|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 24, 2019, 09:37 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
|
January 24, 2019, 09:50 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
What I'm hoping to see is a clearer declaration that laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 25, 2019, 01:49 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Location: Tahoe
Posts: 363
|
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.
|
January 25, 2019, 03:43 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 25, 2019, 10:51 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 25, 2019, 10:53 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
Quote:
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
|
January 26, 2019, 02:01 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
|
|
February 3, 2019, 10:50 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 22, 2019, 09:12 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,768
|
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/
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
February 24, 2019, 03:57 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
|
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 ? |
February 24, 2019, 08:43 AM | #36 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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).
|
February 24, 2019, 09:22 AM | #37 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 30, 2019, 12:42 PM | #38 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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) |
April 30, 2019, 05:43 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
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.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
April 30, 2019, 10:17 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,768
|
Outstanding!
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
May 1, 2019, 12:14 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
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.
|
May 1, 2019, 03:24 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 1, 2014
Posts: 314
|
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
|
May 1, 2019, 05:41 AM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
|
||
May 16, 2019, 11:52 AM | #44 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Link to the amici briefs filed in this case:
http://michellawyers.com/new-york-st...fXOV4mEm_gvYWM |
July 23, 2019, 11:17 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 407
|
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/
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition |
July 23, 2019, 06:10 PM | #46 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
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. |
July 24, 2019, 03:31 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Nothing says they couldn't change the law back after the SCOTUS case was mooted either.
|
July 25, 2019, 07:48 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,710
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Mike38; July 25, 2019 at 07:54 AM. |
|
July 25, 2019, 08:09 AM | #49 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 3, 2019, 02:10 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
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 |
|
|