Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-29-2018, 10:03 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Mooted & GVR'd 4/27/20

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Issue: Whether New York 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

Listed for 1/4/19 conference initially
Relisted for 1/11/19 conference
Relisted for 1/18/19 conference
Cert Granted in 1/22/19
NYC Requests a stay pending a proposed law change to allow additional approved locations in an attempt to resolve the complaints and render the case moot. 4/12/19
SCOTUS denies request for stay on 4/29/19
NYSRPA brief submitted on 5/7/19
NYC brief submitted on 8/5/19
Back to conference on 10/1. Likely to resolve mootness claim.
Motion to dismiss for mootness denied, mootness to be discussed at orals.
Oral arguments scheduled for 12/2/19
Case mooted and GVRd 4/27/20

Quote:
On remand,
the Court of Appeals and the District Court may consider
whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in
this lawsuit with respect to New York City’s old rule. The
judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is
remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate.
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/

Great case tracker for SCOTUS 2nd:
https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondtho...ek-of-4-20-20/

All these cases were previously held, now we wait for one of these may be the next case for OT2020.

Look at all these "carry" cases:

Rogers v. Grewal 3rd Cir. 20-Dec-18 NJ “may issue” public carry regime distributed
23-May-19 conf.

Gould v. Lipson 1st Cir. 1-Apr-19 MA “may issue” public carry regime (as implemented locally) distributed
6-June-19 conf.

Cheeseman v. Polillo N.J. 28-June-19 NJ “may issue” public carry regime distributed
18-Oct-19 conf.

Ciolek v. New Jersey N.J. 18-July-19 NJ “may issue” public carry regime distributed
1-Oct-19 conf.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi 4th Cir. 26-Sep-19 MD “may issue” public carry regime distributed
24-Jan-20 conf.

Culp v. Raoul 7th Cir. 10-Oct-19 IL refusal to grant carry permits to most non-residents distributed
21-Feb-20 conf.

Looks at all these cases restricting what I will call " access " to firearms:

Pena v. Horan 9th Cir. 28-Dec-18 California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (microstamping, etc.) distributed
12-Apr-19 conf.

Wilson v. Cook County, IL 7th Circ. 27-Nov-19 Assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban distributed
6-Mar-20 conf.

Case Ct. Below Pet. Filed Implicated Law/Issue Status
Mance v. Barr 5th Cir. 19-Nov-18 Federal ban on out-of-state handgun purchases distributed
12-Apr-19 conf.

Worman v. Healey 1st Cir. 23-Sep-19 Ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines distributed
10-Jan-20 conf.

Here are the threads for the various other cases:

Pena- Roster Challenge
Ivan Pena, et al., Petitioners v. Martin Horan, Director, California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms

SCOTUS Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-843.html

Calguns Thread
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812117

Mance v. Whitaker

SCOTUS Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-663.html

Calguns Thread
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ighlight=mance

Rogers - NJ CCW
Thomas Rogers, et al., Petitioners v. Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.

SCOTUS Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-824.html

Calguns Thread
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1498027

Gould v. Morgan

SCOTUS Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....c\18-1272.html

Gould Calguns Thread
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ighlight=Gould

Worman v. Healey - MA AWB

SCOTUS docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....lic/19a11.html

Calguns thread
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ghlight=worman

Also should mention this from lower courts:

Young v. State of Hawaii, No. 12-17808

Calguns Thread
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?t=1424391/

Case Status: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/

Quote:
Status: Stayed in the 9th Circuit pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's dismissal of plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the County of Hawaii's denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense.

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 04-27-2020 at 9:30 AM.. Reason: Update
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-30-2018, 2:05 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Issue: Whether New York 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

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

It is scheduled for the Nov 2 conference. As far as I know this may be an option to break the long 2A dry spell for a SCOTUS opinion.

The 2nd Circuit decision is crazy and seems like a slam dunk for the new Supreme Court to cement the right to bear outside the home, without getting caught up in the open\concealed arguments.
I don't think any gov should have the right to ban someone from leaving their border or city limits with their own legally owned property. New York is beginning to look like what the communist countries are doing.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-30-2018, 6:55 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I don't think any gov should have the right to ban someone from leaving their border or city limits with their own legally owned property. New York is beginning to look like what the communist countries are doing.
California is bad. NYC is asinine. And they way they twist the constitution. Just read it, plain as day. "Shall not be infringed" .

