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

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm starting to like Alito again. From Mr. Roberts' link:

Justice Alito also seemed to suggest that the now-repealed law was completely irrational, because it never actually promoted public safety:

JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the --are people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?

MR. DEARING: We --we --no, I don't think so. We made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that --that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned? …

JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?

SOCK! POW! BAM!

[silvermane_1]

Originally Posted by natman

It's certainly a case the Supreme Court ought to hear.

It's nothing more than Jim Crow laws for the 21st century.

*cuckles* I needed a good laugh, the "gun control laws" are aimed at a *ahem* much fairer complexion demographic, just look at firearm crime related statistics sometime to see what *ahem* "demographic" takes the "blue ribbon" in those stats, because "the powers that be" don't care about "crime", they care about the "control" and that's what "gun control" is about, it has little to do with "guns".

[Doc Intrepid]

In other relevant news, the "Ruth Bader Ginsberg Health Today" reports health conditions are somewhat fragile:

"MONDAY, Nov. 25, 2019 (HealthDay News) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was discharged from the hospital on Sunday after being admitted on Friday with chills and a fever... It's been a tough year health-wise for Ginsburg, who finished treatment for pancreatic cancer in August."

https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/...health-scare#1

The result of which being, according to The Hill, "... Liberal activists are already calling on President Trump to keep any possible Supreme Court vacancy open until after the 2020 election, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has indicated he would fill a court vacancy next year, even though he blocked former President Obama’s nominee for most of 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

Apparently two amigas are not quite as formidable as three amigas, should one of the amigas fold her hand and cash in her chips.

In an election year.

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by silvermane_1

*cuckles* I needed a good laugh, the "gun control laws" are aimed at a *ahem* much fairer complexion demographic, just look at firearm crime related statistics sometime to see what *ahem* "demographic" takes the "blue ribbon" in those stats, because "the powers that be" don't care about "crime", they care about the "control" and that's what "gun control" is about, it has little to do with "guns".

Whites commit more crime because there are more white people. We were looking at the mass murder rates on another forum; someone was making the tired argument that the problem was obviously whitey by posting the number of mass murders in the past 20 years sorted by race. Well, adjust the numbers for the percent of total population and you get a totally different picture. You can guess what group was overrepresented. The most interesting thing I saw (and I got in trouble for pointing it out) is that Latinos were underrepresented.

I have no idea how that compares to overall crime stats, and I'm not sure it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

I agree with your conclusion, just not how you got there.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

The most interesting thing I saw (and I got in trouble for pointing it out) is that Latinos were underrepresented.

I have no idea how that compares to overall crime stats, and I'm not sure it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

I agree with your conclusion, just not how you got there.

So you're saying we need to get Hispanics to commit more mass murders?

[zxcvbob]

So you're saying we need to get Hispanics to commit more mass murders?

No, (btw, I know that's a joke) I think perhaps many of them place a higher value on human life than many blacks or whites -- maybe an influence of the Catholic Church? Or stronger families? That *really* didn't go over well where people were trying to out-progressive each other.

Either the data (that I didn't post in the first place) meant something or it didn't, and I was wrong-thinking it

[44 AMP]

I'd say that the cultural characteristics of various ethnic groups and the reporting of crime statistics (in general) are NOT on topic for this thread which is about a Supreme Court case dealing with a NYC law covering transport of firearms.

There's places for that, this ISN'T IT.

one warning, ...gentlemen...

stick to the topic.

[zxcvbob]

Sorry. Forgot what subforum I was in, and was probably pushing it for any of them. (you can delete this if you want)

[NJgunowner]

Personally I'm hoping for some sort of relief in the transport of firearms, NJ has one of those overly ridiculous can't transport a handgun unless it's to a range, or from a range to home, with no stops in between laws.

But I'm not betting the farm we'll get a ruling that will fix it.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Personally I'm hoping for some sort of relief in the transport of firearms, NJ has one of those overly ridiculous can't transport a handgun unless it's to a range, or from a range to home, with no stops in between laws.

Transport seems to be what the case is about .... if the justices don't decide that the case is moot. But it's about transport within, into, and out of New York City under a New York City premises permit. I'm not sure how even a favorable ruling on the question would apply to New Jersey.

Or to neighboring Connecticut, for that matter. Connecticut has a licensing scheme sort of, somewhat, in a manner of speaking similar to that of NYC. Connecticut has carry permits. (Unlike in NYC, however, ordinary citizens in Connecticut can actually obtain carry permits.) Connecticut also has something called an "Eligibility Certificate for Possess Pistol or Revolver." Like their Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver, this certificate allows the holder to purchase a firearm. (In Connecticut, nobody can purchase a firearm without having either a carry permit or a certificate of eligibility.) The difference is that the eligibility certificate allows the holder to buy the firearm and take it home ... period. It does NOT allow transport between locations within the state, and it does NOT allow transporting the firearm -- even unloaded and locked in a case -- from home to a range. All it does is allow you to buy a gun and bring it home (and take it to a gunsmith for repairs).

If the SCOTUS does rule against NYC's old law, it will be interesting to see if the ruling will be worded in a way that would allow a challenge to the Connecticut law.

[TomNJVA]

The difference is that the eligibility certificate allows the holder to buy the firearm and take it home ... period. It does NOT allow transport between locations within the state, and it does NOT allow transporting the firearm -- even unloaded and locked in a case -- from home to a range. All it does is allow you to buy a gun and bring it home (and take it to a gunsmith for repairs).

Are you sure about this? Connecticut has dozens of shooting ranges and I know people who bring their own guns to them. I see nothing on some of their websites that says one must rent to use the facility.

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, I am sure.

