The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 12, 2019, 12:58 AM   #51
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,163
I know reading court filings is about as exciting as watching paint dry to most folks, but the attorneys for the petitioners did really well penning that response to mootness. They decimated NYCs arguments that the SCOTUS should consider the case moot. I see SCOTUS hearing the case. I went to quote a line from the briefing, but in reading it found about a 1000 more worthy of quoting. So just read it. While I don’t predict “bear arms” will be broadly defined by this case, the transport of legally owned firearms will likely be declared a constitutional right. And not just to a 2nd residence or place of business owned by the gun owner, an “authorized range or competition,” or to a gunsmith (with special permission) as NYC has now changed their ordinance to allow.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old August 12, 2019, 08:43 AM   #52
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,539
From what I understand, once SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, their course is set and they don't have much interest in these "mootness" motions. Perhaps the lawyers can chime in on this: do they often accept such motions?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 12, 2019, 09:06 AM   #53
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,089
I can't give you any data on how often mootness challenges succeed. I'd venture to say "not very often" at the SCOTUS level. Once SCOTUS decides that the case is important enough to hear, I doubt they really want for it be mooted out.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 12:18 PM   #54
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,657
Democrat senators are not taking the news about this case well and making threats warning the court to "heal" or face restructuring.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen...-restructuring

Quote:
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 01:45 PM   #55
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigarms 228
Democrat senators are not taking the news about this case well and making threats warning the court to "heal" or face restructuring.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen...-restructuring
"We think appointing Supreme Court justices for political reasons is bad, so we want to fix that by appointing more justices for political reasons."

Got it.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 21, 2019, 08:35 PM   #56
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee View Post
I can't give you any data on how often mootness challenges succeed. I'd venture to say "not very often" at the SCOTUS level. Once SCOTUS decides that the case is important enough to hear, I doubt they really want for it be mooted out.
I suspect some might want to accept the mootness argument just because the law NYC may be forced to defend is so absurd and indefensible. The same reason the City and State acted to try to moot the case, I believe.
publius42 is offline  
Old August 23, 2019, 06:54 AM   #57
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,089
Maybe, but the main reason I'd want the case mooted out (if I were representing the City or the State) would be to avoid ruling that's really bad for my client, going forward.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 23, 2019, 09:37 PM   #58
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,657
Just read this on TTAG and scheduled for SCOTUS December 2nd. However it is not certain that it will be heard yet but good to see it scheduled and we should know by sometime in October.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sc...-rifle-pistol-
association-case-for-december-2/


The US Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for December 2 for the much anticipated New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case..

Nevertheless, it is not a forgone conclusion that the court will even hear the case in December, much less that it will issue a sweeping ruling on the right to keep and bear arms that will finally bring Second Amendment deniers like New York City to heel. The case could still end at the October procedural hearing without being decided on the merits.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by sigarms228; September 23, 2019 at 10:50 PM. Reason: To correct content.
sigarms228 is offline  
Old October 7, 2019, 11:17 AM   #59
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,657
Some good news in that oral arguments will start as scheduled on December 2ND though still possible case will be decided as moot at that time.


By Dan M. Clark | October 07, 2019 at 09:54 AM

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourna...n-control-law/


Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to toss a case over a restrictive gun regulation in New York City Monday.
In an order handed down Monday, the Supreme Court disagreed that the case immediately became moot after the city relaxed that regulation and the New York State Legislature approved a law addressing it.
Quote:
While there is still an off-ramp before the justices consider the merits of the regulations, their refusal to immediately reject the matter as moot may signal that a faction of the current high court has an appetite to take a closer look at the breadth of the Second Amendment’s meaning.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old October 8, 2019, 09:55 AM   #60
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigarms228 View Post
Some good news in that oral arguments will start as scheduled on December 2ND though still possible case will be decided as moot at that time.
I hope they don't allow the case to be mooted. If they do, the anti-gun states will pass an endless list of illegal / unconstitutional laws, wait until they finally reach SCOTUS and then repeal them at the last minute. Then do it over and over again.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old December 1, 2019, 08:03 PM   #61
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,657
We will find out more soon enough.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/co...e-in-a-decade/