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 10-31-2018 at 9:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-31-2018, 8:05 AM
Glock21sfsd Glock21sfsd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Susanville
Posts: 474
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Maybe I am not up to date on this but, is this saying that if you live in New York you cant take your firearms out of new York? to go shooting? or for any purpose?
__________________
Jeffery Overman
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-31-2018, 9:05 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 6,187
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
California is bad. NYC is asinine. And they way they twist the constitution. Just read it, plain as day. "Shall not be abridged" .
Do you have the Reader's Digest version of the Constitution? I think the word your looking for is INFRINGED.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-31-2018, 11:34 AM
bhp1410's Avatar
bhp1410 bhp1410 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 392
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

How the hell is this even a law... How could you keep a straight face??
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-31-2018, 12:33 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Do you have the Reader's Digest version of the Constitution? I think the word your looking for is INFRINGED.
Haha.

Just checking to see if anyone was paying attention.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-31-2018, 7:53 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock21sfsd View Post
Maybe I am not up to date on this but, is this saying that if you live in New York you cant take your firearms out of new York? to go shooting? or for any purpose?
I just found this out myself but apparently it's true, this kind of thing goes unopposed at the federal level so it will continue and spread to other areas. It seem our system of government in trying not to have a all powerful tyrannical government spreads the power around to the states making them sovereign with their own rights managed to create states and local governments that have become corrupted and now we have the problem that the founders of our government was trying to prevent but now at the local level.

Last edited by R Dale; 10-31-2018 at 8:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-31-2018, 7:57 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Last edited by Paladin; 10-31-2018 at 8:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-31-2018, 8:16 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Issue: Whether New York 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

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

It is scheduled for the Nov 2 conference.
As far as I know this may be an option to break the long 2A dry spell for a SCOTUS opinion.

The 2nd Circuit decision is crazy and seems like a slam dunk for the new Supreme Court to cement the right to bear outside the home, without getting caught up in the open\concealed arguments.
I don't see where it says it's scheduled for Nov 2 conference at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

The last thing with a date is: "Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 8, 2018." (emphasis added)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-01-2018, 3:21 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
There is a basis for that under the Gun Owners Protection Act (which the police and prosecutors refuse to recognize in NY) that is supposed to be a blanket exemption for unlawful carry is unloaded and in a locked container. As a separate point, why the heck does NYC care if anyone takes their gun with them when they leave town? It is frivolous to suggest that there is a higher risk of harm to the public at large when carrying a gun out of town than there is if when a gun can be legally carried from the home to the range and back within city limits.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-01-2018, 3:49 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
There is a basis for that under the Gun Owners Protection Act (which the police and prosecutors refuse to recognize in NY) that is supposed to be a blanket exemption for unlawful carry is unloaded and in a locked container. As a separate point, why the heck does NYC care if anyone takes their gun with them when they leave town? It is frivolous to suggest that there is a higher risk of harm to the public at large when carrying a gun out of town than there is if when a gun can be legally carried from the home to the range and back within city limits.
It not about harm to the public but it's about making firearm ownership as inconvenient as possible. There have been people arrested at airports while leaving town that was not even residents of NY and NJ and it was clear there was no criminal intent.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-02-2018, 1:06 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
It not about harm to the public but it's about making firearm ownership as inconvenient as possible. There have been people arrested at airports while leaving town that was not even residents of NY and NJ and it was clear there was no criminal intent.
Although MOST I certainly agree that this is what is going on, I was merely referencing the argument that the /city is making in support of its ordinance.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-15-2018, 9:54 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