Connecticut statutes:

Sec. 29-35. Carrying of pistol or revolver without permit prohibited. Exceptions.
(a) No person shall carry any pistol or revolver upon his or her person, except when such person is within the dwelling house or place of business of such person, without a permit to carry the same issued as provided in section 29-28. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer of this state, or any Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, or of the state, as defined in section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, or to any member of any military organization when on parade or when going to or from any place of assembly, or to the transportation of pistols or revolvers as merchandise, or to any person transporting any pistol or revolver while contained in the package in which it was originally wrapped at the time of sale and while transporting the same from the place of sale to the purchaser's residence or place of business, or to any person removing such person's household goods or effects from one place to another, or to any person while transporting any such pistol or revolver from such person's place of residence or business to a place or individual where or by whom such pistol or revolver is to be repaired or while returning to such person's place of residence or business after the same has been repaired, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver in or through the state for the purpose of taking part in competitions, taking part in formal pistol or revolver training, repairing such pistol or revolver or attending any meeting or exhibition of an organized collectors' group if such person is a bona fide resident of the United States and is permitted to possess and carry a pistol or revolver in the state or subdivision of the United States in which such person resides, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver to and from a testing range at the request of the issuing authority, or to any person transporting an antique pistol or revolver, as defined in section 29-33. For the purposes of this subsection, “formal pistol or revolver training” means pistol or revolver training at a locally approved or permitted firing range or training facility, and “transporting a pistol or revolver” means transporting a pistol or revolver that is unloaded and, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle, is not readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle or, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle that does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, such pistol or revolver shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the carrying of a pistol or revolver during formal pistol or revolver training or repair.
(b) The holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 29–28, as amended by this act, shall carry such permit upon one's person while carrying such pistol or revolver. Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer.

Sec. 29-36f. Eligibility certificate for pistol or revolver.
(a) Any person who is twenty-one years of age or older may apply to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection for an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver.
(b) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection shall issue an eligibility certificate unless said commissioner finds that the applicant: (1) Has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association; (2) has been convicted of a felony or of a violation of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d; (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120; (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13; (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court; or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680; (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, including an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15 or section 46b-16a; (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing; (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4); or (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States

https://portal.ct.gov/DESPP/Division...cial-Licensing

Who may purchase a handgun?

Only those people who are Permit holders, Eligibility Certificate holders, or sworn Police Officers may purchase a handgun.

I just called a friend who operates a commercial range and gun shop in Connecticut. He confirmed what I said. I said nothing about ranges requiring customers to rent guns. I said it is illegal to transport a handgun (and maybe a rifle) from your home to a shooting range unless you have a carry permit. Most people I know (in several states) who shoot at ranges have carry permits. Most people I have encountered at commercial ranges who don't have permits also don't have guns, so they either come with a friend who has a gun ... or they rent.

[TomNJVA]

I see, I missed the part about being able to bring a gun to the range if you have a carry permit.

Thanks!

[Aguila Blanca]

In essence, the Connecticut eligibility certificate is sort of like the NYC premises permit. It allows you to get the gun from the shop to your "premises" ... and that's about all it's good for.

[silvermane_1]

I'm not going be "optimistic" about SCOTUS rulings changing any municipalities enforcement of local gun laws.

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

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.

Well no new Second Amendment case will be on the Spring docket according to SCOTUSblog. It will be very disappointing if they also deep six the NYC case and IMO would show a lack of interest by SCOTUS in taking up any Second Amendment cases with the current court lineup.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/j...se-for-spring/

Justices grant one new case for spring
This afternoon the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference earlier in the day. The justices added just one new case to their merits docket for the term: Carney v. Adams, a challenge to the constitutionality of a Delaware law that limits the number of judges affiliated with a particular political party to a “bare majority.”

[Armed_Chicagoan]

SCOTUSblog also speculated that if they decided this case was moot they would hear a different 2A case instead. If they add no new 2A cases there's a good chance it's because they will hear the NY case.

[raimius]

SCOTUS let NYC get away with manipulation...
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/br...tol-case-moot/

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan

SCOTUSblog also speculated that if they decided this case was moot they would hear a different 2A case instead. If they add no new 2A cases there's a good chance it's because they will hear the NY case.

I see no reason to believe that. What is the incentive for SCOTUS to hear any gun related cases?

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

I see no reason to believe that. What is the incentive for SCOTUS to hear any gun related cases?

From Kavanaugh's concurrence in today's ruling: "And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

Stay tuned!

[TDL]

I see no reason to believe that. What is the incentive for SCOTUS to hear any gun related cases?

Zero incentive. There is a major negative, especially for Roberts. These cases are going to go down 5:4, and if they go 5:4 favorable for the Second, since this is a partisan issue, in a what is seen as partisan court (GOP majority="partisan" to the media) and the court will get withering criticism in the media, and more threats from Democratic Senators advocating destroying the check and balances in the Constitution to pack the court. Roberts maybe more concerned with the image issues than substance.

Of course the majority of the cases distributed at this point for next go around are shall/may CCL (bear) and AWB/mags (common). I think Roberts problem is only four are needed for cert.so he probably is going ot have to come out of hiding. My pet conspiracy theory, and it is a good as anyone else's, is roberts will cast for one, and against us on another so he can be the peacemaker.

Or since he has pretty much signaled he doesn't want any 2Amd cases, he could just penalize whichever side forces the issue.

Of course maybe I am cynical about the level of politicization of higher courts. We can say they are going to go on the merits, but we have the pesky issues of facts, and it is a stone cold fact that we already know exactly how eight of the votes will be cast on any of the potentially upcoming 2A cases -- and they are totally aligned by appointer party.