simply take the wind out of their sails that they weren’t heard on the mootness issue.

    I agree that this NYSR&PC case is as important as Heller. However, I think it will be just the 4’th nail in the gun-control coffin, not the last.

    Remember, Roberts takes Kennedy’s place as the swing vote. So, Roberts gets to dictate just exactly how far he will let the holding and dicta in the opinion go.

    Anyone who imagines Roberts will allow Constitutional Carry to come out of NYSR&PC is delusional.

    I do NOT think that Roberts will go so far as to declare strict scrutiny. What he MIGHT do is allow dicta to the effect that:
    1) in other fundamental rights, strict scrutiny has been declared the proper standard;
    2) nevertheless, lower courts have applied a “watered-down” version of intermediate-scrutiny in 2A cases;
    3) there seems to be no reasoning in lower court cases to justify watered-down intermediate-scrutiny;
    4) in any case, (as was the case in Heller) NYC’s law doesn’t pass even rational-basis scrutiny.

    Suppose I’m right here (a long shot). Roberts would then be inviting the lower courts to vigorously apply intermediate scrutiny to future cases. Perhaps they might do so (I doubt it). If the lower courts were vigorous about intermediate-scrutiny then SCOTUS MIGHT let them skate for a while on that standard of scrutiny. Conversely, if any Circuit were to continue to apply watered-down intermediate scrutiny in a future case then they would bring down the wrath of SCOTUS with a holding that strict-scrutiny shall be applied in 2A cases.

    Such an outcome would be a pretty good temporary compromise. It would allow the various Circuit courts to develop a 2A jurisprudence over just how much gun-control might be tolerated.

    The 4 liberals want anything and everything that is gun-control to be ruled Constitutional. Roberts won’t give them so much. Nor will Roberts give gun-rights everything in one fell swoop. If this were Roberts’ strategy he would kick the ball back to the Circuits with a big stick.

    I can also imagine that NYSR&PC will give SCOTUS the opportunity to broach the issue of whether the term “bear arms” in the 2A is to be given any teeth.

    Here, SCOTUS has no choice; and, it has a perfect opportunity to signal to the lower courts (and states) that they have to stop screwing with the “bear arms” right.

    The NYSR&PC case allows SCOTUS to say unequivocally that NYC’s ordinance is unConstitutional because it forbids what we refer to as transporting arms in a manner Congress has sanctioned in traveling across state lines. To “bear arms” certainly must include the practice of “transporting arms”. Therefore, NYC’s ordinance fails.

    SCOTUS won’t have to say anything more about the scope of the “right to . . . bear arms” in NYSR&PC. They simply hold that these words appear in the 2A and that they must mean something.

    That holding will lay the foundation for SCOTUS to take another case that involves May-Issue. It is in such a subsequent case where I expect SCOTUS to declare May-Issue to be un-Constitutional.

    Effectively, such a ruling would invite the states to adopt Shall-Issue statues which might be as onerous as they think they can get away with. And, then will follow a series of cases where the Circuit courts will decide how onerous the impediments will be allowed to be.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The most expansive the SC is likely to be is declare that 2A includes the right to legally transport intra and inter state. A sort of watered-down individual right to have firearms outside the home for the legal purpose of transporting to/from other places where possession of firearms is permitted. Not expecting a blanket declaration that people have a 2A right to have a gun with them wherever they go.

    2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      May issue will likely be declared unconstitutional when a case is brought that credibly alleges bias against racial minorities and after a high trend level of scrutiny is ruled.

      Strict scrutiny will also invalidate many gun bans.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        There are, I believe, at least two carry cases being held by the court pending its decision in this case, both of which arise in “may issue” jurisdictions. If the court agrees on intermediate scrutiny (which flies in the face of “and bear arms” as a fundamental right), then it had better devise a powerful bright line rule, or the case will not move the needle.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Strict scrutiny will also invalidate many gun bans.”

        “Many gun bans” are not before the court. Each will require SC review and ruling (which is just fine with gun grabbers). A nation-wide repeal/overturn of all existing gun control laws is unlikely in the extreme…especially emanating from a narrow case such as the NY bill.

    3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Effectively, such a ruling would invite the states to adopt Shall-Issue statues which might be as onerous as they think they can get away with.”

      Look at what NY city and city of Chicago did after Heller – McDonald. Rules so convoluted it made gun ownership such a hassle many didn’t even bother.

      It’s the laws intended to harass people from even owning guns that’s the problem. I *really* hope Thomas has some ideas on how to deal with that. Otherwise, they will just harass us as much as they can get away with, and that’s a *lot*…

      1. avatar Dwo888 says:

        If the court really takes it up. They can still say it’s “Moot” and drop the case. I know Thomas is hot for a gun case. I believe there might be one other justice. They might make a ruling so narrow and legally convoluted it is worthless.

        There isn’t going to be a Gun Control “Roe vs Wade”, where all 50 states laws are blown up if they don’t allow something. The court will NEVER do that again for an unenumerated right, and possibly an enumerated right on purpose.

        States are now putting in regulations on abortions. The one about doctors’ having hospital admitting might stand. I can tell you right now all these “Heartbeat” abortion laws are DOA. No way is the Supreme Court not striking them down. You start getting into after six months pregnant, who knows what they’ll say.

        Just like the court isn’t going to strike down “Roe vs. Wade” totally, it isn’t going to strike down gun control in one single ruling. It will be gradual thing, if at all. I assume they’ll dodge the case, they are very good at that with guns. It is fun to watch NY state and NYC squirm in fear though, if nothing else.

        I am not getting my hopes high. If it’s more than just declared “Moot”, and they issue any kind of ruling mildly favorable, I’ll consider it progress and hope with more new justices, it might grow further before I die.

  13. avatar Dean Speir says:

    Suggest that those making comments here skip the juvenile nicknames (demtards, etc.) and focus on what’s really at stake. We who possess arms and reside in New York know and understand what’s at play, and try to deal with it or, like my friend Tim, sell his home and move to Virginia.

    Instead of wishing for the passing of Ms. Ginsburg (which would be seized on by any media type looking to report on the impact of this case to portray pro-2nd people as boorish dullards, focus on the actual issues at hand.This is serious stuff, folks, and requires thoughtful, rather than thoughtless, responses.

    The resolution of this case, whichever way it goes, will not make or undermine the case of RKBA for all time. It is just another step in an on-going battle!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “any media type looking to report on the impact of this case to portray pro-2nd people as boorish dullards”

      It doesn’t matter what we do or how we do it. The left and all its media mouthpieces will lie, cheat and steal to make us look bad.

      I’d rather be thought of as a lion than a lamb, and I don’t mind rough language to make a point. You can make nice all you want — it won’t make a difference. The left will always want to take away everything you care about.

  14. avatar Ugly95 says:

    Rogers, Cheeseman (pending10/18), Gould, Ciolek, are all on hold at SCOTUS awaiting the decision of NYSRPA. This is not a transport case. The only thing each of these cases have in common is Strict Scrutiny. The only question now is how bad will SCOTUS spank the states and apply Strict Scrutiny. Heller acknowledges the right to the person, McDonald acknowledges the right to the states, NYSRPA will apply Strict Scrutiny and solidify the 2a as a core right and will change history.

  15. avatar Alan says:

    In plain, reasonably polite English, the city’s claim here, the sad song that it keeps singing should be recognized for what it is, pure rubbish and dismissed, with the case having it’s long overdue and much deserved hearing. Push coming to shove, the city’s claim, and their case are pure hogwash, which it has always been. Nothing new here. The city’s claims have been, are and remain totally lacking in merit.

  16. avatar ORCON says:

    They are passing on a clear constitutional case in favor of hearing a case of a cross-dresser vs employer. You cant make this stuff up. Smh…

  17. avatar change is a coming says:

    Already went to the local gun store over my lunch break and celebrated with the boys. Today was a good day!

