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
  #1761  
Old 12-07-2019, 9:42 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...york-new-york/

The State will get the first extension if a case is granted cert. The state attempted to delay a 2nd time and SCOTUS denied it in NYSRPA, but it is possible to file a 2nd extension. In this case Clement filed for an extension and the State agreed. In NYSRPA the petition was granted on January 22nd, Petitioners briefs due May 7th, and Respondents due August 5th. As you can see they agreed to an October 2019 oral argument date, but it didn't actually happen until December 2nd. So 6-8 months after cert just for respondents to file a brief on merits is pretty typical. A brief on merits has not been filed by anyone in those 6 cases, because none of them have been granted cert. If SCOTUS moots this case and picks up another one, we probably won't get an opinion until June 2021.
Personally, after listening to orals (haven't read the briefs) and after long, hard experiences on CGN, I'm steeling myself for a win on mootness and loss on the merits.

After that, I'm hoping for SCOTUS to grant cert and carry over to next term whatever 2nd A cases that they want to decide.

IOW, I'm now preparing myself for no major change this summer, but rather for sometime before 2021 July 01 and maybe 6 months after that for the rubber to actually meet the road.

Don't get me wrong: I hope we have a major win before that. I'm just hardening myself in case we don't.

FWIW, JMO
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-07-2019 at 10:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1762  
Old 12-07-2019, 10:50 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Personally, after listening to orals (haven't read the briefs) and after long, hard experiences on CGN, I'm steeling myself for a win on mootness and loss on the merits.

After that, I'm hoping for SCOTUS to grant cert and carry over to next term whatever 2nd A cases that they want to decide.

IOW, I'm now preparing myself for no major change this summer, but rather for sometime before 2021 July 01 and maybe 6 months after that for the rubber to actually meet the road.

Don't get me wrong: I hope we have a major win before that. I'm just hardening myself in case we don't.

FWIW, JMO

Why do you think we'd lose on the merits? The clase clearly violates Heller. I think Roberts is more likely to concur in a Caentano-like ruling where it doesn't really do much other than rule a very specific action unconstitutional, than he is to side with the liberals on the merits of the case.

Even small wins for us at this point are huge. Every bit of precedent that our side gets, becomes harder to undue in the long run. Just look at abortion. The justices probably aren't going to undue casey or roe. Instead, they will rule that requiring doctor admission privileges is constitutional, or that requiring burial of the fetal remains to be constitutional. This slow walk backwards gives the liberals time to make political wins and stop any big action from happening at SCOTUS by replacing judges in the long run. The same effect will take place if we can build precedent with 2A cases.
Reply With Quote
  #1763  
Old 12-07-2019, 11:46 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Why do you think we'd lose on the merits? The clase clearly violates Heller. I think Roberts is more likely to concur in a Caentano-like ruling where it doesn't really do much other than rule a very specific action unconstitutional, than he is to side with the liberals on the merits of the case.
Re. mootness: Knox -- SCOTUS does not want to open the floodgates by allowing post-cert mootness maneuvers to pay off. That just encourages gamesmanship by the litigants.

Re. merits: if they chose to go for a limited Premises License for renewal (after Target License were eliminated), that was their choice. You can't use the courts to transform those into the former Target Licenses. They should have applied for a Carry License which, I assume, has full transport/carry/"Bear" rights, been denied and challenged that, even if they didn't plan to carry but only transport. IOW, NYC can constitutionally offer a license for limited 2nd A rights as long as they offer one that allows for the exercise of full 2nd A rights. If you're denied that, challenge that. But you've got to apply for that first. They didn't. (Memories of the Peterson case....)

But, like I said, I haven't read the briefs, I only listened to orals once. I'm just steeling myself for a loss, not taking a stand on how the case will go. Just saying don't be surprised if we're disappointed by the ultimate outcome in this case.

FWIW Breyer may look fit, but IMO his brain is shot....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1764  
Old 12-07-2019, 2:31 PM
AdvJunkie AdvJunkie is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 21
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Oral Args 12-2-19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Re. mootness: Knox -- SCOTUS does not want to open the floodgates by allowing post-cert mootness maneuvers to pay off. That just encourages gamesmanship by the litigants.

