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
  #761  
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: 659
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
  #762  
Old 07-08-2019, 9:11 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

November argument calendar was released today, and NYSRPA is not on it.
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 07-08-2019, 11:24 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NYSRPA has filed its response letter: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...e%20letter.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 07-08-2019, 1:06 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
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.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 07-08-2019, 1:11 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
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
  #766  
Old 07-08-2019, 1:34 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 252
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
  #767  
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: 1,965
iTrader: 40 / 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
  #768  
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: 659
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
  #769  
Old 07-08-2019, 2:20 PM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 600
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
  #770  
Old 07-08-2019, 2:38 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
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
  #771  
Old 07-08-2019, 3:01 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
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
  #772  
Old 07-08-2019, 5:41 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
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
  #773  
Old 07-08-2019, 8:00 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
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
  #774  
Old 07-08-2019, 8:57 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
✰ Sometimes I Fly Armed
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,135
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
  #775  
Old 07-08-2019, 10:23 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
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
  #776  
Old 07-08-2019, 11:06 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 252
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
  #777  
Old 07-09-2019, 2:11 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 691
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
  #778  
Old 07-09-2019, 9:16 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
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
  #779  
Old 07-09-2019, 9:57 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
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
  #780  
Old 07-09-2019, 10:39 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
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:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

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!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #781  
Old 07-09-2019, 1:21 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
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
  #782  
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: 2,953
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
  #783  
Old 07-09-2019, 2:11 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
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
  #784  
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: 2,953
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
  #785  
Old 07-10-2019, 5:11 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
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
  #786  
Old 07-10-2019, 7:23 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
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
  #787  
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: 2,953
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
  #788  
Old 07-12-2019, 1:38 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
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
  #789  
Old 07-12-2019, 1:40 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
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
  #790  
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: 2,953
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
  #791  
Old 07-15-2019, 9:38 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
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
  #792  
Old 07-16-2019, 4:33 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
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)?

Last edited by Paladin; 07-16-2019 at 9:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 07-16-2019, 5:57 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,949
iTrader: 4 / 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
  #794  
Old 07-16-2019, 10:50 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
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.

Last edited by Paladin; 07-16-2019 at 9:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 07-16-2019, 11:02 AM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 6,393
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I see now (post #738) that the change in the local ordinance takes place on July 22nd.

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)

Once it is signed, (from the bill https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7752)
And it’s still rather restrictive.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...



iTrader
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 07-16-2019, 1:54 PM
RussG1's Avatar
RussG1 RussG1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Jose Calif
Posts: 181
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just read the bill-- it is missing the 'shall not be infringed' part.. the dog must have eaten that page.
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 07-16-2019, 5:34 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The bill has been signed. It goes into effect immediately.
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 07-16-2019, 9:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
FWIW I am not surprised NYSRPA isn't listed for Nov.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is not listed for Dec.

If it is not listed for Jan, I will be slightly surprised.

If it is not listed for Feb, I will be surprised and start thinking they're going per curiam (ala Caetano) and giving the dissenters time to write their opinions on this important case.
JMO
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 07-17-2019, 9:17 AM
Tyson Tyson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Out of state
Posts: 251
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Speaking to the moodiness issue, even if this new state law goes into effect. The court should realize what a dangerous president this sets where a state could enact restrictive unconstitutional laws only to backpedal later on. No way this flies with them they should hear the case as it was originally filed.

The icing on the cake would be a ruling on appropriate scrutiny in constitutional cases going forward.

I’m hoping for an early Christmas gift!
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 07-17-2019, 4:36 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,718
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
FWIW I am not surprised NYSRPA isn't listed for Nov.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is not listed for Dec.

If it is not listed for Jan, I will be slightly surprised.

If it is not listed for Feb, I will be surprised and start thinking they're going per curiam (ala Caetano) and giving the dissenters time to write their opinions on this important case.
JMO
What do you think the hold up is ?
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 6:13 AM.




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



Seams2SewBySusy