Quote:
The justices will hear the mootness arguments in addition to arguments on the merits of the case tomorrow and the possibility exists that the justices will indeed rule the case moot. But knowledgeable Court watchers believe that would only happen if the Court is looking for an even more substantial 2A case to rule on.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 01:54 AM   #62
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 2,873
We've focused a lot on mootness with this case, but I want to go beyond that because I have an interesting thought that I'd like to discuss with all here that relates to the case.

So, let's say SCOTUS rules on this case and creates a strict scrutiny standard for all future cases. That all sounds well and good, but what exactly makes lower court judges in the district and appeals courts have to abide by that standard? What's the penalty if they don't?

Impeachment?

Does anyone here really think that the Congress would remove a judge for not following a SCOTUS ruling?

I think we're putting too much hope on this case to be some landmark case that alters US history.

I doubt the Chief Justice wants to leave that possibility open. Watch for a 5-4 ruling in favor of the law in June and to ease the fears of restructuring that senators wrote in an open letter months ago.
__________________
Any good revolver > Any good semi auto

"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 08:13 AM   #63
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,273
It's Monday.
Hang on to your tighty whities.

Frankly I'm not expecting this jumbo all encompassing decision.

SCOTUS tends to write very narrow conclusions.

AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 11:23 AM   #64
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,242
I agree with AirForceShooter. If you're expecting any major changes don't hold your breath. I expect a very narrow ruling to prevent them from trying to pass a similar law and not much else.
NJgunowner is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 02:42 PM   #65
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,491
As I understand it, one side is saying the matter is moot, because they amended the law. The other side is saying "we were damaged while the law was in effect before they amended it".

The High Court ALWAYS writes "narrow" decisions. IT is the rest of the govt and court system that applies the narrow decision BROADLY.

Impeachment of lower court judges? not happening.

In order to do so one would have to have PATTERN of mis, or malfeasance of office. A single bad ruling (or even a few) does not qualify as enough.

If they are elected, the cure is simple in principle, vote them out at the end of their term. Not always easy in practice, though.

If they are appointed one must have clear, comprehensive evidence of either incompetence or deliberate, willful disregard for the law.

The whole point of the appeals process and appellate courts, up to the High Court, is that someone who feels a judge ruled wrongly can have other judges review and determine if the ruling was correct, or not. And, like baseball in a way, you get three strikes before you're out.

The original court, appeals court, and the Supreme Court. If you strike out in all 3, you're done.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 03:14 PM   #66
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,861
Here's the transcript of today's arguments:

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ) ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., ) Petitioners, ) v. ) No. 18-280 CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL., ) Respondents.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-280_m64o.pdf
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 05:07 PM   #67
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,539
Quote:
As I understand it, one side is saying the matter is moot, because they amended the law.
Yes, but there's an exception to the mootness doctrine called Capable of Repetition, Evading Review. I'll leave a detailed explanation to the lawyers, but the idea is that the city is trying to evade review, but still has ability and intention to harm plaintiffs at a later time.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 06:09 PM   #68
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,209
Here is a short summary from a lawyer who attended:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/on...y-of-new-york/
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 06:53 PM   #69
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
I made it about half way through the transcript. I'll try to finish it later. My overall impression is that Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor really REALLY want to call it moot and make it go away.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 07:00 PM   #70
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Here is a short summary from a lawyer who attended:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/on...y-of-new-york/
From the link:

Quote:
Justice Sotomayor argued that text, history, and tradition is a made-up standard that isn’t clearly applicable in this case. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg argued that the City’s limited home permitting of handguns doesn’t affect the transport of firearms…that’s regulated by the city’s carry permits.
One has to wonder if those two are really so ignorant that they don't understand the difference (with respect to firearms) between "transporting" an empty gun in a locked case vs. "carrying" a loaded gun that's ready to rock & roll. The distinction was clarified by Clements, but from the transcript it's impossible to know whether or not they got it.

