The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 7, 2018, 09:51 AM   #1
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,905
New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York

Headed to the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...18%20FINAL.PDF

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/

The complaint has to do with the City of New York’s law that prevents gun owners from transporting licensed, locked and unloaded firearms outside the city.

Think this will be the case we have been waiting for the SC to hear?
steve4102 is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 11:12 AM   #2
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,294
It's certainly a case the Supreme Court ought to hear.

It's nothing more than Jim Crow laws for the 21st century.
__________________
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 7, 2018, 03:26 PM   #3
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,922
Where dies the link say it's headed for the Supreme Court? The petitioners have submitted it, yes, but certioari has not been granted. It can still be turned down.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 08:26 PM   #4
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 540
Quote:
This is ridiculous, little by little they are squeezing the neck out of our freedom, i don't live in NY but people who do have to protect themselves.
From historical knowledge, the chief mechanism in which freedoms can be eroded is by the government declaring national emergencies and how weapons must be taken away for "your own good". From the medieval Catholic Church to Cambodia's Pol Pot, this is the one tool that the ruling powers have used to strangle their subjects into total submission.

Declare a bogeyman. Whether it be heretics, or criminals or juvie gangs. And then raise such a scare that the public will believe anything that will "help" them. And that is how rights are taken away.

As someone from New York, I hope these cases go through and win. Even minor victories are still victories and they will pave the road for more actions in the future. The Sullivan Act was passed with the intent of keeping street gangs and organized crime syndicates from getting guns, but that was all horse manure. It specifically targeted low income New Yorkers possibly from immigrant backgrounds. Mainly Italians. The New York political machine and vice industries of the early 1900's had long been dominated by the Irish Mob, who had used force to overturn Anglo-German control of the rackets in the middle of the 19th century. When a large influx of Italians and Chinese arrived in the port of New York in the 1900's, bringing with them their own powerful underworlds, these old generation guys were scared to death. Tammany Hall was one of the backers of the bill, as they were afraid that a new generation of armed social interest groups in the city would create another "Gangs of New York" scene and usurp their powerbase, as how the Tammany mobsters originally usurped Captain Isiah Rynders back in the 1840s. It is an archaic, useless and highly unconstitutional piece of legislation that should have been removed when the Heller case in DC had passed.
__________________
http://blueskycountry.tumblr.com
BORDERLANDS: THE GRAPHIC NOVEL
Climb onto the saddle and ride with me through the last remaining Wild West frontier in the world.
Rachen is offline  
Old December 7, 2018, 09:09 PM   #5
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Where dies the link say it's headed for the Supreme Court? The petitioners have submitted it, yes, but certioari has not been granted. It can still be turned down.
The SC can't turn it down until it gets there, right?
steve4102 is offline  
Old December 8, 2018, 06:48 AM   #6
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,063
To clarify: The docket at this juncture shows that a petition for writ of cert has been filed and distributed for conference, but it has neither been granted nor denied.
__________________
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 December 8, 2018, 07:09 AM   #7
Bowdog
Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 93
Another reason to leave NY. I did, moved to the free state of Tennessee.
Bowdog is offline  
Old December 8, 2018, 08:15 AM   #8
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,271
I doubt if SCOTUS will hear it.

Where's the constitutional issue?

AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old December 8, 2018, 11:07 AM   #9
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter View Post
I doubt if SCOTUS will hear it.

Where's the constitutional issue?

AFS
Conflict with Second Amendment in general and a specific conflict with the "safe passage" section of the Firearms Protection Act, for starters.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 10:24 AM   #10
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,770
The Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning in this case. The order granted it without modifying the issue presented. The order can be found here on page 13.

The issue, as stated by Petitioners is:
Quote:
Whether the 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.
The petition can be found at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...18%20FINAL.pdf.

This is finally a chance for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home and, possibly, the standard of review and its application.
KyJim is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 11:04 AM   #11
ammo.crafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 1,575
NYC NYS

Perhaps the ACLU will take up this issue....oh, I forgot, they only defend THEIR issues.


Usually, NYC does not allow guns into their city...more here then meets the eye.
__________________
"The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry, American Patriot
ammo.crafter is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 11:35 AM   #12
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 750
My concern is that that an opinion, even in our favor, would legitimize the draconian NYC licensing process. Is that a legitimate concern, or just my paranoia?
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 11:43 AM   #13
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan View Post
My concern is that that an opinion, even in our favor, would legitimize the draconian NYC licensing process. Is that a legitimate concern, or just my paranoia?
Depends on the opinion. Best to wait for the ruling and comment on it rather than speculating in a vacuum.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 04:01 PM   #14
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,770
Since the issue is not the validity of licensing, it would be very unlikely that a favorable ruling would address licensing directly. That doesn't mean a lower court could not seize upon some imprecise language or hypothetical and construe it as legitimizing licensing, no matter how strict. An unfavorable ruling would likely have significant adverse impact on gun rights in a variety of ways, IMO.