opposition brief filed

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...Opposition.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-15-2018, 2:48 PM
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 4,227
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Unbelievable. Apparently, NYC believes that the 2A is all about "self defense in the home". Talk about reading Heller with blinders on. If SCOTUS does not take this and ***** slap NYC with it they will never take anything. At the very least take it and send the case back down with the proper wording from Heller that the 2A is "most acute in the home".
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-15-2018, 6:33 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The opposition brief is so biased. I would love to hear what Thomas and Alito would say.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-16-2018, 2:14 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Unbelievable. Apparently, NYC believes that the 2A is all about "self defense in the home". Talk about reading Heller with blinders on. If SCOTUS does not take this and ***** slap NYC with it they will never take anything. At the very least take it and send the case back down with the proper wording from Heller that the 2A is "most acute in the home".
This is the new anti-gun meme. Massachusetts said it isn't a right outside the home, that he right is limited to the home, carry outside the home is subject to regulation in the interest of public safety; Hawaii is pounding that drum in Young, now saying that three additional circuits agree; and they all cite Heller for that proposition--or in the case of Young, the Peruta case from the Ninth Circuit. (which doesn't say that anymore than Heller does.) This has been coming for a while. At first the courts were avoiding the question, merely assuming that the right existed outside the home, but with the Supreme Court refusing to take any of these cases--and time running out on a few of its Democrat members--they are pushing even further, trying to eliminate the right entirely, making it a mere privilege subject to complete discretionary governmental control. That is the goal, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-16-2018, 4:54 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I cant even comprehend how it got this bad. Everyone agrees you have a right to self defense in and out of your home. But you can only defend your self with a gun within your home. Outside the home your SOL. Makes no sense.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:50 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
This is the new anti-gun meme. Massachusetts said it isn't a right outside the home, that he right is limited to the home, carry outside the home is subject to regulation in the interest of public safety; Hawaii is pounding that drum in Young, now saying that three additional circuits agree; and they all cite Heller for that proposition--or in the case of Young, the Peruta case from the Ninth Circuit. (which doesn't say that anymore than Heller does.) This has been coming for a while. At first the courts were avoiding the question, merely assuming that the right existed outside the home, but with the Supreme Court refusing to take any of these cases--and time running out on a few of its Democrat members--they are pushing even further, trying to eliminate the right entirely, making it a mere privilege subject to complete discretionary governmental control. That is the goal, after all.
The courts are essentially saying this without saying it directly (note how they all try to distinguish themselves from Moore). Instead, they have made a two-tier system where the "core" is the home and public carry is satisfied with some kind of licensing system, whether permits are issues in reality or not.
And don't forget they are now trying to claim Nunn and Chandler(the basis of Heller) can be disregarded since they were from slave states.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:58 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
✰ Sometimes I Fly Armed
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,135
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
My vote (wishful thinking) is for PC based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring anything related to 2A.

My 2nd vote is a ruling in favor of NYSRPA based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring 2A, with a concurrent opinion by Thomas (maybe another) saying he also supports a decision in favor of NYSRPA because of 2A.

__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-23-2018, 7:25 PM
LINY's Avatar
LINY LINY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
My vote (wishful thinking) is for PC based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring anything related to 2A.

My 2nd vote is a ruling in favor of NYSRPA based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring 2A, with a concurrent opinion by Thomas (maybe another) saying he also supports a decision in favor of NYSRPA because of 2A.

You bring up a good point- in fact I’d love to see a case come forward challenging the CA and NY etc pistol laws using the Interstate Commerce precedents....

Does anyone know if something like that ever been attempted before?
__________________
When seconds count 1911 > 911 is correct numerically as well

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-29-2018, 7:25 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Distributed for conference on 1/4/19

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

Reply of Petitioners

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

It’s slowly making its way forward.

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 11-29-2018 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-01-2018, 8:48 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
Distributed for conference on 1/4/19

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

Reply of Petitioners

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

It’s slowly making its way forward.
This case will be our litmus test. It seems like a slam dunk to me. If the justices deny cert we should not get our hopes up until we get one more justice on the supreme court.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-03-2018, 9:08 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice reply brief. You've at least got a shot if for no other reason than that the law is as stupid as the D.C. law challenged in Heller. If it flies, will NJ's ban on HPs anywhere but between the gun store and the home be far behind? If hey are good enough to defend your house, they should be good enough anywhere you are allowed to carry; where the bullet is doesn't change its characteristics.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2018, 11:44 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,417
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

TTAG article https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...n-waiting-for/

Quote:
TTAG reader and attorney LKB, who watches the progress of gun rights cases very closely, opined that the Court was waiting for just the right case, one that the pro-2A side judges to be ideal for re-affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms and striking another blow for the RKBA.

