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
  #801  
Old 07-07-2019, 9:58 AM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The odds that the SC took this case simply to kill a very stupid, obscure law that effects only as few thousand people at most are very low.

My money is on the concept that they took the case to set a standard of review for the entire country, which is much more befitting of their real purpose.

The really delicious part is that the 2nd Circuit claimed to review the law under "intermediate scrutiny". Unless the SC is planning to invent a new level of scrutiny somewhere between intermediate and strict, there is really only one place to go.

I am fervently hoping that the 2nd Circuit just slammed the window on its own ****. The time for NY to back down was when the case was in the 2nd Circuit. If they had mooted it then we would not be at the SC.

Maybe one of our legal eagles can comment on the position NY will find themselves in when they argued all was fine and good at the 2nd Circuit, but now might have to argue something else before the SC.
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 07-07-2019, 2:04 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If NY is saying they will not/cannot argue the merits of the law (as it no longer exists) then what, exactly, is left for orals? It would seem there is no longer an argument so what does Scotus do if the case is not mooted?
Do they simply analyze why the second circuit got it wrong, vacate and remand with new instructions? Shouldn't that take even less time since there's no back and forth anymore? I'm not being impatient, really I'm just wondering how this will work out.
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 07-08-2019, 7:17 AM
boxcab boxcab is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any chance the SC will send it back down to the lower court to review the changes to the new law, and to see if it fits a standard of review that the SC will specify?




.
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 07-08-2019, 7:42 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 848
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

NY city is claiming things are moot

yet the new law still requires asking for permission to even leave your primary permitted premises

Chapter 5 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York. Section 5-23(a) ............... An authorized area for hunting, provided that the licensee requested and received an appropriate amendment to the handgun license from the Police Department.

It also still forbids any other non NY resident but otherwise US law abiding citizen from bringing a firearm into the city without first getting permission.

The conditions on ownership, transportation and the ordinance requiring them to seek permission even to move the firearm to a gunsmith still are there.

The requirements that the owner seek a permit to even remove it from the city for permitted hunting or repair all seems to strike at the original argument that lawful ownership and lawful activities are still burdened unnecessarily as well still subject to the whims of a government employee and them granting you permission or choosing not to.

i wonder if these changes while still leaving these strings attached truly moots this or if it is just a veiled attempt to not change the entirety of the regulatory scheme
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 07-08-2019, 7:58 AM
Frito Bandido's Avatar
Frito Bandido Frito Bandido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
NY city is claiming things are moot

yet the new law still requires asking for permission to even leave your primary permitted premises

Chapter 5 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York. Section 5-23(a) ............... An authorized area for hunting, provided that the licensee requested and received an appropriate amendment to the handgun license from the Police Department.

It also still forbids any other non NY resident but otherwise US law abiding citizen from bringing a firearm into the city without first getting permission.
Interesting... so you still have to get a permission slip from NYPD just to transport it out of the City. Does the new rule define what an "authorized area for hunting" even is? Maybe it's a one square kilometer area in rural upstate New York and unless you're going to that narrowly defined "authorized hunting area", then you're SOL.
__________________
When shopping at Amazon.com, enter Shop42A.com in the address bar, and Amazon donates money to the Calguns Foundation.

Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 07-08-2019, 8:19 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
It doesn't have to hear the case. Correct. But it can go further than vacate and I hope will.
The only thing left at that point is a per curiam opinion requiring 6 judges at a minimum to sign off. I just don't see a lib joining an opinion that makes for a stricter standard of review, let alone doing it without even hearing argument.
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 07-08-2019, 9:10 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Court has published the schedule for oral arguments in November: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...vember2019.pdf

NYSRPA is not listed.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 07-08-2019, 9:11 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

November argument calendar was released today, and NYSRPA is not on it.
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 07-08-2019, 11:24 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NYSRPA has filed its response letter: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...e%20letter.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 07-08-2019, 1:06 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,791
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

IANAL but my understaidng is...

NY got itself in trouble with this obviously unconstitutional law. They kept on winning in their own liberal courts, and figured all was going to be ok because SCOTUS wouldn't grant cert.

Then, the unthinkable happened and now potentially all of NY's restrictive laws are in jeopardy. Now they are trying to wriggle out of this situation by saying, "comeon guys, we were just joking, we didn't mean it, we're all friends right?" But SCOTUS aren't fools.
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 07-08-2019, 1:11 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
IANAL but my understaidng is...