But, as natman said, it's maybe best to hold off on the speculation.
KyJim is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 04:40 PM   #15
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,063
I find it fairly telling that NYC fights so hard to keep anyone but law enforcement from owning a gun, then prohibits those that succeed in clearing the licensing hurdles from taking their firearms out of the city.
__________________
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 January 22, 2019, 05:03 PM   #16
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,347
Quote:
would legitimize the draconian NYC licensing process. ..
At one time, the high court upheld slavery. They have been wrong other times, as well.

The court will be looking at a very specific set of questions, and I fully expect a very specific ruling on them. After which, the anti-gun world will go on doing what ever the hell they feel like, and can get away with, same as before...

And, the High Court will NOT stop this, until/unless another case is brought to them, specific to it, and they both hear it, and rule in what we would consider our favor.

Simply put, the people who believe gun control, up to and including prohibition, is right, just, and a proper role of government will keep on doing what they do, until a court they recognize having jurisdiction tells them specifically, personally, individually, in small words, to stop doing it.

and even then, they might not...

This is the established historical pattern. If you expect a "sea change" in the state of gun control from this case, I think you are ...unrealistically hopeful.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 05:35 PM   #17
MagnumWill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Colorado
Posts: 985
Well, they're hearing it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1PG1QQ
__________________
Those who hammer their swords into plow shares will plow for those who didn't...
MagnumWill is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 07:01 PM   #18
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Whether the 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.
This is a quite narrow question. I think, at least until a standard of scrutiny is established, and a clear method of testing developed at the SCOTUS level, keeping questions narrow and focusing on only the most restrictive laws is probably the best chance we have at winning cases. Winning cases and establishing a clear line of advance is likely our best strategy for protecting our rights.

Hopefully, we get a solid win on this. If we don't, it could be REALLY bad news.
raimius is offline  
Old January 23, 2019, 11:04 AM   #19
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,862
one question, why is our own government so bent on gun control and disarming the law abiding citizen ?
rebs is offline  
Old January 23, 2019, 11:08 AM   #20
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
Let's focus on this case and not go off on general philosophical discussions.

Here's a piece on the issue from a pessimistic antigun view:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ity-ny/581017/

Guns on the street! I guess they missed the 45 or so shall issue states.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 23, 2019, 11:46 AM   #21
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
The Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning in this case. The order granted it without modifying the issue presented.
In spite of the potential dangers, this is the best news I have heard in a long time! The petition lays out a very strong argument, and given the current SCOTUS balance I feel they would not have granted certiorari if they did not believe the NY law was a flagrant abuse of Heller. Hopefully they will require strict scrutiny in the future for this clear constitutional right.
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed.
TomNJVA is offline  
Old January 24, 2019, 06:08 AM   #22
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Perhaps the ACLU will take up this issue....oh, I forgot, they only defend THEIR issues.
I don't know if they have spoken on this issue but that characterization is unfair.

The ACLU has opposed using the secret "no fly" list as a "no buy" list for guns.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-let...t-4814-hr-2578

They opposed taking away gun rights based on Social Security Disability status.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-vot...aces-eo-senate

And here's the ACLU amicus brief supporting the NRA against Cuomo.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/...u-amicus-brief
publius42 is offline  
Old January 24, 2019, 10:08 AM   #23
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by publius42 View Post
I don't know if they have spoken on this issue but that characterization is unfair.

The ACLU has opposed using the secret "no fly" list as a "no buy" list for guns.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-let...t-4814-hr-2578

They opposed taking away gun rights based on Social Security Disability status.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-vot...aces-eo-senate

And here's the ACLU amicus brief supporting the NRA against Cuomo.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/...u-amicus-brief
Usually the ACLU won't touch a straight 2nd Amendment case. However, if the case involves the parts of the constitution they DO support, they will help. They are very much opposed to secret lists, financial extortion to silence free speech and group suspension of constitutional rights, and rightly so.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old January 24, 2019, 12:29 PM   #24
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,648
Graet news and just a few months after Brett Kavanaugh become Justice at SCOTUS.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old January 24, 2019, 02:58 PM   #25
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,063
Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.
__________________
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  
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 04:17 PM.


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 0.12301 seconds with 8 queries