OtherGround Forums SCOTUS Orals for Major 2A Case Today

7 days ago
6/13/03
Posts: 25145

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

Issue: Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

 

SCOTUS has the 2nd Amendment in its sights—and gun groups are thrilled

 

https://qz.com/1758912/scotus-has-2nd-amendment-in-its-sights-and-gun-groups-are-thrilled/

 

On Monday (Dec. 2), the US Supreme Court will hear one of the most anticipated and disputed cases of the term, a gun rights fight that pits New York City against the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA). The matter has politicians on the left and right up in arms, inspiring unusually unfriendly amicus briefs and strange letters to the court.

The case arises from a New York City gun transport ban that limited licensed gun owners’ ability to travel with firearms. The state rifle and pistol association sued the city, alleging violations of the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. But New York state passed a law addressing the complaints—arguably in an effort to avoid a high court ruling that might expand gun rights—and the city adjusted its rules, too. NYC has been arguing that there is no more controversy ever since.

Still, the justices agreed to hear the matter and asked the parties to be prepared to argue mootness. That is, whether the claim is even still ripe for consideration in view of the subsequent legislative fixes.

If they decide it is, and they opine on the substance of the case, it’ll be the most consequential gun rights matter in a decade, since the 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicagoaccording to George Washington University law professor Robert Cottrol, speaking at a Federalist Society event in October. In McDonald the justices ruled that an individual’s Second Amendment rights are incorporated and applied to states via the Due Process clauses. It limited localities’ ability to restrict guns, which is why many states and cities have signed amicus briefs pleading with the justices not to decide the substantive questions presented here.

New York City and those localities don’t want the justices to consider the constitutional claim and say there’s nothing left to decide. The Constitution’s Case or Controversy Clause forbids the justices from issuing advisory opinions—there must be a live controversy to resolve and some kind of relief it can offer an aggrieved party. The city says that with the new laws in place, old gun transport restrictions need not be considered.

Republicans, the Trump administration, and the NYSRPA are eager for a ruling on the constitutional grounds because they believe the high court bench is primed for a decision favorable to gun owners. With five conservative justices and only four progressives, a decision expanding gun rights, or at least chiding the city, is entirely possible.

Cottrol noted that Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all seem to “favor a strong view of the Second Amendment.” Yet he stopped short of making bets and notably omitted the chief justice from this list of strong gun rights supporters.

That’s perhaps because the court hasn’t been quite as predictable as pundits have expected of late and because John Roberts might play a moderating force between progressives and conservatives in this case, especially in view of the inflammatory rhetoric it has generated thus far. Roberts may or may not be the bench’s new swing voter, but he certainly dislikes it when anyone—Republican or Democrat—implies the court is a political institution and that the justices are anything but neutral arbiters of the law.

Deciding not to decide on the gun rights questions here, citing mootness, offers the court a legitimate out of this political and cultural pickle. It would be a conservative response in the true, constitutional sense of conservatism. While this sure feels like a live controversy because Americans are riled up about guns—owning and controlling them—the court could simply defuse this controversy by refusing to rule on outdated legislation, declining to issue what would essentially be an advisory opinion, an editorial about the Second Amendment.

The NYSRPA argues that the controversy is live because its members could still be affected in the future by the past law, for example if violations of the old law came up in gun licensing applications. The federal government has joined the NYSRPA in urging the justices to decide on the merits of the Second Amendment claims, rather than rule the fight is moot. The US solicitor general, Noel Francisco, on Nov. 15 filed a letter to the court arguing that the controversy is still live because the gun association members could seek damages for past injuries under the old law.

The city counters both of these claims. It says that past transport ban violations won’t affect future licensing. The NYC Law Department argues, too, that the NYSRPA members never sought money damages. They wanted declaratory and injunctive relief—a ruling that allowed them to exercise their rights. But they never sought compensatory relief, or cash for their injuries. Nor is it clear that they could. And the city says it’s far too late to start arguing that’s the basis for the case now.

On Monday, the justices will hear from the federal government, NYC, and the gun group. They’ve already received about 50 amicus briefs in the matter from educators, politicians, law professors, police groups, linguists, and both gun control activists and gun rights advocates.

Whatever the justices decide, they have until late June before they issue an opinion.

 

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 41381

New York City's entire licensing regime violates the NYS Constitution in many ways and has for decades.

Edited: 7 days ago
6/11/10
Posts: 5211

Hope this works out. NJ has an equally shitty law that allows for the transportation of a firearm in your vehicle ONLY when going to or coming from a gun range or gun store. Dumb as fuck and a clear violation of the 2A

Edited: 7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 23671

The Left and the gun grabbers may have shot themselves in the foot with this one... They got stupid and greedy and really stretched the boundaries of the Heller decision past any rational logic. That NY law doesn't even pass the common sense test.