NY got itself in trouble with this obviously unconstitutional law. They kept on winning in their own liberal courts, and figured all was going to be ok because SCOTUS wouldn't grant cert.

Then, the unthinkable happened and now potentially all of NY's restrictive laws are in jeopardy. Now they are trying to wriggle out of this situation by saying, "comeon guys, we were just joking, we didn't mean it, we're all friends right?" But SCOTUS aren't fools.
And Paul Clement's reply: You're not getting off that easy.
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 07-08-2019, 1:34 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am hoping that it is not just all of NY's laws, but CA, MD and IL too.
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 07-08-2019, 1:49 PM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,287
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
The Court has published the schedule for oral arguments in November: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...vember2019.pdf

NYSRPA is not listed.
This is bad, right?
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 07-08-2019, 2:13 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
This is bad, right?
Ehh. I can speculate either way. In the absence of any other information regarding the Court's reasons, it just is what it is. Neither good nor bad.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 07-08-2019, 2:20 PM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 379
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
This is bad, right?
Maybe, Maybe not. Only the court knows. Its certainly bad in the sense that its still in limbo and thus several CA cases are in limbo along with it but it doesn't mean that the court is going to favor with NYC either.
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 07-08-2019, 2:38 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 47
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

New York City must have annoyed the court again, because the clerk just rejected their letter from last week. They also rejected NYSRPA's, but I assume that's because the letter it's responding to is gone.

You can see the latest entries on the case's page:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-280.html

Last edited by FirearmFino; 07-08-2019 at 2:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 07-08-2019, 3:01 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NYC's desperation breeds contempt. I really think it is just posturing--I cannot imagine that, aside from the issue of the constitutionality of this particular rule or ordinance, is the core issue as to the proper standard of review of 2A cases.

The liberal circuits have bent over backwards to uphold laws under a standard of review that is "rational basis review in intermediate scrutiny clothing." Some have gone so far as to adopt a sliding scale analysis, giving little weight to laws that restrict activities that are "not important enough to insist upon" and that therefore are entitled to no deference as a right. Under their review standard, there is no violation unless the exercise of the right is completely foreclosed, i.e., "infringement" means "elimination" and anything less than that is not unconstitutional. Heller specifically rejected a sliding scale as appropriate, yet it has been adopted despite flying in the face of Heller.

Obviously NYC does not want this history of victories to end, which it will, so it would seem that it would have every incentive to argue for a standard of review that gives great weight to regularly presented argument that "public safety" is a trump card for all challenges to these laws, even in the absence of any evidence demonstrating their efficacy. I will be shocked if it just punts, allowing the Court a free hand to fashion the appropriate analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 07-08-2019, 5:41 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

New fall schedule is out an NYSRPA is nowhere to be found. It's their oldest case that they have not moved on
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 07-08-2019, 8:00 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The drama seems heavy on this case. What will happen? which way will it turn? When will we know? Stay tuned for previews of next week's episode.
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 07-08-2019, 8:57 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jack-booted gov thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,343
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
This is bad, right?
Oral arguments aren't necessary for per curiam decisions

"2A is BoR, treat it as such. Apply strict scrutiny then come back."
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #821  
Old 07-08-2019, 10:23 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

But doesn't a per curium take six justices? Can Thomas wrangle five more votes for a case like this that could upend the liberal gun control apple cart?
Me thinks perhaps not.
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 07-08-2019, 11:06 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
New York City must have annoyed the court again, because the clerk just rejected their letter from last week. They also rejected NYSRPA's, but I assume that's because the letter it's responding to is gone.

You can see the latest entries on the case's page:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-280.html
OK, now is this good or bad for our side?

I am thinking it is good, since it takes the mooting issue off the table, but maybe other minds will have a different take on it.

As frustrating as the lack of scheduling is, a little more time can give Ginsburg and Breyer more chances to retire.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As much as it might be very hard to get 6 votes, it is not completely impossible. What if a liberal Justice has undisclosed health problems and knows DJT will appoint a strong conservative? Maybe it is better to get a ruling they won't like now rather than a ruling they really won't like in the near future.
Reply With Quote
  #823  
Old 07-09-2019, 2:11 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 656
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

IIRC, didn't Ginsburg recently mention that a few upcoming high profile cases were going to be 5-4, and even go so far as to describe one of them as a gun case? Why do I get this s***y feeling that Roberts is going wobbly, possibly getting wooed by NYC's mooting attempts...
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 07-09-2019, 9:16 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
OK, now is this good or bad for our side?

I am thinking it is good, since it takes the mooting issue off the table, but maybe other minds will have a different take on it.

