New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York

[natman]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.

OK, fair enough.

Anything is possible, but I would expect that since the licensing process is only mentioned in passing in the case it's unlikely that any significant change will come out of it. The plantiffs are asking for relief from the travel restrictions, not an end to licensing.

[Tom Servo]

The plantiffs are asking for relief from the travel restrictions, not an end to licensing.

We're still in the baby steps stage. Heller was about a relatively small question at its core, and that involved the right to keep a licensed gun in the home.

What I'm hoping to see is a clearer declaration that laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.

[Cirdan]

My guess is the sheer absurdity of the NYC law is why they took it. Heller didn't clarify things very much, just slapped down DC for a law that was a de facto over ride of the 2nd amendment.

[publius42]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.

OK, but the points were not general, but gun related.

Related to the topic case, one of the issues to be decided involves our right to travel. That's relevant, the ACLU supports it, and it does kinda tie into the no fly/no buy thing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I hope that if they strike down the NYC law, they don't add unnecessary prose supporting state and city ability to burden the carry of firearms. There should be a window allowing that the banning the carry of loaded firearms is not supported by the 2nd Amend.

Don't say that of course banning concealed or open carry is legit for the states

[natman]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

We're still in the baby steps stage. Heller was about a relatively small question at its core, and that involved the right to keep a licensed gun in the home.

What I'm hoping to see is a clearer declaration that laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.

How laws that directly challenge a constitutional amendment aren't automatically subject to strict scrutiny escapes me. But, yes, a definition of strict scrutiny applied to the Second would be a nice bonus.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

banning the carry of loaded firearms is... supported by the 2nd Amend

Somehow that's how I think many federal judges would read that quote if it is in the opinion. Just like they grossly misinterpreted the paragraph in which Scalia wrote "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Friend sent me this link of a pretty good article on current court status and problems. https://nationalfirearmslaw.com/look-out-below/

Points out the pros and cons of recent decisions like Heller, lower court misinterpretations and how the future depends on SCOTUS being progun in a very clear manner. That depends on Roberts. If not, state restrictions will cripple major portions of the country.

[sigarms228]

TTAG posted this today which is interesting.

Rogers and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Grewal, which is challenge to NJ may issue law, and the cert petition was supposed to be heard today but has been delayed to March 21 instead. Author of article makes some speculations on why but it is very interesting that it was not shot down today.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...supreme-court/

[riffraff]

Good info..

What I never figured out in all this was why NYC was so hell bent on preventing guns from leaving the city in the first place.. I mean NYC doesn't want the guns in the city to begin with so why make a law that prohibits it ?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It took a hundred years to go from the 14th Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education. One Inc. v. Olesen happened in 1952 and Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003. A civil rights litigation strategy is not for those who seek immediate gratification. Heller happened in 2007 (and only after significant changes of SCOTUS).

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

It took a hundred years to go from the 14th Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education. One Inc. v. Olesen happened in 1952 and Lawrence v. Texas happened in 2003. A civil rights litigation strategy is not for those who seek immediate gratification. Heller happened in 2007 (and only after significant changes of SCOTUS).

BR wins the Understatement of the Month Award.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

SCOTUS denies NY request to hold briefings in abeyance while they revise the regulation in attempt to make the case moot: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...york-new-york/

(Good news for us)

[rwilson452]

I'm not a lawyer. But it might be the SC want's to tell them what they expect the new regs will be. This could get interesting.

[sigarms228]

Outstanding!

[raimius]

Well, I don't know the majority of Justice's opinions on the 2nd Amendment, but you generally can't moot a case for a particular law when you have not yet changed it! NY's argument was pretty weak.

[cptjack]

when I was a pup going hunting upstate ny from Long Island were to contact local precincts when passing through while carrying firearms. nobody ever did it but was the NYC law in 70's.................also heard NYC police officers being arrested in NJ for caring service weapons

[publius42]

Originally Posted by raimius

Well, I don't know the majority of Justice's opinions on the 2nd Amendment, but you generally can't moot a case for a particular law when you have not yet changed it! NY's argument was pretty weak.