The three amigas (Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor) also seem to have already decided that the petitioners (the NYSRPA) have gotten everything they wanted, which is why the case should be moot. Clements pointed out that the new law, purportedly allowing transport, adds a requirement that travel must be continuous and uninterrupted (or something to that effect). The three amigas' view on that is that's the new law, not the old law, so they don't want to talk about it. Clemets' position is that, since that wasn't there before but it's there now, the new law does NOT give the petitioners everything they asked for, and thus the case is not moot.

There was also some back-and-forth over whether or not the petitioners have asked for damages. The three amigas say they have not. Clements said their application didn't state a dollar amount but included a blanket request for damages as the court might impose. This is apparently important to the three amigas because "mootness" (is that a word?) may be off the table if damages are involved. (I think -- I am not a lawyer.)
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 2, 2019, 09:41 PM   #71
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 756
If they decide the case is moot doesn't that still leave the appeals court ruling intact as binding case law?
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 12:14 PM   #72
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,242
I don't think they'll decide the case is moot, they know why NY pulled the law the way they did. NY is hoping that the courts will restructure to a more liberal bent down the road and they can re-introduce the law.

So I THINK we'll get a ruling, it just won't be anything sweeping. It'll probably just reaffirm our right to transport firearms from point A to B.
NJgunowner is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 01:55 PM   #73
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJgunowner
So I THINK we'll get a ruling, it just won't be anything sweeping. It'll probably just reaffirm our right to transport firearms from point A to B.
Even that will be welcome, because it's a start to undoing the damage caused by Justice Scalia in Heller when he wrote that the core right of the Second Amendment is self defense in the home.

Of course, the Heller case was about keeping an operable firearm in the home so, in keeping with the SCOTUS philosophy of making narrow rulings that typically only answer the question being asked, this is not surprising. The problem is that we know the core purpose underlying the Second Amendment was not really self defense, and we know that the core purpose of the Second Amendment was not limited to within the home. But, in the wake of Heller, lower courts have seized on a few excerpts from the Heller decision to proclaim that "in accordance with Heller" the Second Amendment protects ONLY the right to keep a firearm for self defense in the home.

That's not what Scalia said, but that's what many judges are saying he said, so anything that will slow that down is IMHO a plus.

And we may get an official determination that "transporting" an unloaded firearm is different from "carrying" a loaded firearm. I don't believe that Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are really that ignorant, but they're doing a good imitation.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 05:08 PM   #74
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,657
Very interesting read from someone that was there yesterday that even I can understand. It pus me a bit at ease as almost all news coverage is pretty much declaring this case DOA though that certainly could happen which the author contends could mean other Second Amendment case possibilities. A snipit below.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/de...urt-arguments/

Quote:
The highlight of the arguments on the merits was a spectacular trap that Justice Alito sprang on the attorney for the City. Questioning him on NYC’s change of its laws, he asked, “Are people in New York less safe now as a result of the new city and state laws than they were before?”

Clearly surprised at this seemingly out-of-the-blue question, counsel responded that they were not less safe. Alito then pressed him to concede that there was thus no actual basis for the City to claim that the transportation ban was essential to public safety.

Counsel attempted to tap dance away from that, claiming the restriction accorded with the history of acceptable regulations under the Second Amendment.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old December 3, 2019, 07:07 PM   #75
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,209
Some analysis by Josh Blackman of The Volokh Conspiracy:
https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overvi...y-of-new-york/

Basically, he thinks the Court will find the case moot. However, that might not be a bad thing as it means the Court could add another 2A case to its Spring docket.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10076 seconds with 10 queries