Re. merits: if they chose to go for a limited Premises License for renewal (after Target License were eliminated), that was their choice. You can't use the courts to transform those into the former Target Licenses. They should have applied for a Carry License which, I assume, has full transport/carry/"Bear" rights, been denied and challenged that, even if they didn't plan to carry but only transport. IOW, NYC can constitutionally offer a license for limited 2nd A rights as long as they offer one that allows for the exercise of full 2nd A rights. If you're denied that, challenge that. But you've got to apply for that first. They didn't. (Memories of the Peterson case....)

But, like I said, I haven't read the briefs, I only listened to orals once. I'm just steeling myself for a loss, not taking a stand on how the case will go. Just saying don't be surprised if we're disappointed by the ultimate outcome in this case.

FWIW Breyer may look fit, but IMO his brain is shot....

“NYC can constitutionally offer a license for limited 2nd A rights as long as they offer one that allows for the exercise of full 2nd A rights. “


Speculation here… I don’t know enough about NY but I highly suspect the carry license limits you to just 1-3 firearms that must be listed on the permit....

Are you suggesting full 2a rights can be limited to a specific number of firearms?

I sure hope you’re not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
A statute should be sufficiently certain so that a person may know what is prohibited thereby and what may be done without violating its provisions (People v. Hagedorn, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 745.)

The vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application(People v. Hagedorn, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 745-746.)

Last edited by AdvJunkie; 12-08-2019 at 11:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1765  
Old 12-07-2019, 3:03 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Re. mootness: Knox -- SCOTUS does not want to open the floodgates by allowing post-cert mootness maneuvers to pay off. That just encourages gamesmanship by the litigants.

Re. merits: if they chose to go for a limited Premises License for renewal (after Target License were eliminated), that was their choice. You can't use the courts to transform those into the former Target Licenses. They should have applied for a Carry License which, I assume, has full transport/carry/"Bear" rights, been denied and challenged that, even if they didn't plan to carry but only transport. IOW, NYC can constitutionally offer a license for limited 2nd A rights as long as they offer one that allows for the exercise of full 2nd A rights. If you're denied that, challenge that. But you've got to apply for that first. They didn't. (Memories of the Peterson case....)

But, like I said, I haven't read the briefs, I only listened to orals once. I'm just steeling myself for a loss, not taking a stand on how the case will go. Just saying don't be surprised if we're disappointed by the ultimate outcome in this case.

FWIW Breyer may look fit, but IMO his brain is shot....
I agree on the Breyer part, but I disagree on the merits aspect.

If the case is not moot, they will come to the conclusion that you have the constitutional right to carry an unloaded and locked firearm to and from any destination where it's lawful to discharge that firearm. I think they will also come to the conclusion that you can keep and unloaded, locked firearm in your car unless it's in a "sensitive" area. There's no way for them to list every type of stop that will be lawful, and they certainly aren't going to rule you can't make stops, so they will default to the sensitive area language. I also do not think the opinion's language will allow the state to punish people who leave a secured firearm locked in their car even if a criminal breaks into their car and somehow steals the locked firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #1766  
Old 12-07-2019, 3:59 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdvJunkie View Post
Speculation here… I don’t know enough about NY but I highly suspect the carry license limits you to just 1-3 firearms that much be listed on the permit....

Are you suggesting full 2a rights can be limited to a specific number of firearms?

I sure hope you’re not
That's a new issue for a new case.

Like I said, I haven't really studied this case and all the involved issues. I had been going by everyone saying how egregiously it infringes on the 2nd A and how it is indefensible. All I'm saying is we might not get much out of this case, if anything, and to look to the subsequent 2nd A cases, primarily the ones that have already gone to conference once and then have been in limbo, for hope and that not until post January of next term (i.e., between 2021 Jan 01 and July 01). Do what you think best.

As for me, I get back to focusing on advancing loosening of GC in the remaining anti counties (somewhere I can have a positive impact), watching for more Trump SCOTUS justices and CA9 judges and monitoring other state's Con Carry bills (to hear positive news). Posting about this case is, mostly IMO, just speculation and a waste of time. They'll do what they'll do.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-07-2019 at 4:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1767  
Old 12-07-2019, 4:43 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,552
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I agree on the Breyer part, but I disagree on the merits aspect.

If the case is not moot, they will come to the conclusion that you have the constitutional right to carry an unloaded and locked firearm to and from any destination where it's lawful to discharge that firearm. I think they will also come to the conclusion that you can keep and unloaded, locked firearm in your car unless it's in a "sensitive" area. There's no way for them to list every type of stop that will be lawful, and they certainly aren't going to rule you can't make stops, so they will default to the sensitive area language. I also do not think the opinion's language will allow the state to punish people who leave a secured firearm locked in their car even if a criminal breaks into their car and somehow steals the locked firearm.
A person should have the right to transport their legally owned firearm anywhere they want no matter if you can legally discharge it there or not. I can understand there can be places that would deny you the right to enter their property such as a courthouse but otherwise there should be restrictions on where you can take your personal property.

A gun store is a place where a customer in most cases can not legally discharge their firearm but you may have a reason to take it there. NY has no more right to tell anyone they can't take their personal property from the city limits than a kidnapper holding someone against their will at someplace.
Reply With Quote
  #1768  
Old 12-07-2019, 6:00 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
A person should have the right to transport their legally owned firearm anywhere they want no matter if you can legally discharge it there or not. I can understand there can be places that would deny you the right to enter their property such as a courthouse but otherwise there should be restrictions on where you can take your personal property.

A gun store is a place where a customer in most cases can not legally discharge their firearm but you may have a reason to take it there. NY has no more right to tell anyone they can't take their personal property from the city limits than a kidnapper holding someone against their will at someplace.
I agree, but this case is dealing with people going to ranges out of state or to out of state competitions.
Reply With Quote
  #1769  
Old 12-07-2019, 6:08 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NY and CA municipalities come up with their own gun laws. CA and NY allow it. Here in Utah no municipality can do that. State law trumps all only because Utah says so. Courts, prisons and federal miltary bases are the exceptions. Can carry in public schools and universities.
I guess CA, NY and Utah consider this matter States' rights?
Reply With Quote
  #1770  
Old 12-07-2019, 7:03 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,552
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I agree, but this case is dealing with people going to ranges out of state or to out of state competitions.
Yes I know what the case is about and NY is as wrong as two left shoes. But I blame the feds for this crap more than NY because the feds should have stopped NY a long time ago because there is no excuse that any state should be allowed to jail people for taking their own property out of a state.
Reply With Quote
  #1771  
Old 12-07-2019, 7:06 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,552
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
NY and CA municipalities come up with their own gun laws. CA and NY allow it. Here in Utah no municipality can do that. State law trumps all only because Utah says so. Courts, prisons and federal miltary bases are the exceptions. Can carry in public schools and universities.
I guess CA, NY and Utah consider this matter States' rights?
Utah is doing things right.
Reply With Quote
  #1772  
Old 12-07-2019, 7:39 PM
LINY's Avatar
LINY LINY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
NY and CA municipalities come up with their own gun laws. CA and NY allow it. Here in Utah no municipality can do that. State law trumps all only because Utah says so. Courts, prisons and federal miltary bases are the exceptions. Can carry in public schools and universities.
I guess CA, NY and Utah consider this matter States' rights?
Actually, New York Civil Rights Law article II, § 4 provides that “[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

Yet somehow Herr Cuomo can get away with declaring that there’s “no place for conservatives in NYS” so of course the state has no problem trampling on the inalienable Rights of its citizens
__________________
SLUTS: Subversives, Leftists, Usurpers & Tyrants
When you elect a SLUT, expect to get F___ed!!

When seconds count 1911 > 911 is correct numerically as well

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1773  
Old 12-07-2019, 8:24 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Untill the banana spined SCOTUS makes a decision,,, states' rights prevail..
Reply With Quote
  #1774  
Old 12-08-2019, 3:58 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,521
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Justice Kagan has all the answers:



It’s that easy, just get a carry license.
It's meant to swing a vote or two towards mootness. I believed that this case wouldn't get cert partly because of this. It is a legitimate question and presents an escape route if 5 justices don't want to rule on the merits OR mootness (which is in itself a very muddy issue).
Reply With Quote
  #1775  
Old 12-08-2019, 9:00 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
It's meant to swing a vote or two towards mootness. I believed that this case wouldn't get cert partly because of this. It is a legitimate question and presents an escape route if 5 justices don't want to rule on the merits OR mootness (which is in itself a very muddy issue).
I get the maneuvering, but it comes off as disingenuous and cavalier.

I think Clement played it well shortly after her takes her line of thought of transporting is carrying and shifting to carrying is bearing. Well played, Mr. Clement!

Quote:
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, transporting is a kind of carrying. You take your gun and it goes with you someplace. That's a kind of carrying.

MR. CLEMENT: I -- I will agree with that. I think it's also a kind of bearing, which is why I think this is such a straightforward case. I think it's protected --

JUSTICE KAGAN: All I'm asking is --
She quickly retreated from that line of thought.

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 12-08-2019 at 9:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1776  
Old 12-08-2019, 4:57 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,614
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Justice Kagan has all the answers:



It’s that easy, just get a carry license.
Sure, just that easy
Except that the suit never asked for carry...this is strictly over transport, Justice K.
Nice try, though.
Reply With Quote
  #1777  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:32 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 956
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

From SCOTUSblog:

Quote:
On Tuesday [12/10/19], there is a possibility of opinions at 10:00 a.m. Afterwards, the justices will hear oral argument in Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. and Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.
No idea if they will mention anything related to NYSRPA, but if they did, it would be the first chance to declare the case moot, with the hope to grant another case at the 12/13 conference, or thereafter.
Reply With Quote
  #1778  
Old 12-09-2019, 4:37 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No new cases added for merit on Friday. A good sign that NYSRPA was not mooted
Reply With Quote
  #1779  
Old 12-09-2019, 6:47 AM
helicalite helicalite is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 17
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

And no mention of NYSRPA or any of the held cert petitions on today's order list
Reply With Quote
  #1780  
Old 12-09-2019, 8:31 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 390
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm staying positive. Mainly because this case seems to be the doorway to Pena and I really want that roster killed to get a new pistol at not 3 times the cost.

I guess my fear is just that everyone knows the mootness is wrong but they are still slow rolling the whole thing. Like in my mind that's a slam dunk get it off the docket and move on thing but there's some stupid likely nefarious reason its still around. Its not because everything moves slow either. They can churn out cases no problem when the random special interest needs its ruling. Beyond that the law was clearly wrong hence NY giving up on it when they got closer to the SCOTUS. Just slap NY and get it over with.

Were probably gonna get screwed aren't we?

EDIT: I fixed it to Pena as I previously confused it with Peruta.

Last edited by AdamVIP; 12-09-2019 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1781  
Old 12-09-2019, 8:38 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 857
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Peruta was a carry case that followed the path of the 9th refusing to review or answer the overall California carry scheme while in the same slide of hand saying there is no right to concealed carry. Go back Re litigate with a new case......

Pena is the roster case I think you’re thinking of.

Last edited by ddestruel; 12-09-2019 at 9:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1782  
Old 12-09-2019, 9:51 AM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 932
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamVIP View Post
I'm staying positive. Mainly because this case seems to be the doorway to Peruta and I really want that roster killed to get a new pistol at not 3 times the cost.

I guess my fear is just that everyone knows the mootness is wrong but they are still slow rolling the whole thing. Like in my mind that's a slam dunk get it off the docket and move on thing but there's some stupid likely nefarious reason its still around. Its not because everything moves slow either. They can churn out cases no problem when the random special interest needs its ruling. Beyond that the law was clearly wrong hence NY giving up on it when they got closer to the SCOTUS. Just slap NY and get it over with.

Were probably gonna get screwed aren't we?
My suspicion is that the SCOTUS knows if the mootness question is not publicly addressed, the ruling will be considered illegitimate by the media and public at large. That's why they addressed it during orals.

If I'm right, we get a good ruling, probably more narrow than what we want but more broad than what the other side wants. If I'm wrong, then KC has been right all along, and we're screwed.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #1783  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:33 AM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
My suspicion is that the SCOTUS knows if the mootness question is not publicly addressed, the ruling will be considered illegitimate by the media and public at large. That's why they addressed it during orals.
Is it possible to address the mootness issue by combining the New York case with one more of the held cases? That might (a) teach a lesson to New York while (b) expanding the scope of the final decision.
Reply With Quote
  #1784  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:43 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 390
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
Peruta was a carry case that followed the path of the 9th refusing to review or answer the overall California carry scheme while in the same slide of hand saying there is no right to concealed carry. Go back Re litigate with a new case......