It was weak because a proposal that might or might not pass and might or might not moot the case if passed is not a law that makes the case moot.

But even if it were, the case might be heard. US v Lopez was, and the court pointedly ignored a law passed in the mean time.

From Rhenquist's majority opinion:

But to the extent that congressional findings would enable us to evaluate the legislative judgment that the activity in question substantially affected interstate commerce, even though no such substantial effect was visible to the naked eye, they are lacking here. [n.4]

...

4 We note that on September 13, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796. Section 320904 of that Act, id., at 2125, amends §922(q) to include congressional findings regarding the effects of firearm possession in and around schools upon interstate and foreign commerce. The Government does not rely upon these subsequent findings as a substitute for the absence of findings in the first instance. Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 ("[W]e're not relying on them in the strict sense of the word, but we think that at a very minimum they indicate that reasons can be identified for why Congress wanted to regulate this particular activity").

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Link to the amici briefs filed in this case:
http://michellawyers.com/new-york-st...fXOV4mEm_gvYWM

[LeverGunFan]

NYC requested again on July 22nd that the SCOTUS remove this case from their docket for the next term, explaining that changes to city and state laws have addressed the issue.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/c...n-rights-case/

[Aguila Blanca]

Did NYC actually change the rules? I thought the objection when the city first tried to have the case mooted was that they didn't actually change the rules/regulations, they just said they would enforce them differently.

That's not the same thing as changing the regulations.

[JN01]

Nothing says they couldn't change the law back after the SCOTUS case was mooted either.

[Mike38]

Another reason to leave NY. I did, moved to the free state of Tennessee.

I'm sorry, and please don't take this personally, but comments like that are getting old.

I live in Illinois. As most people know, Illinois is less than gun friendly, but far from the worse state. If I've been told once, I've been told 1000 times to move out of this state, many times from people on this forum. Easy to say, but may not be easy to do for some people.

I have three children and nine grandchildren within a 20 miles radius of me. Not a one of them would move with me. I have a bought and paid for home, and do not wish to sign another mortgage, I'm too old for that. I have friends. I have a very good job. Also, my health isn't what it used to be. These are all difficult things to move away from.

So instead of tucking tail and running away, I have made the decision to stay and fight. I'm a member of the NRA and the ISRA. I donate money to pro gun organizations when I can. I call and write my state congressmen. I write letters to the editor of local newspapers. I get involved. I'm staying and fighting, for if no one does, it truly would be bad in this state.

Nothing terribly wrong with throwing in the towel and leaving, if that's what a person chooses to do. But I'm not that way, and there's also nothing wrong with that.

Best of luck to those of you in New York. Keep up the good fight.

[Tom Servo]

Did NYC actually change the rules?

They had a hearing for a "proposed rule change" and used that as the basis to send a motion to the court to moot the case. SCOTUS declined to do so. The rule change was as minor as possible, and it would have only allowed transport from home to the range and back.

It's indicative of how little they plan to comply if they lose. We saw the same thing in Chicago and Washington DC, in which those cities complied as narrowly as they could. I expect NYC to do the same.

[62coltnavy]

After the last letter attempt to moot the case, NYC filed an actual motion, called a "Suggestion of Mootness" that argued that the ordinance change (now adopted) and the state law change (rushed through the Legislature and enacted as an emergency statute so that it would take effect immediately).

Today, Paul Clemens filed his reply. A bit redundant, but makes the point extremely clear that NYS and NYC are in essence conspiring to avoid SCOTUS review of a new ordinance (that probably doesn't pass constitutional muster either) for fear that it could open the floodgates of a generalized right to "bear" (in the sense of transport) any firearms anywhere within the State (and horrors, the City) without police permission.

Here is his brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...opposition.pdf