Last I heard NY and gun control groups were trying to get the case thrownm out as moot since NY recinded it once they realized it was on its way to the high court.

Edited: 7 days ago
3/20/15
Posts: 13683
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 

Hope this works out. NJ has an equally shitty law that allows for the transportation of a firearm in your vehicle ONLY when going to or coming from a gun range or gun store. Dumb as fuck and a clear violation of the 2A

 

Is that all firearms ? Here in Canada we have that travel ban but only with restricted firearms. All handguns and then whatever they deem scary black rifles, so any AR-15 or variant. But, I can basically go wherever with hunting rifles, semi-auto or not, A lot of milsurp, AR 18, most PCC's and any rimfire. Don't even need a trigger lock to transport non-restricted, just have to be unloaded and out of sight and reach, like in the trunk, but under a rear seat in the crew cab is okay.. Have to lock them when in the house, which makes no sense at all.

 

 

Edited: 7 days ago
6/11/10
Posts: 5212
RhinoHog -
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 

Hope this works out. NJ has an equally shitty law that allows for the transportation of a firearm in your vehicle ONLY when going to or coming from a gun range or gun store. Dumb as fuck and a clear violation of the 2A

 

Is that all firearms ? Here in Canada we have that travel ban but only with restricted firearms. All handguns and then whatever they deem scary black rifles, so any AR-15 or variant. But, I can basically go wherever with hunting rifles, semi-auto or not, A lot of milsurp, AR 18, most PCC's and any rimfire. Don't even need a trigger lock to transport non-restricted, just have to be unloaded and out of sight and reach, like in the trunk, but under a rear seat in the crew cab is okay.. Have to lock them when in the house, which makes no sense at all.

 

 

I’m pretty sure that means any firearm and they have to be in the trunk unloaded in a case or bag. You can’t have access to it from the inside cab. So glad I’m no longer in that state.

7 days ago
3/20/15
Posts: 13685
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 
RhinoHog -
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 

Hope this works out. NJ has an equally shitty law that allows for the transportation of a firearm in your vehicle ONLY when going to or coming from a gun range or gun store. Dumb as fuck and a clear violation of the 2A

 

Is that all firearms ? Here in Canada we have that travel ban but only with restricted firearms. All handguns and then whatever they deem scary black rifles, so any AR-15 or variant. But, I can basically go wherever with hunting rifles, semi-auto or not, A lot of milsurp, AR 18, most PCC's and any rimfire. Don't even need a trigger lock to transport non-restricted, just have to be unloaded and out of sight and reach, like in the trunk, but under a rear seat in the crew cab is okay.. Have to lock them when in the house, which makes no sense at all.

 

 

I’m pretty sure that means any firearm and they have to be in the trunk unloaded in a case or bag. You can’t have access to it from the inside cab. So glad I’m no longer in that state.


So worse then up here...got yeah.

7 days ago
2/25/03
Posts: 61893

I made a similar thread. Didn't see this one. Sorr . 

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 97336

It will be interesting to see how they handle the mootness issue. The case may end up being a civil procedure precedent and not about the 2A at all. 

7 days ago
2/25/03
Posts: 61894
Trust -

It will be interesting to see how they handle the mootness issue. The case may end up being a civil procedure precedent and not about the 2A at all. 

They took it for a reason, don't you think? 

7 days ago
12/6/14
Posts: 1934

My body is ready.

7 days ago
12/20/05
Posts: 50951

SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT CALI.....BUT WE ARENT THAT GAY.  

7 days ago
6/13/03
Posts: 25147

Good Post Orals Feedback

https://m.facebook.com/CRPA.org/posts/2904842542873279

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 23672
BIGWHITESEXY -

SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT CALI.....BUT WE ARENT THAT GAY.  

Sure you are, you guys just express your gayness differently...

7 days ago
4/3/08
Posts: 7353

The more ridiculous 2A laws the left come up with, the more we can challenge them in front of a pro constitutional court. No more poor laws protected by activist judges. Fucking dirtbags. 

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 5712
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 
RhinoHog -
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 

Hope this works out. NJ has an equally shitty law that allows for the transportation of a firearm in your vehicle ONLY when going to or coming from a gun range or gun store. Dumb as fuck and a clear violation of the 2A

 

Is that all firearms ? Here in Canada we have that travel ban but only with restricted firearms. All handguns and then whatever they deem scary black rifles, so any AR-15 or variant. But, I can basically go wherever with hunting rifles, semi-auto or not, A lot of milsurp, AR 18, most PCC's and any rimfire. Don't even need a trigger lock to transport non-restricted, just have to be unloaded and out of sight and reach, like in the trunk, but under a rear seat in the crew cab is okay.. Have to lock them when in the house, which makes no sense at all.