In his opinion, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York is just such a case.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-10-2018, 9:31 PM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IDAHO!
Posts: 5,722
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Holy crap, this is the first I've heard of this. Tagged
__________________
Welcome to OT, where hypocrisy is King, outrage is Queen and the Kingdom is on the shores of the Denial River.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-11-2018, 12:26 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

If they do take this case I highly doubt they will address “carry”. The scope of the question they’ll answer will be fairly narrow. It might do a little bit more than Caentano, but I don’t see this helping AWB, mag capacity, or may-issue.

It would be a good opportunity to slam the lower courts who use “intermediate scrutiny”. That might do us some good.

This will be interesting to see what happens. The case is fairly innocuous in the grand scheme of things and won’t really hurt the core anti-2a agenda unless the opinion is crafted to do just that. With Roberts on the court, I don’t think that will happen though.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:44 PM
2Aallday 2Aallday is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 267
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow. Just when you thought California was bad...

I like the tortured logic here, though. In the home, but certainly not your vacation home. You’ll need another gun for that. A vacation gun. NYC wants us to buy more guns, then? Well, if you’re going to twist my arm...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-28-2018, 6:13 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Update: Listed for 1/4/19 conference, next update likely on 1/7/19
I wonder if RBG will be attending the conference in 1 week?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-29-2018, 5:04 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

While I'd like SCOTUS to take the case, if they did only one case in the next year, I'd rather have them address a true right to carry case, which makes this case a moot point since a NYC unrestricted permit would no longer be impossible to get.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-29-2018, 7:33 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
While I'd like SCOTUS to take the case, if they did only one case in the next year, I'd rather have them address a true right to carry case, which makes this case a moot point since a NYC unrestricted permit would no longer be impossible to get.
Absolutely. Ideally we would see a ruling that does away with carry permits altogether and simply states the Second Amendment means what it says.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-04-2019, 12:25 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So I am trying to learn the procedure here in the court. From what I understand there are likely 4 outcomes for Monday.

Grant - more briefing and possibly oral arguments leading to a decision.
Relist- discuss granting cert at the next conference.
Hold- Nothinh happens and it sits until a relist.
Denied- it’s over.

Does that seem right?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-04-2019, 1:20 PM
Matir Matir is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
So I am trying to learn the procedure here in the court. From what I understand there are likely 4 outcomes for Monday.

Grant - more briefing and possibly oral arguments leading to a decision.
Relist- discuss granting cert at the next conference.
Hold- Nothinh happens and it sits until a relist.
Denied- it’s over.

Does that seem right?
That sounds right, but there's no guarantee that they release the outcome Monday, AIUI.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-04-2019, 2:11 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
So I am trying to learn the procedure here in the court. From what I understand there are likely 4 outcomes for Monday.

Grant - more briefing and possibly oral arguments leading to a decision.
Relist- discuss granting cert at the next conference.
Hold- Nothinh happens and it sits until a relist.
Denied- it’s over.

Does that seem right?
The court can issue an opinion/order without hearing the case. It doesn’t happen often but it did in cantaeno.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-04-2019, 2:41 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I would also add that if cert is granted, there will be oral argument...in a year or so.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-04-2019, 2:44 PM
dscoduc dscoduc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 845
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Oh man this is as hilarious as it is scary. Why anyone would live in a slime infested socialist/communist city like New York is just baffling.

At some point I suspect that CA will adopt a law or set of laws that finally pushes me to give up and move away. Not quite there yet but something like this NY law of restricting free travel would do it for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-06-2019, 11:42 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
The court can issue an opinion/order without hearing the case. It doesn’t happen often but it did in cantaeno.
From what I understand they are releasing opinions on Tuesday. I doubt it will be on this case.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-06-2019, 12:07 PM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,047
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

What a shame for gun owners who live in NY. Gov Cuomo and his minions have really violated the constitution. Good luck to the NYS rifle and pistol Association this should be a easy win.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

NRA,,, Lifer

United Air Epic Fail Video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-07-2019, 7:17 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nothing on this case in the orders released. I guess that’s good news as I wasn’t denied yet. From what I read, it is likely that and case they are actually considering gets held then relisted for a few rounds until they can draft and review the opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-07-2019, 8:31 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 16,466
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Roberts, the social liberal will take any steps necessary to avoid any gun case getting to his court. He's done this since 2009 and I see no reasoning for him to change.

Thanks, Bush.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -8. The time now is 7:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy