New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Mooted & GVR'd 4/27/20

[phdo]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

KC, please do us all a favor and watch some depressing movies, to get yourself out of any optimistic moods, because I think a successful outcome depends on KC never becoming optimistic about it.

This. I am willing to send you money for Redbox.

[Just Dave]

This ought to be good.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by AKSOG

So does this esentially remove any chance for a Pena cert to be granted?

They are independent cases so technically it should have no effect.

The question in Pena is another very valid question, that of regulating the right out of existence with the microstamping. I would say it's 50-50, not because there is anything wrong with Pena, but because SCOTUS might be worried about appearing to take an avalanche of 2A cases. On merits alone, Pena should be a slam dunk for review.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by GPMG Gunner

In my personal opinion, it will take extraordinary emotional restraint by justice Kavanaugh to not serve up a cold dish of revenge to the antis on this case. He might as well do so, they still want him investigated and impeached.

He had struck me as a hard core professional. His decision will be driven by the violations of the Constitution, not by revenge.

[OleCuss]

Too much speculation. We don't know why they took the case, who will be assigned to write the opinion, or how broadly they want any ruling to be.

It is reasonable to be hopeful for strict scrutiny and other goodies but I'd not get overly excited. It is even possible (although I think unlikely) that they will rule that NY can impose a whole lot of restrictions and actually make things worse.

We're tending to assume that we had 4-5 conservative justices who decided to take the case and give us the goodies we want. But you could have had cert granted based on Roberts and some of the fascist justices voting to grant cert because they think they can get a ruling which we think would be horrible.

We really, really don't know until the ruling is handed down. We may have a pretty good idea after oral arguments but even that tends to be speculative a lot of the time.

I'm going to hope for the best for both this one and for Pena but I've been disappointed enough times that I'm not going to celebrate until we have a favorable ruling and start seeing the SCOTUS slap the lower courts around when they abuse our rights.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Wouldn't that just be the status quo? States already do that.

Right now States do it piecemeal and subject to suit. With SCOTUS "approval to regulate" States can disregard the 2A with impunity because they can regulate to the point of irrelevancy.

Want a gun in Ca? $10K in "fees", 2 years of psych testing and evaluation, waiver of ALL your privacy rights and permanent authorization for warrantless searches of your person, home and effects at any time EVEN IF your application is "denied", 1 year of "processing time" on your application to your local LEO for approval to apply to the State, 3 years of "processing time" on your State application, and eventually you win the "denied" letter because you haven't shown any "special need" to purchase a gun and transport it home.

Under such an absurd scenario, would you even consider going down that path? Probably not. Yet, if SCOTUS allows States to "regulate" the bearing of arms, some States will go that far. One need only look at CA, NY, NJ, MA, DC, and the rest to know they will.

Thus the question for Cert is, on the one hand, a bit terrifying because we already know the kind of nonsense our judicial appellate system can come up with in order to form a "consensus" necessary for an opinion.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by IVC

but because SCOTUS might be worried about appearing to take an avalanche of 2A cases.

Well they do have a 10 years of catching up to do, so it would hardly be unjustifiable for them to take an avalanche of 2a cases right now.

Sort of like how I couldn't blame a guy for sleeping with 10 girls in one week after his sexless marriage ended.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

"Um, wait a second, property is property, and not all handguns are concealable or unusually dangerous. You can't use a blanket licensing requirement and related regulation to take away one's control of personal property or to classify something for which it is not in order to effect a ban on free exercise."

This case is not going to be about property rights or enabling NYC residents to go to NJ shooting ranges. Even antis have figured it out and are panicking...

[IVC]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

We're tending to assume that we had 4-5 conservative justices who decided to take the case and give us the goodies we want. But you could have had cert granted based on Roberts and some of the fascist justices voting to grant cert because they think they can get a ruling which we think would be horrible.

If they wanted to do this, they had over a dozen cases they could've used as a vehicle and while they had Kennedy on their side.

Sure much of this is speculation, but we are talking about educated guesses. The leftist justices didn't wait for Kavanaugh's confirmation to make an anti-gun statement. That's practically a fact. We *are* going to win. The question is only how much of the 2A jurisprudence the court is willing to address at one time.

We should get at least that 2A is a right that extends outside the home. In other words, we are almost certainly getting "carry" out of this case. Speculation is on how and whether we get something else.

In reality, 2A is very simple and all we need is to have SCOTUS enforce its treatment as it would any other right. We are not asking for anything special or any crazy interpretation. Carry is a fundamental part of 2A (as in "bear") and the court needs to simply recognize this basic fact. Let antis lose their minds...

[ritter]

Originally Posted by IVC

We should get at least that 2A is a right that extends outside the home. In other words, we are almost certainly getting "carry" out of this case. Speculation is on how and whether we get something else.

In reality, 2A is very simple and all we need is to have SCOTUS enforce its treatment as it would any other right. We are not asking for anything special or any crazy interpretation. Carry is a fundamental part of 2A (as in "bear") and the court needs to simply recognize this basic fact. Let antis lose their minds...

And all of this was already in Heller, reconfirmed and incorporated against the states by McDonald. There is nothing new here, only three Heller/McDonald justices and two new justices re reconfirming those two decisions.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

What's truly astonishing is this could either be huge or a huge nothingburger.

The real victim here is SCOTUS.

It is probably going to be huge. There have been bigger cases that were turned down in the past few years and the conservative justices have made their displeasure publicly known. They are hungry and probably not pleased with how the lower courts have bastardized Heller&McDonald.

[randomBytes]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Slate claims SCOTUS hasn't addressed public carry. SCOTUS has, not once but twice, and Heller v. DC cited as authorities state decisions in which publicly open carrying was protected whereas convictions for carrying concealed public or private were upheld.

Granted it's been 10 years since I read Heller, but all those citations were to support the notion that 2A was an individual right and always recognized as such. Heck they even mention carrying a gun in your pocket.

While it is true that 19th century preferred open carry, and could block concealed *because* open was ok, the 2A says nothing about how arms must be carried.

[CCWFacts]

Coverage links without click trackers:

The Atlantic

WaPo

Slate

CNBC

If Slate and The Atlantic are having a cow over this, then it confirms KC's point that this is a good thing for us.

I'm going to start a movie list of depressing movies for KC to watch, because at this point, the only real risk we have is the possibility of KC becoming optimistic and ruining everything.

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

Slate claims SCOTUS hasn't addressed public carry. SCOTUS has, not once but twice, and Heller v. DC cited as authorities state decisions in which publicly open carrying was protected whereas convictions for carrying concealed public or private were upheld.

Dude... you keep on saying that. SCOTUS has cited authorities that have dealt with public open carrying but SCOTUS hasn't addressed it in its own rulings. SCOTUS in Heller also cited an authority that said it's ok to disarm Catholics. That's not the same thing as SCOTUS saying it's ok to disarm Catholics. In fact the authority cited by SCOTUS in Heller even used a derogatory term for Catholics!

Anyway the Slate article makes clear, they believe this case is addressing public carry:

It has not heard a Second Amendment case since, leaving most lower courts to assume that the right to bear arms applies “in the home,” as the justices ruled. But on Tuesday, the court agreed to review a New York City law that limits gun owners’ ability to transport their guns outside the home. And it appears quite likely that the new conservative majority will, for the very first time, extend the Second Amendment beyond the front door and out into the streets, unleashing lower courts to strike down long-standing restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.

... groups like the National Rifle Association have urged the courts to create a constitutional right to public carry. The goal is to prohibit the government from barring “concealed carry” and “open carry” of firearms, allowing most Americans to possess a gun in public, whether it’s hidden or flaunted. Results have been mixed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found a right to concealed carry outside the home. So did the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, found no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun in public. And the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has split the baby, upholding limitations on concealed carry while invalidating restrictions on public carry.

And I like that. Let's talk about public carry for self defense (ie, a functional, accessible, loaded gun, not something disassembled in a locked case). That's the issue. It's obvious that states can regulate the mode of carry, just like they can regulate the procedure for registering to vote, the business hours of book stores, etc. What they can't do is say, you can't carry in public, you can't vote, you can't sell books.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

If Slate and The Atlantic are having a cow over this, then it confirms

..that they are hysterical liberal rags without a clue.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

KC, please do us all a favor and watch some depressing movies, to get yourself out of any optimistic moods, because I think a successful outcome depends on KC never becoming optimistic about it.

Well, I won't disappoint. Let's think this through for a minute. Suppose, as is likely, that SCOTUS defines the standard of review to be used for 2A cases. And let's be "optimistic" and suppose that they give us one of two possibilities:

1. Strict scrutiny
2. Text, history, and tradition

Let's look at strict scrutiny first. Strict scrutiny requires that the law:

1. involve a compelling government interest,
2. be "narrowly tailored",
3. and use the "least restrictive means" to achieve its purpose

Faithfully applied, it's not bad as things go, but that's really only when applied to other rights that don't involve the use of instruments that, through abuse or neglect, will kill people. Laws implicating the right to arms automatically pass the first test, because the interest in question is "public safety". "Narrowly tailored" is a subjective judgment call, and therefore is a hurdle that courts will abuse mightily. And "least restrictive means" is as well -- we know from First Amendment jurisprudence that laws pass "strict scrutiny" even when they aren't making use of the least restrictive means. An example here is the requirement for acquisition of a permit for demonstrations in public. The least restrictive means for that would be a prior notification requirement. But laws requiring permits have been deemed to pass "strict scrutiny" anyway.

End result: you'll find that the lower courts will deem that all sorts of laws pass "strict scrutiny", because it's really a subjective judgment call and they'll want to uphold the challenged laws.

In any case, all methods of scrutiny are methods that courts use to decide, on a case by case basis, whether the right is really worth insisting upon. We know this because a requirement for the invocation of scrutiny is that the right be infringed by the law. Scrutiny does not define the boundaries of the right -- that boundary has already been broken at the point that scrutiny is invoked. So by invoking scrutiny, the court is deciding whether or not to allow the infringement to stand.

--

So what about text, history, and tradition, then? Well, this too won't automatically save you unless it is extremely well defined, and probably not even then. The reason is that you can always find something in history to support upholding the law, and claim it to be "tradition".

A somewhat well-defined method for "text, history, and tradition" might be:

1. The meaning of the text is exactly what it says, based on the definitions of the words used as they were at the time they were used. When there is no ambiguity in the text, the court is mandated to follow the text as written. This is because you presume that the authors meant exactly what they said, and said exactly what they meant.
2. If there is ambiguity (multiple applicable definitions) in the words used in the text, then you must examine the historical context to determine the proper meaning to apply, with the history closest to the time the words were penned carrying the greatest weight. The purpose is to determine the meaning intended by the authors.
3. If ambiguity remains, then you examine historical evidence to determine the mindset of the authors, since it's the intended meaning that one is attempting to determine.
4. If there's still ambiguity at that point, then one must fall back to the applicable traditions that were in place at the time the text was penned to decide the issue, which of course requires discovery of that tradition through historical analysis.

Applying the above to the 2nd Amendment, the end result would be that few laws would survive, because the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment on the basis of the definitions of the words used is that no law or action which infringes (i.e. "to violate ; to destroy ; to hinder" -- see page 1041 of Samuel Johnson's A dictionary of the English language) the right to arms is allowable, as the right shall not be "infringed".

The historical context makes clear that "to hinder" is the closest meaning intended by the founders. We know this because the Revolutionary War was started as a result of the British going after the firearms of the colonists. The colonists would still have had their swords, so the right to keep and bear arms would not have been utterly destroyed by the British action. Nevertheless, that was enough of a violation to justify revolutionary action. If it's enough to justify revolutionary action, it's easily enough to be considered an "infringement".


But if the Supreme Court leaves "text, history, and tradition" as a nebulous thing, then the end result will be that the lower courts will pick and choose those elements so as to achieve the outcome they desire. We see this in the Heller dissents, for instance.

The purpose of defining a rigorous methodology isn't to prevent lower courts from abusing their power. It's to make it obvious to all when they do so.

--

The conclusion from all of the above is that the Supreme Court must clarify the standard of review, but I see no way for it to do so in such a way as to prevent the lower courts from achieving the very same thing they've already achieved: refusal to strike infringing laws. That means that the guidance the Court brings is really intended for honest courts. And for that, I think it would be most desirable and appropriate for the standard to be text, history, and tradition, something like what I outlined above. After all, the Constitution is a written document, written documents exist to convey the meaning intended by the authors, and thus it is only the intended meaning that matters -- only a "text, history, and tradition" approach can consistently yield results consistent with the original intended meaning of the text. It is thus only in that way that we can properly return to our roots, and regain the founding spirit that made this country the beacon of liberty and opportunity that it was.

And obviously, the Court should clarify the standard in a rigorous fashion, so as to make plain when the lower courts are running amok.

[OleCuss]

I appreciate all the well-reasoned comments. I'm not as confident although I think it is is a hopeful situation.

Does anyone remember what happened when Obamacare went before SCOTUS?

In the end I recollect it went something like this: Roberts effectively re-wrote the law. The conservatives disagreed with his opinion. The fascists disagreed with his opinion and concurred. The only justice who thought Roberts got it right was - Roberts.

Roberts disagreed with the core argument of the winner and agreed with the core argument of the loser.

It's kind of easy to be sure about what the SCOTUS will do. But that certainty doesn't mean we have it right.

I'm hopeful but not at all certain we get a very helpful win.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by IVC

The question in Pena is another very valid question, that of regulating the right out of existence with the microstamping. I would say it's 50-50, not because there is anything wrong with Pena, but because SCOTUS might be worried about appearing to take an avalanche of 2A cases. On merits alone, Pena should be a slam dunk for review.

If they want to be perceived as not treating the 2nd Amendment as disfavored right, then they have to take at least as many cases as they take for other rights.

[wireless]

I'm not sure what the timeline is on Pena, but they could make a ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York, and then when Pena and some carry cases come in front of them, reverse and remand with the footnote "See NYSRPA vs City of NY".

[ritter]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Suppose, as is likely, that SCOTUS defines the standard of review to be used for 2A cases. And let's be "optimistic" and suppose that they give us one of two possibilities:

[snip]

Thank you for the education on the difference between strict scrutiny and text, history and tradition. It is much appreciated by this legal layman.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Then you clearly haven't read Heller v. DC,

Look...

Heller says very very clearly that it's ok to disarm Catholics because it's citing this source:

3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House . . . any Arms . . . ”

That's on Page 9 of Heller. Just like they cite all these authorities concerning open carry, they cite an authority saying it's ok to disarm Catholics.

By your logic, the Supreme Court wants to disarm Catholics!

Which is absurd obviously, which is why I'm using this example.

Do you not understand the difference between a Supreme Court precedent and the citation of an authority in an opinion? Apparently you don't get it, so please, go ahead and start open carrying, because Heller referenced some 19th century statute, and please start also disarming Catholics, because Heller also references some 17th century statute. Same logic right?

[mshill]

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

I love the hysterical headline of that Slate hit piece!

And there is this bull****:

There are good answers to these questions. Right-to-carry laws, like those in Texas, appear to contribute to violent crime and increase homicide rates. Individuals carrying a weapon are more likely to escalate incidents of road rage and domestic conflicts into fatal shootings. Cities and states have a strong interest in curbing individuals’ ability to bring deadly weapons into the streets. And when New York City did allow residents to take their weapons to shooting ranges outside the city, the rule proved extremely difficult to enforce: Gun owners simply carried their weapons around and, when caught, insisted that they were heading to target practice.

Soo many lies.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Then you clearly haven't read Heller v. DC, nor have you seen the Scalia interview.

And neither, apparently, have Thomas or Gorsuch. Right?

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Then you clearly haven't read Heller v. DC, nor have you seen the Scalia interview.

If you're serious, you'll go back and read the precedents - the tests done in each case are quite revealing...not just on manner of carry or location, but the firearm itself...

=8-)

You mean citations such as Bliss v Commonwealth (footnote 9)?

One of their citations holds that concealed carry is included in the right to bear arms. Others hold the opposite.

So which is it?

You don't get to pick and choose which citations that addressed carry are the ones that matter for carry within the context of Heller. Either they all do (in which case Heller is inconclusive as regards concealed carry, but clearly indicates that open carry is protected), or none do (in which case Heller really doesn't say anything about carry beyond that the right exists). Which is it?

[BryMan92]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

You mean citations such as Bliss v Commonwealth (footnote 9)?

One of their citations holds that concealed carry is included in the right to bear arms. Others hold the opposite.

So which is it?

You don't get to pick and choose which citations are the ones that matters for carry within the context of Heller. Either they all do (in which case Heller is inconclusive), or none do (in which case Heller really doesn't say anything about carry beyond that the right exists). Which is it?

Bliss involved a State-level Constitution, for what it is worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...._Commonwealth

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by BryMan92

Bliss involved a State-level Constitution, for what it is worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...._Commonwealth

And so did all of the other cited cases. The Bill of Rights wasn't considered to be operative against the states at the time these cases were litigated. It wasn't until after the Civil War, and the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that the Bill of Rights became operative against the states.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

...

Anyway the Slate article makes clear, they believe this case is addressing public carry:

It has not heard a Second Amendment case since, leaving most lower courts to assume that the right to bear arms applies “in the home,” as the justices ruled. But on Tuesday, the court agreed to review a New York City law that limits gun owners’ ability to transport their guns outside the home. And it appears quite likely that the new conservative majority will, for the very first time, extend the Second Amendment beyond the front door and out into the streets, unleashing lower courts to strike down long-standing restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.

... groups like the National Rifle Association have urged the courts to create a constitutional right to public carry. The goal is to prohibit the government from barring “concealed carry” and “open carry” of firearms, allowing most Americans to possess a gun in public, whether it’s hidden or flaunted. Results have been mixed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found a right to concealed carry outside the home. So did the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, found no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun in public. And the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has split the baby, upholding limitations on concealed carry while invalidating restrictions on public carry.

...

Gee, who'da thunk it?

Originally Posted by Paladin

...

Just going by the "Question Presented" section of the petition (2018 Sept 04 See https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html), I'd say this could be a VERY important case. Heller said there's two rights in the 2nd A: RKA and RBA. Focus on the 2nd paragraph in the Q Presented section: under which prong do you think this case will be decided? My guess is RBA. That will be a first for SCOTUS. (By implication: this case is unlikely to be of any help re. "keep"-ing (making, buying/selling, owning/possessing, using) standard cap mags, AWs, suppressors, AOWs, SBR/SBS, etc)

My guess is they'll (hopefully via Thomas' pen as his "swan song" next year) first step back and do a historical analysis of the RBA, to get a lay of the legal landscape. Like in Heller, we may win "something more than rationale basis" (paraphrased, not exact quote) as the standard of review for RBA out of that. But most of this will be dicta (where people like Nichols will see law...). I haven't decided if they'll get more specific than that re. standard of review for RBA (much less RKBA).

Then they'll clearly identify the relevant law that applies to these specific facts and then come up with the suitable holding. The holding will be, to use CCWFacts' wording: "very narrow and not very exciting."

Will we get something from the intermediate step of identifying and proclaiming the suitable law to help us with RBA (CCWs or LOC) in CA??? That's anyone's guess at this point. My guess is nothing directly (i.e., by just citing this case), but something that can be used in our Carry cases still before lower appeals courts (en banc and 3-judge panels). Those ACs will then declare the law and deciding those cases before we get a direct ruling by SCOTUS on RBA. Even if those ACs are not CA9 (i.e., not controlling law), they may influence district or appeals court judges in CA9 to rule in our favor.

That's just my "off the cuff" impression, thoughts of how this may play out. IOW, do NOT dismiss this case out-of-hand.

But once again, I'll leave it to others to look into and watch this case closely. (FGG? Hello???)

How do I feel about SCOTUS taking this case, then?

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

And I like that. Let's talk about public carry for self defense (ie, a functional, accessible, loaded gun, not something disassembled in a locked case). That's the issue. It's obvious that states can regulate the mode of carry, just like they can regulate the procedure for registering to vote, the business hours of book stores, etc. What they can't do is say, you can't carry in public, you can't vote, you can't sell books.

And they can't require you to justify, to provide Good Cause subject to their approval, for voting, reading a book, preaching on a street corner, for wearing a MAGA cap....

ETA: Thanks CCWFacts for the links to articles. I've got to workout now but will read them later. Right now my impression is that this case could be a very important/foundational "set up" for knocking subsequent Carry case(s) out of the ball park. But, again, that's just an off the cuff appraisal at this time.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by Paladin

And they can't require you to justify, to provide Good Cause subject to their approval, for voting, reading a book, preaching on a street corner, for wearing a MAGA cap....

Exactly. And they can't require a $10,000 registration fee, or a one year training course, or a test, or documentation of your need to do those things.

And the 2A is just as good as any of the other rights. SCOTUS said in Heller:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.

And yet this "freestanding interest balancing approach" is exactly what the states are doing, with their two-step analysis and levels of scrutiny and it's especially what NY is trying to do with this particularly crazy regulatory scheme they have. I believe, and I hope, that SCOTUS is using this case to tell the lower courts to stop being weasels.

Sorry, don't mean to insult weasels, which are actually cool and cute and beneficial, unlike our courts:

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Coverage links without click trackers:

The Atlantic

WaPo

Slate

CNBC

If Slate and The Atlantic are having a cow over this, then it confirms KC's point that this is a good thing for us.

Thanks for the links to those articles, CCWFacts. All were worth reading.

From WaPo: "The decision to hear the case in the term that begins in October may signal that the reinforced conservative majority on the court is ready to examine more laws that restrict gun rights."

From the CNBC article: "A decision is expected by late June."

Hearing & deciding this case this term would be a great set up for Carry cases next term, esp if RBG is replaced.

From Slate: "The case thus marks an effort to inch the Supreme Court toward establishing a right to public carry without forcing the justices to tear down hundreds of laws in a single, sweeping ruling....

Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. Lower courts, now packed with pro-gun Trump nominees, will swiftly tear down restrictions on concealed and open carry. A central premise of Heller and McDonald—that the Second Amendment protects handguns “in the home”—will be cast aside. New York State Rifle will be the first shot in a coming constitutional revolution."

This is exactly what I predicted too. NYSRPA will be a nationwide (HI to MA) legal "earthquake" of magnitude 3.0 to 4.0 -- a fundamental shock and wake up call. But the 6.5+ quakes that cause "wailing and gnashing of teeth" by the antis will be the Carry cases fleshing the RBA out (LOC, May Issue CCWs/GC), and other new RKA cases too: AWs, std caps, SBR/SBS, suppressors, etc.

[scbauer]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

You can’t bring fruits to Hawaii for example.

I’m talking about New York. Also, you don’t have a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Fruit. ALSO, there are legitimate reasons for that, like the decimation of the Hawaiian ecosystem or something.

My wife tried to smuggle (unknowingly) a lemon from Hawaii to California. The Fruit Police caught her!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Next is the question of when will it be heard. In my notes I have “SCOTUS doesn’t take for that session any case after the Monday after MLK Day.” If that is correct, this case should be heard and decided this term (i.e., we should get a decision before 2019 July 01).

bump

Others should regularly check the docket to see when they assign a date for orals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by Paladin

bump

Others should regularly check the docket to see when they assign a date for orals.

You can subscribe for updates at the top-left of the page
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...york-new-york/

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by ajb78

You can subscribe for updates at the top-left of the page
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...york-new-york/

Thanks, but out of curiosity I looked into how long after Heller and McDonald were granted cert were orals dates set.

Heller: petition filed Sept 04, granted Nov 20, orals set on Jan 22 for March 18.

McDonald: petition filed June 09, granted Sept 30, orals set on Nov 30 for March 02.

I guess I'm in no hurry either....

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by ajb78

You can subscribe for updates at the top-left of the page
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...york-new-york/

I just noticed SCOTUSblog has it listed for this term ("OT 2018") on that link.

If it is heard this term, that means a decision released probably on June 24th! (currently their last day for issuing orders)

The countdown has begun: 5 months to go!



(I'm going to get obese with all the popcorn I'll be eating over the next couple of years! )

[wireless]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I just noticed SCOTUSblog has it listed for this term ("OT 2018") on that link.

If it is heard this term, that means a decision released probably on June 24th! (currently their last day for issuing orders)

The countdown has begun: 5 months to go!



(I'm going to get obese with all the popcorn I'll be eating over the next couple of years! )

It looks like they hear 10-11 cases per month and there are currently 23 petitions that have been granted cert, but are not yet scheduled. I think April is the last month they hear cases? So, if it doesn't get scheduled this term, it will be one of the first ones next term. From what I remember, cases heard in October have opinions published in a few months?

[kuug]

It is almost guaranteed to be heard in october and dealt with in 2020. It is far too late and there are too many cases left unfinished before they get to this one. If I was a betting man the reason it probably took so long is because Roberts wanted to delay it as a controversial case.

[Phiremin]

Originally Posted by IVC

because SCOTUS might be worried about appearing to take an avalanche of 2A cases.