As frustrating as the lack of scheduling is, a little more time can give Ginsburg and Breyer more chances to retire.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As much as it might be very hard to get 6 votes, it is not completely impossible. What if a liberal Justice has undisclosed health problems and knows DJT will appoint a strong conservative? Maybe it is better to get a ruling they won't like now rather than a ruling they really won't like in the near future.
It doesn’t take mootness of the table. It just signals that the Justices will only consider mootness if presented in accordance with the Court’s rules, i.e., through a formal motion, or in merits briefing; not via a letter to the clerk.
Reply With Quote
  #825  
Old 07-09-2019, 9:57 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This not accepting for filing - is it a ***** slap, or normal thing for various letters of such nature?
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 07-09-2019, 10:39 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 560
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
This not accepting for filing - is it a ***** slap, or normal thing for various letters of such nature?
NYC is trying for a "do over" for their prior denied motion to extend the briefing schedule because of the mootness issue they're trying to raise prematurely.

It's improper. But had this been an actual *****-slap, the court would have commented on it via an order of some type.

Not accepting the letter for filing is a signal that the Court probably isn't going to moot the case. If they were going to do that (once the laws actually were passed and in place) they could have allowed the letter to be filed as a "repeat notice" of some type.

Basically, the rejection of the letter is a rejection of the argument. As for orals, I don't think we'll see it on the docket until early next spring. The court is going to try to bury the decision (either way) in the election buffoonery over the summer and then run and hide like they usually do on issues of this level of importance.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 07-09-2019, 1:21 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
NYC is trying for a "do over" for their prior denied motion to extend the briefing schedule because of the mootness issue they're trying to raise prematurely.

It's improper. But had this been an actual *****-slap, the court would have commented on it via an order of some type.

Not accepting the letter for filing is a signal that the Court probably isn't going to moot the case. If they were going to do that (once the laws actually were passed and in place) they could have allowed the letter to be filed as a "repeat notice" of some type.

Basically, the rejection of the letter is a rejection of the argument.
I completely disagree. The argument has not been rejected, and the rejection of filing is a signal of nothing more than that the court takes very seriously its rules, which very explicitly require a request for dismissal on mootness grounds be filed as a formal motion, not by a summary letter to the clerk.

Rule 21(2)(b): “A motion to dismiss as moot (or a suggestion of mootness) . . . shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.1, and 40 copies shall be filed[.]”
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 07-09-2019, 1:53 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,877
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
It doesn’t take mootness of the table. It just signals that the Justices will only consider mootness if presented in accordance with the Court’s rules, i.e., through a formal motion, or in merits briefing; not via a letter to the clerk.
Hush. Don't let New York know.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 07-09-2019, 2:11 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Clement's reply letter pretty much summed up everything that was wrong with NY's request saying, basically, 'that's not how we do this'.
The court has procedures that must be followed, no shortcuts allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 07-10-2019, 1:27 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,877
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

What would be Christmas in July would be if SCOTUS aggregated a bunch of other 2nd Amendment cases out there with this case just to poke NY in the eye.

Or maybe I will win the lottery.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 07-10-2019, 5:11 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 793
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2019/

Question: does the ordering of the unscheduled cases on the page, above, reflect anything more than random happenstance? NYSRPA is dead last...openly wondering if it will be the final case heard of the 2019 session.
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 07-10-2019, 7:23 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2019/

Question: does the ordering of the unscheduled cases on the page, above, reflect anything more than random happenstance? NYSRPA is dead last...openly wondering if it will be the final case heard of the 2019 session.
Seeing as ScotusBlog is not affiliated with the court itself I would say it doesn't mean anything...but then again maybe they have a better understanding or insight into whats happening and they're not expecting anything to happen anytime soon.
My opinion is its a definite maybe...maybe.
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 07-11-2019, 2:25 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,877
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I don't know if you can read this article. It might have a paywall.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...ights-lawsuit/

Here's part of it for fair use commentary:

"But there are certain situations where the courts won’t consider a case moot. After all, a government could keep violating people’s civil rights and avoid having its laws overturned by simply repealing the law just to enact it again later.

This is precisely the type of situation New York City has manufactured: It’s backing off now, presumably planning to wait until the Supreme Court’s makeup is more favorable. Almost as soon as the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the city reversed course on a law it has spent decades defending tooth and nail and requested that the Court delay the case to allow the city time to remove the rule. Originally, the city planned to have the police make a rule change — not even overturning the law. But the Court denied this request and, suspecting what the city was up to, several lawyers (including me) made sure, in amicus briefs, to address the city’s bad-faith attempt to escape the Court’s grasp."