Pena is the roster case I think you’re thinking of.
Yup. Fog of frustration is what I will blame it on. I edited the post with a note.
Reply With Quote
  #1785  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:05 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 932
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
Is it possible to address the mootness issue by combining the New York case with one more of the held cases? That might (a) teach a lesson to New York while (b) expanding the scope of the final decision.
I'm not familiar with how the SCOTUS operates. Maybe one of the legal eagles can answer that. I suspect they could combine cases, but I am too ignorant to make a definitive statement.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #1786  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:10 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
No new cases added for merit on Friday. A good sign that NYSRPA was not mooted
They could still moot the case. However, since it wasn't mooted immediately, it would seem to have some viability.
Reply With Quote
  #1787  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:57 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
They could still moot the case. However, since it wasn't mooted immediately, it would seem to have some viability.
My guess is that it could be several weeks before we hear anything. Given the notoriety of the case, I would not be surprised to see the majority issue an opinion justifying their decision and a dissent by the losing side.
Reply With Quote
  #1788  
Old 12-09-2019, 1:22 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post

Re. merits: if they chose to go for a limited Premises License for renewal (after Target License were eliminated), that was their choice. You can't use the courts to transform those into the former Target Licenses. They should have applied for a Carry License which, I assume, has full transport/carry/"Bear" rights, been denied and challenged that, even if they didn't plan to carry but only transport. IOW, NYC can constitutionally offer a license for limited 2nd A rights as long as they offer one that allows for the exercise of full 2nd A rights. If you're denied that, challenge that. But you've got to apply for that first. They didn't. (Memories of the Peterson case....)

But, like I said, I haven't read the briefs, I only listened to orals once. I'm just steeling myself for a loss, not taking a stand on how the case will go. Just saying don't be surprised if we're disappointed by the ultimate outcome in this case.

FWIW Breyer may look fit, but IMO his brain is shot....
I don’t expect a “right to carry” to come out of this case. However, the if they don’t make the case moot, I can’t see the court allowing the “Intermediate Scrutiny” test as applied by the 2nd Circuit (and other circuit courts) to stand. So, even if they say “you should have applied for a carry permit and not a premises license if you wanted to leave your house with a gun”, I would still expect them to eviscerate the 2nd circuit and its test and impose a more stringent test.

This would be a mixed bag. In theory, it would mean it should not be as easy to trample the 2A. But it could also be a giant reset button. Every issues that has percolated through the courts and made its way to SCOTUS is no longer “ripe”. Those issue would need to work their way through the courts again with a new scrutiny test, which activist judges will pick apart. And in the mean time, I will either die of old age or the court will flip to the left and they will simply refuse to enforce the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #1789  
Old 12-09-2019, 1:38 PM
vaka's Avatar
vaka vaka is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 764
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

So what would happen to Young vs Hawaii if the SCOTUS moves forward with the case. Would 9th circuit still have an Enbanc vote on the case ? From what I have read on the thread for Young vs Hawaii is that the 9th is waiting on the NYSRPA case .
__________________
Old problems are like dry poop, if you let the dry poop sit it doesn't smell but the minute you decide to stir the poop with a stick, the smell comes back. Moral of the story, Don't bring up old problems!
Reply With Quote
  #1790  
Old 12-09-2019, 1:59 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,201
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
Peruta was a carry case that followed the path of the 9th refusing to review or answer the overall California carry scheme while in the same slide of hand saying there is no right to concealed carry. Go back Re litigate with a new case......

Pena is the roster case I think you’re thinking of.
The plaintiffs argued that open carry may be banned in favor of concealed - thereby conceding their claim on open carry.

Therefore CA9 was free to rule only on the CCW portion of the case - and exactly that they did - citing Heller v. DC in the process.

It wasn't a refusal - they plaintiffs conceded that aspect.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1791  
Old 12-09-2019, 3:34 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,080
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaka View Post
So what would happen to Young vs Hawaii if the SCOTUS moves forward with the case. Would 9th circuit still have an Enbanc vote on the case ? From what I have read on the thread for Young vs Hawaii is that the 9th is waiting on the NYSRPA case .
The three panel decision has been vacated, en banc review has been granted, and the case has been stayed. Those are all done deeds. Procedurally, if I understand things correctly, the next action in Young has to come in the form of an en banc decision of some kind.

