|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 12, 2019, 12:58 AM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
|
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
August 12, 2019, 08:43 AM | #52 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
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 |
August 12, 2019, 09:06 AM | #53 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
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. |
August 13, 2019, 12:18 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,765
|
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:
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
|
August 13, 2019, 01:45 PM | #55 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
Got it.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
August 21, 2019, 08:35 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
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.
|
August 23, 2019, 06:54 AM | #57 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
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. |
September 23, 2019, 09:37 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,765
|
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. |
October 7, 2019, 11:17 AM | #59 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,765
|
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:
Quote:
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
||
October 8, 2019, 09:55 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,604
|
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. |
December 1, 2019, 08:03 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,765
|
We will find out more soon enough.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/co...e-in-a-decade/ Quote:
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
|
December 2, 2019, 01:54 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,879
|
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.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
|
December 2, 2019, 08:13 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,296
|
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. |
December 2, 2019, 11:23 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
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.
|
December 2, 2019, 02:42 PM | #65 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
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. |
December 2, 2019, 03:14 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,930
|
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 |
December 2, 2019, 05:07 PM | #67 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 2, 2019, 06:09 PM | #68 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Here is a short summary from a lawyer who attended:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/on...y-of-new-york/ |
December 2, 2019, 06:53 PM | #69 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
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 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
December 2, 2019, 07:00 PM | #70 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
December 2, 2019, 09:41 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
If they decide the case is moot doesn't that still leave the appeals court ruling intact as binding case law?
|
December 3, 2019, 12:14 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
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. |
December 3, 2019, 01:55 PM | #73 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
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 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
December 3, 2019, 05:08 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,765
|
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:
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
|
December 3, 2019, 07:07 PM | #75 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|