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
  #1801  
Old 12-10-2019, 8:43 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 959
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Opinion released today did not concern NYSRPA, just FYI.

Another opinion is due tomorrow, as well.
Reply With Quote
  #1802  
Old 12-10-2019, 8:59 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
I don't think New York ever admitted that it's law is/was unconstitutional. They have tried very hard to admit no wrongdoing whatsoever. To hear them you'd think the change was out of the goodness of their hearts and a desire to do right by their fellow New Yorkers.
The closest they come to admitting wrongdoing is on page 52...

Quote:
3 JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the
4 -- are people in New York less safe now as a
5 result of the enactment of the new city and
6 state laws than they were before?
7 MR. DEARING: We -- we -- no, I donít
8 think so. We made a judgment expressed by our
9 police commissioner that -- that it was
10 consistent with public safety to repeal the
11 prior rule and to move forward without it.
12 JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not
13 less safe, then what possible justification
14 could there have been for the old rule, which
15 you have abandoned?
16 MR. DEARING: It was a reasonable --
17 as we've outlined in our briefs, it was a
18 reasonable implementation of the -- of the state
19 premises license, carry license division. I
20 think -- and we've explained that there was --
21 was a verification benefit to the way that that
22 rule was set up. That verification benefit
23 perhaps has not played out as much in practice
24 as it had been predicted
...and the reason I say that is because their rationale for changing the law canít be reconciled with the timing of their change in the law. There was no coincidental study being performed that happened to conclude shortly after cert was granted and reveal that the rules didnít help public safety. That information has been known to them throughout this court case, which means their defense of the rules all the way up through grant of cert had been in bad faith.

On the other hand, as I think about that, the above excerpt is an admission that reinstating the rules wouldnít survive heightened scrutiny and might be considered by the court to be a reasonably strong promise not to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #1803  
Old 12-10-2019, 9:16 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaka View Post
Would the 9th take the chance of sending back with a more balanced 9th circuit and get and even more friendly panel of judges ?
Like I said, it will depend on if and what language comes out of this case.

The Ninth is not going to tee up a defiant en banc decision for a SCOTUS appeal if SCOTUS shows an intent to really defend the second amendment here. That would be fast-tracking an ultimate loss. They are better off kicking the boulder back to the bottom of the hill. Even if the Circuit has a few more conservative judges on it, the odds are still in their favor of having a majority when the case inevitably ends up en banc again. This will take significant time and it may give them another roll of the dice on SCOTUS composition.

But anyway thatís a different case and, while theyíre currently related, I donít want to derail this thread too much.
Reply With Quote
  #1804  
Old 12-10-2019, 5:49 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,114
iTrader: 153 / 100%
Default

IMO One proper outcome from this would be for SCOTUS to throw out all the NYC premises and carry permitting schemes as unconstitutional.
__________________
Trump on RKBA "The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. PERIOD."

CGF Contributor
NRA Endowment Life Member, CRPA Life Member
Beretta 90 series, GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Sig P365, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger, Hudson H9 Armorer, just for fun!
Reply With Quote
  #1805  
Old 12-11-2019, 8:00 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 959
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Opinion released today is also not related to NYSRPA. Fingers still crossed that we get to the merits.
Reply With Quote
  #1806  
Old 12-11-2019, 9:43 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 393
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the daily updates Robo. Makes it easy.
Reply With Quote
  #1807  
Old 12-11-2019, 2:24 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911su16b870 View Post
IMO One proper outcome from this would be for SCOTUS to throw out all the NYC premises and carry permitting schemes as unconstitutional.
No, not really, since none of those other statutes or ordinances are before the court, and NYS is not a party. That said, the standard of review for such cases, if it is anything approaching strict scrutiny, the ruling would set the stage for attacks on those regulations.
Reply With Quote
  #1808  
Old 12-11-2019, 2:26 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 175
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Opinion released today is also not related to NYSRPA. Fingers still crossed that we get to the merits.
If the case is mooted we will not hear of it directly from SCOTUS for some time. The dissenting side will have been given time to write their opinion. The best sign we will have is if the other gun rights cases are either granted cert. If that happens then we know that NYSRPA is mooted and we are back to square one, hoping those cases are not also mooted.
Reply With Quote
  #1809  
Old 12-11-2019, 3:17 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,640
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911su16b870 View Post
IMO One proper outcome from this would be for SCOTUS to throw out all the NYC premises and carry permitting schemes as unconstitutional.
I doubt that.


If the court rules in our favor, the ruling will be as narrow as possible and have little impact outside of New York.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1810  
Old 12-11-2019, 5:03 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
I doubt that.


If the court rules in our favor, the ruling will be as narrow as possible and have little impact outside of New York.
It should be possible to infer the limits of the case by looking at those denied cert while the court was in process.
Also those cases held, might be impacted by the case.

For instance 18-7451 Cox vs U.S. was denied cert. So it could be expected that the results of the case will not make changes to NFA. (so, no strict scrutiny)
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 2:04 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.