Depending on how they feel about the language that comes out of the NY case (or if language comes out of the NY case) this will either be a straight-up counter decision like we saw in Peruta, or they could remand the case (i.e. stall) to the lower courts to be re-decided given the language in the NY case. I would expect the latter if the NY decision language is particularly 2A friendly, as that would buy the Ninth Circuit at least a couple more years before the case was eligible for cert.

Last edited by champu; 12-09-2019 at 3:36 PM.. Reason: I can't spell 'Ninth' apparently
Reply With Quote
  #1792  
Old 12-09-2019, 4:16 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default mootness in 1946

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cg...enn_law_review
Reply With Quote
  #1793  
Old 12-09-2019, 5:03 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,906
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LINY View Post
Yet somehow Herr Cuomo can get away with declaring that there’s “no place for conservatives in NYS” so of course the state has no problem trampling on the inalienable Rights of its citizens
He can get away with it because the voters have given him their clear approval to do so; they elected him to office. Same as Gavin Screwsome has been given a clear message by the voters of California to deal with the "gun problem". If more voters cared about the 2A, neither of those plastic marital aids would be in office.
Reply With Quote
  #1794  
Old 12-09-2019, 5:19 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,284
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Re. mootness: Knox -- SCOTUS does not want to open the floodgates by allowing post-cert mootness maneuvers to pay off. That just encourages gamesmanship by the litigants.

Re. merits: if they chose to go for a limited Premises License for renewal (after Target License were eliminated), that was their choice. You can't use the courts to transform those into the former Target Licenses. They should have applied for a Carry License which, I assume, has full transport/carry/"Bear" rights, been denied and challenged that, even if they didn't plan to carry but only transport. IOW, NYC can constitutionally offer a license for limited 2nd A rights as long as they offer one that allows for the exercise of full 2nd A rights. If you're denied that, challenge that. But you've got to apply for that first. They didn't. (Memories of the Peterson case....)

But, like I said, I haven't read the briefs, I only listened to orals once. I'm just steeling myself for a loss, not taking a stand on how the case will go. Just saying don't be surprised if we're disappointed by the ultimate outcome in this case.

FWIW Breyer may look fit, but IMO his brain is shot....
That they didn't go for the "full CCW" concerned me also. Perhaps the court is sidestepping the CCW issue of discretion and will simply state there is a right to possess outside the home for self - defense.

My layman's expectation is some kind of win, but with a healthy does of "oh sh*t" language such as was found in Heller's "dangerous and unusual" and "longstanding prohibitions".

Remember - "behind every silver lining …. there's a dark cloud".
Reply With Quote
  #1795  
Old 12-09-2019, 6:01 PM
vaka's Avatar
vaka vaka is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 764
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
The three panel decision has been vacated, en banc review has been granted, and the case has been stayed. Those are all done deeds. Procedurally, if I understand things correctly, the next action in Young has to come in the form of an en banc decision of some kind.

Depending on how they feel about the language that comes out of the NY case (or if language comes out of the NY case) this will either be a straight-up counter decision like we saw in Peruta, or they could remand the case (i.e. stall) to the lower courts to be re-decided given the language in the NY case. I would expect the latter if the NY decision language is particularly 2A friendly, as that would buy the Ninth Circuit at least a couple more years before the case was eligible for cert.
Would the 9th take the chance of sending back with a more balanced 9th circuit and get and even more friendly panel of judges ?
__________________
Old problems are like dry poop, if you let the dry poop sit it doesn't smell but the minute you decide to stir the poop with a stick, the smell comes back. Moral of the story, Don't bring up old problems!
Reply With Quote
  #1796  
Old 12-09-2019, 6:21 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 668
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The likelihood of repetition may also be inferred more readily if the acts complained of were not discontinued until after the litigation was threatened or had commenced.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cg...enn_law_review

Per that document it's not moot if the court believes the law will come back without a ruling. So New York claims the law is valid, and it's valid, and it's valid to the appeals court, and it's still valid ...... Then SCOTUS takes the case, and suddenly the law is horribly unconstitutional..

I would suggest the process they took to remove the law is clear proof New York will planning to re-establish the law after it's mooted.
Reply With Quote
  #1797  
Old 12-09-2019, 6:53 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 623
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the Supreme Court should take a day off and participate in a shooting competition.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:25 PM.




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.