    12-2-19 cannot come soon enough!!!!

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    A law requiring a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital is an infringement on abortion (a right that I cannot find in the Constitution despite reading it more than once), but restrictive laws against the right to keep and bear arms are not infringements (even though I can find the RKBA in the Constitution).

    What kind of lunatic world do we live in?

    I strongly favor abortion. Yes, I do. And I also strongly favor RKBA. But after 35 years of practicing law, I know damn well that only one is protected by the Constitution and the other “right” was made up by a bunch of arrogant judges who were swollen with their own sense of power.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “I strongly favor abortion. Yes, I do.”

      I’m all for spending tax dollars for free abortions to anyone who votes Democrat…

  19. avatar Albert says:

    The very best findings would be Throw out all laws except the ones that state if you are a felon you have no guns Rights.. That the Constitution is the Gun Law of the Land. I know I am dreaming, but maybe some were it will happen.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Throw out all laws except the ones that state if you are a felon you have no guns Rights..” is completely at odds with, “That the Constitution is the Gun Law of the Land.”

      You apparently support gun control and not constitutional restrictions on government. The only real difference between what you wrote and the most rabid gun grabbers is a matter of how far y’all want to infringe. Read the 2A quoted below and find where restrictions on felons exist within it. Spoiler… it doesn’t. Even gun restrictions on felons are unconstitutional according to the plain language of the Second Amendment.

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

  20. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Nothingburger of a case.

  21. avatar DanC says:

    It’s all a game, the Court plays it as well as the politicians. Keep the ball moving so the people can’t figure out where it’s going…..

  22. avatar Geoff says:

    If the SCOTUS drops it as moot, the the City will reinstate the Law with even more restrictions and you have to start over from scratch. Dims are very good at delay tactics.

    1. avatar Dwo888 says:

      That is why the state passed a law that they can’t do that anymore. So officially it is “moot” point. Truth is NYC will “Administratively” change the rules so it is basically the same as before. They can’t help themselves.

      The thing is the court in “McDonald” case it (Gun ownership) “Incorporates” under the 14th Amendment, but it isn’t explicitly spelled out. If the Court includes that clearer in language, that is like an underground mine fire. That town in Pennsylvania that no longer exists (I forget the name) had houses in it with people for two decades. Now it’s gone.

      Just because NJ and California and Maryland are happy gun control havens doesn’t mean they’ll be able to “live on” breathing judicial carbon monoxide of Rights incorporated under the 14th Amendment. Like that mine fire, that structure might be poisoned by one small decision after another.

      It could get worse. If Trump wins in 2020 and gets the House and Senate, hopefully Paul Ryan’s “It’s not the right time for this” contingent isn’t in the way if they pass “National Reciprocity” for carry permits.

      That way you KNOW they will arrest people for JUST carrying a gun, just like they never really followed FOPA and arrested people moving guns legally under that law to other states.

      A criminal case will get much stricter scrutiny than a lawsuit does. In fact I have tried to STOP THE DAMN LAWSUITS!! They get judged under looser civil suit rules most of the time, and build precedent of government win after win.

      Of course then it’s finding someone who’s NOT a prohibited person, and is only charged with a gun charge, and no other felonies. Then they have to be willing to NOT roll over when offered a plea bargain, and maybe go to trial, lose, and then be convicted. Then sentenced and go to jail WHILE the conviction is appealed. That they may lose.

      I actually know someone convicted at the Federal level (Not a gun crime), who got their conviction thrown out at the appellate level. After they served the whole 4 years sentenced (Maxed out) them.

      All they got was their record cleared, and no retrial. They didn’t get a dime for four years, it was a point of law, they never should of been arrested or charged. That is what you risk if you are the “test case” for a gun law.

      No guarantee the Supreme Court will take the case either. Or they make take it, and issue a ruling in what I call ” pretzel logic”, and you stay convicted. Or overturn it on a detail useless to almost anyone else.