 

 

I’m pretty sure that means any firearm and they have to be in the trunk unloaded in a case or bag. You can’t have access to it from the inside cab. So glad I’m no longer in that state.


This shit is plain damn nuts to me.

I can legally drive around all damn day long with a truck full of guns, and cases of ammo if I choose to.

If I am going bird hunting, my shotgun and a couple boxes of shells will be on the seat next to me. Always. No case, no lock, no nothing.

Only restriction is you can't have a round in the chamber.

The fuck happened to the land of the free?

Oh yes...it is the damn Democratic Socialists.

Anti-American as hell, the entire lot of them.
7 days ago
6/13/03
Posts: 25151

Transcript from todays orals for anyone interested

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf

7 days ago
6/13/03
Posts: 25152
Trust -

It will be interesting to see how they handle the mootness issue. The case may end up being a civil procedure precedent and not about the 2A at all. 

Should the case go moot, the court has 5+ cases on hold it could still take up this session

7 days ago
12/10/09
Posts: 17281
amadeus -

The Left and the gun grabbers may have shot themselves in the foot with this one... They got stupid and greedy and really stretched the boundaries of the Heller decision past any rational logic. That NY law doesn't even pass the common sense test.

Last I heard NY and gun control groups were trying to get the case thrownm out as moot since NY recinded it once they realized it was on its way to the high court.

Yup, they tried to scuttle the law so this wouldn't make it to court and have much worse(for them) repercussions. Crossing my fingers for something great here.

7 days ago
9/17/14
Posts: 1031

Came in for oral, left disappointed.

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 15392
JiuJitsuHeyZeus - 

My body is ready.


For a bunch of old people to oral.
7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 97342
rufus - 
Trust -

It will be interesting to see how they handle the mootness issue. The case may end up being a civil procedure precedent and not about the 2A at all. 

They took it for a reason, don't you think? 


Only 4 are needed to take cert.  

One way or another, they will have to address the mootness issue.  There are three possibilities; 1) they decide it is moot and the case ends there without reaching the 2A issue, 2) they decide it is moot but the substantive 2A issues give rise to an exception for justiciability, or 3) they decide it is not moot because of some lingering issue.

7 days ago
6/11/10
Posts: 5213
Dryfly -
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 
RhinoHog -
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva - 

Hope this works out. NJ has an equally shitty law that allows for the transportation of a firearm in your vehicle ONLY when going to or coming from a gun range or gun store. Dumb as fuck and a clear violation of the 2A

 

Is that all firearms ? Here in Canada we have that travel ban but only with restricted firearms. All handguns and then whatever they deem scary black rifles, so any AR-15 or variant. But, I can basically go wherever with hunting rifles, semi-auto or not, A lot of milsurp, AR 18, most PCC's and any rimfire. Don't even need a trigger lock to transport non-restricted, just have to be unloaded and out of sight and reach, like in the trunk, but under a rear seat in the crew cab is okay.. Have to lock them when in the house, which makes no sense at all.

 

 

I’m pretty sure that means any firearm and they have to be in the trunk unloaded in a case or bag. You can’t have access to it from the inside cab. So glad I’m no longer in that state.


This shit is plain damn nuts to me.

I can legally drive around all damn day long with a truck full of guns, and cases of ammo if I choose to.

If I am going bird hunting, my shotgun and a couple boxes of shells will be on the seat next to me. Always. No case, no lock, no nothing.

Only restriction is you can't have a round in the chamber.

The fuck happened to the land of the free?

Oh yes...it is the damn Democratic Socialists.

Anti-American as hell, the entire lot of them.

Yup NJ sucks.

If you’re an OGer in N.J. that owns guns I highly recommend the book New Jersey Gun Law by Evan Nappen. It’s like the gun law bible of N.J. so you know how not to wind up in jail for exercising your God given rights. 

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 41384

Here is the twist.

The City thought that by dropping that restriction, the case would disappear and ALL the other riduculous restrictions would be ignored and be safe.

For decades in violation on  the State constitution, the City forbids license owners from the rest of NYS from bringing their firearms INTO the City.   The same restriction in reverse.  And that is till the rule.

7 days ago
8/7/12
Posts: 11672

I always thought maryland gun laws were stupid