Perhaps SCOTUS must be Charlie Brown to Lucy with the football being jerked away every time SCOTUS takes up the case ... until it doesn't in which case Lucy wins for eleven months each year and once the court changes enough. THAT would not be Justice. THAT would mean any State could violate any Constitutional right for eleven months each year.

In conclusion:

"New York’s government knows its dealing is underhanded — but the city doesn’t care. It likely knows its laws were unconstitutional, too. The attempt to moot the lawsuit is, and always has been, a scam against the American people."

I disagree with the conclusion. It's not a scam. It's a power grab, an attempt to steal the power of SCOTUS to deprive Americans of their rights.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 07-12-2019, 1:38 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2019/

Question: does the ordering of the unscheduled cases on the page, above, reflect anything more than random happenstance? NYSRPA is dead last...openly wondering if it will be the final case heard of the 2019 session.
Not likely, the final case heard for the 2019 session will be April I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 07-12-2019, 1:40 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
I don't know if you can read this article. It might have a paywall.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...ights-lawsuit/

Here's part of it for fair use commentary:

"But there are certain situations where the courts won’t consider a case moot. After all, a government could keep violating people’s civil rights and avoid having its laws overturned by simply repealing the law just to enact it again later.

This is precisely the type of situation New York City has manufactured: It’s backing off now, presumably planning to wait until the Supreme Court’s makeup is more favorable. Almost as soon as the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the city reversed course on a law it has spent decades defending tooth and nail and requested that the Court delay the case to allow the city time to remove the rule. Originally, the city planned to have the police make a rule change — not even overturning the law. But the Court denied this request and, suspecting what the city was up to, several lawyers (including me) made sure, in amicus briefs, to address the city’s bad-faith attempt to escape the Court’s grasp."

Perhaps SCOTUS must be Charlie Brown to Lucy with the football being jerked away every time SCOTUS takes up the case ... until it doesn't in which case Lucy wins for eleven months each year and once the court changes enough. THAT would not be Justice. THAT would mean any State could violate any Constitutional right for eleven months each year.

In conclusion:

"New York’s government knows its dealing is underhanded — but the city doesn’t care. It likely knows its laws were unconstitutional, too. The attempt to moot the lawsuit is, and always has been, a scam against the American people."

I disagree with the conclusion. It's not a scam. It's a power grab, an attempt to steal the power of SCOTUS to deprive Americans of their rights.
Wouldn't it be a crying shame if SCOTUS rules this case moot but decides to take Rogers instead?
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 07-12-2019, 1:44 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,877
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Wouldn't it be a crying shame if SCOTUS rules this case moot but decides to take Rogers instead?
If SCOTUS does something like that because they've determined that they will take a gun case, then I will Snoopy Dance for a whole day *.

* With breaks for breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, bathroom breaks, and Tucker Carlson.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 07-15-2019, 9:38 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 47
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The New York State bill has been delivered to the governor. He has 30 days to act on it, or the bill is vetoed.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 07-16-2019, 4:33 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
The New York State bill has been delivered to the governor. He has 30 days to act on it, or the bill is vetoed.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752
Wait a minute, what? The bill to moot the lawsuit hasn't been signed yet? If it hasn't been signed, there hasn't been a change of law yet. If there hasn't been a change in law, what was all that letter to the clerk of the Court informing them of a change of law stuff about???

If/when signed, will the change of law still take effect on, IIRC, July 21st (next Sunday)?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-16-2019 at 9:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 07-16-2019, 5:57 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 970
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Wait a minute, what? The bill to moot the lawsuit hasn't been signed yet? If it hasn't been signed, there hasn't been a change of law yet. If there hasn't been a change in law, what was all that letter to the clerk of the Court informing them of a change of law stuff about???
Right, this is at least partially why the court has been dismissive thus far towards NY on the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 07-16-2019, 10:50 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Right, this is at least partially why the court has been dismissive thus far towards NY on the issue.
I see now (post #738) that the change in the city ordinance takes place on July 21st.

The change in state law takes place sometime after the governor signs the bill into law. Per post above, he has 30 days after the bill passed the legislature. That occurred on (under "ACTIONS" https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752)
Quote:
Jul 15, 2019 delivered to governor
Once it is signed, (from the bill https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752)
Quote:
§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-16-2019 at 9:19 PM..
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 2:42 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.