      If you’ve got 2 or 4 or 10 lost lawsuits in different circuits, the next appellate appeal of a criminal will cite those cases, throw in some criminal ones established that may be related, and your appeal denied. At every level, then the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, there is no controversy, you lost at every level.

      This requires years of set up though, and you’ve gotta restrain the “Lawsuit Commandos”, who doesn’t want to dirty their hands with a “criminal”. Under the stricter scrutiny a criminal case gets, especially one of the very early cases and the person wasn’t prohibited from guns before being charged with a gun possession or having he “wrong gun” that is legal in 75 to 90% of states.

      Good luck getting all the stars to align on that, and the person stands their ground and pleads “Not Guilty” through all their legal jeopardy, when they’ll be offered a sweetheart plea deal to a misdemeanor of some sort that preserves their gun rights. Then the courts have to disagree, THEN the Supreme Court takes the case. They are expert at dodging gun cases.

      I bet they drop it after oral arguments, it a “Moot Point”. They ignore gun rights again. The NYC will go back to making owning a handgun an almost impossible hassle.

  23. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

    OK, so wait a minute. Seems to me that all this announcement did was shift the onus to the plaintiffs to show why the case is not moot instead of the court declaring that is is not. Did I miss something? If the plaintiffs cannot do so to the satisfaction of the court, they simply declare it moot and move on. This sounds like a classic “dodge” to me.

  24. avatar GunnyGene says:

    We The Peasants are merely speculating as to the outcomes of this case. This Peasant is keeping my options open regardless of which way the gavel falls.

  25. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: Albert says: “The very best findings would be Throw out all laws except the ones that state if you are a felon you have no guns Rights.. That the Constitution is the Gun Law of the Land. I know I am dreaming, but maybe some were it will happen.” Why should Paul Manafort who is now a felon for paperwork be denied his 2nd amendment rights if he ever got out of prison? If felons are given back the right to vote, shouldn’t they also have the right to bear arms? All rights are supposed to be equal. Besides, no where in the 2nd amendment does it make an exception for felons.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Besides, no where in the 2nd amendment does it make an exception for felons.”

      Precisely.

  26. avatar American Patriot says:

    Wake me when it’s over….

  27. avatar GS650G says:

    It’s not about the validity of one law, it’s about the asshattery that created it.

  28. avatar Amir says:

    If Roberts caves into the left wing outrage mob then our court system isn’t worth spit.
    کابل شبکه

  29. avatar Darkman says:

    Everyone is still holding their breath awaiting the Opinion of 9 people. Who answer to no one. Especially the voting citizenry. I for one care not what they decide. My rights will never be taken while I’m still alive. Period. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  30. avatar jbob says:

    My gut is that as obvious a direction that this should go in that we’ll be shocked by the decision. 🙁

  31. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    Come on, declare “strict scrutiny” applies to the Second Amendment just like it does for any other provision of the Bill of Rights. Refresher: lesser standards of review give deference to the Government when it claims a “rational” basis for a law. Most gun right infringements aren’t particularly “rational” but when the court is just rubber-stamping the law because of the lower standard, the laws are never going to change. It’s all going to be declared “rational” particularly by the anti-gun circuits.

    Strict scrutiny, however, requires both a “compelling governmental interest,” and a narrowly tailored law to achieve that interest while minimizing the infringement on the protected right. There’s no way most of the anti-gun laws can pass strict scrutiny. Plus, many of the decisions in the various circuits were made under lesser standards. If they declare the standard is strict scrutiny a lot of the laws like in MD or CA could be re-litigated and possibly thrown out.

    But if I’m really hoping for a home run, I’d hope they issue a sweeping statement that the “may issue” licensing from the NJ case is flat-out Unconstitutional and throw out all licensing schemes nationwide. Unfortunately, while they might do it for NJ they really can’t do it nationally because that issue isn’t before them, which is a pity. But if they do it for NJ it gives a basis for new challenges in the hostile states.

  32. avatar Frank M. says:

    Thanks for writing about this. I live in NYC and I’m glad to see it being covered.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email