If the court takes this opportunity to define the standard of review as strict scrutiny, they may not take another case for years.
My fear is that a decision imposing a strict scrutiny standard becomes a Pyrrhic victory. It’s like hitting a giant reset button in 2A litigation. Decisions that relied the intermediate scrutiny or rational basis standard are essentials invalidated because the court used the wrong standard.
Will scotus take a “right to carry” case? Probably not. The issue isn’t ripe. The lower courts need to weigh in applying strict scrutiny.
Now, with more Trump judges, perhaps we score a few more wins. But in general, liberal judges will generally go through the gymnastics to support whatever gun control measures a state dreams up. In the mean time, restrictive laws remain in place and we all grow old as the issues are relitigated.
And the big winner is Justice Roberts. He can say he defended the 2A, but doesn’t have to touch another case for years.

[OleCuss]

I'm wondering if the timing of the hearing of this case might be pushed for this year just to keep it at least partially out of the 2020 general election?

If the case is heard in 2020 and the decision handed down in late June, then a decision supporting our right to self-defense will likely be a huge issue at the Democrats' July 2020 convention and a pretty big one at the August Republican convention.

I doubt Roberts would like the contribution to the politics and will try to avoid that. So if he can I'd bet he tries to get it heard and the decision out in June of this year. Alternatively it would not be stunning if it were heard after the summer break if he can ensure that the opinion was out long before the conventions.

If he can do it, it'll be out in late June.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

I'm wondering if the timing of the hearing of this case might be pushed for this year just to keep it at least partially out of the 2020 general election?

If the case is heard in 2020 and the decision handed down in late June, then a decision supporting our right to self-defense will likely be a huge issue at the Democrats' July 2020 convention and a pretty big one at the August Republican convention.

I doubt Roberts would like the contribution to the politics and will try to avoid that. So if he can I'd bet he tries to get it heard and the decision out in June of this year. Alternatively it would not be stunning if it were heard after the summer break if he can ensure that the opinion was out long before the conventions.

If he can do it, it'll be out in late June.

I don't think any strings will be pulled to speed up this case.

That being said the calendar for SCOTUS has yet to be released past February, so I don't know that it's a formality this gets pushed to next term. There seems to be enough cases ahead to fill the argument schedule but there were numerous cases granted cert at the same time that may be related and thus be argued together, which frees up some space.
Even if it does get pushed to next term, would this necessarily be one of the blockbuster cases that gets released in June? Not convinced about that either.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

If the court takes this opportunity to define the standard of review as strict scrutiny, they may not take another case for years.
My fear is that a decision imposing a strict scrutiny standard becomes a Pyrrhic victory. It’s like hitting a giant reset button in 2A litigation. Decisions that relied the intermediate scrutiny or rational basis standard are essentials invalidated because the court used the wrong standard.
Will scotus take a “right to carry” case? Probably not. The issue isn’t ripe. The lower courts need to weigh in applying strict scrutiny.
Now, with more Trump judges, perhaps we score a few more wins. But in general, liberal judges will generally go through the gymnastics to support whatever gun control measures a state dreams up. In the mean time, restrictive laws remain in place and we all grow old as the issues are relitigated.
And the big winner is Justice Roberts. He can say he defended the 2A, but doesn’t have to touch another case for years.

You get it. Only it will be worse. This will be a narrowly tailored decision that lower courts will ignore with impunity. We get nothing for the next gen years, just steadily deteriorating rights.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

My fear is that a decision imposing a strict scrutiny standard becomes a Pyrrhic victory. It’s like hitting a giant reset button in 2A litigation. Decisions that relied the intermediate scrutiny or rational basis standard are essentials invalidated because the court used the wrong standard.

Originally Posted by Offwidth

You get it. Only it will be worse. This will be a narrowly tailored decision that lower courts will ignore with impunity. We get nothing for the next gen years, just steadily deteriorating rights.

That's just the "battered CA gun owner syndrome" talking.

You can be personally pessimistic about what is about to happen because you don't want to raise your hope, but blindly proclaiming that we cannot win is irrational. It's the old hedging your bets, where you'll take being wrong if we win, but at least you'll be able to claim you have been right if we lose. Try that strategy with your own life and you'll be a couch potato unable to accomplish anything.

So, let's stick to rational aspects of this discussion, which is "what can we expect the ruling to be." It should be based on reality of how and why SCOTUS takes cases and on the recent changes to the composition of the court.