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, 11:03 PM
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

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

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/

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.

Last edited by Prwterbird; 12-04-2018 at 9:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-30-2018, 3:05 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,458
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, 7:55 PM
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 58
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 Prwterbird; 10-31-2018 at 10:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-31-2018, 9:05 AM
Glock21sfsd Glock21sfsd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Susanville
Posts: 366
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, 10:05 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,495
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, 12:34 PM
subaruwrx's Avatar
subaruwrx subaruwrx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 159
iTrader: 7 / 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, 1:33 PM
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 58
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, 8:53 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,458
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 9:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-31-2018, 8:57 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,414
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
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-31-2018 at 9:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-31-2018, 9:16 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,414
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)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-01-2018, 4:21 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 458
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, 4:49 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,458
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, 2:06 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 458
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, 10:54 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,063
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

opposition brief filed

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...Opposition.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-15-2018, 3:48 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,889
iTrader: 1 / 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, 7:33 PM
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 58
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, 3:14 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 458
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, 5:54 PM
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 58
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, 12:50 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
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, 12:58 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: 15,064
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
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, 8:25 PM
LINY's Avatar
LINY LINY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 178
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?
__________________
SLUTS: Subversives, Leftists, Usurpers & Tyrants
When you elect a SLUT, expect to get F___ed!!

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, 8:25 AM
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 58
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 Prwterbird; 11-29-2018 at 11:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-01-2018, 9:48 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 156
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, 10:08 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 458
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, 12:44 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,699
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
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.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-10-2018, 10:31 PM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,488
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, 1:26 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,674
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
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 4:30 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.