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
  #561  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:22 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 232
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Do we have an approximate time that the court will announce oral argument schedule? I am curious to know if we will hear before the end of the session or if it will be over the summer.
Well, since New York City doesn't have to file their response until Aug. 5, I doubt any date for oral arguments will happen before then.
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 05-14-2019, 2:34 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The more I read the more I think this isn't really about the NY law. It's about the second circuit and how they managed to uphold such an obviously bad law. It's just happy luck that this case would seem so narrow on its face and yet so broad once you start looking at the cases "foundation". Honestly there just isn't anything to prop this one up beyond wishful thinking. While that may be enough for some on the 2nd (and many on the 9th) it isn't enough for Scotus anymore.
Maybe this is obvious to all of you but my mental cogs turn slowly on these court issues.
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 05-14-2019, 2:59 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I found it interesting that the Gifford brief didn't claim to support a side. Even they can't argue for the constitutionality of the law. The brief was all about supporting heightened scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 05-14-2019, 3:15 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 145
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
Well, since New York City doesn't have to file their response until Aug. 5, I doubt any date for oral arguments will happen before then.
Your doubts are misplaced. Oral argument is frequently (perhaps more often than not) set prior to to the filing of the Respondent’s merits brief. I would certainly expect it to be the case here, where argument will almost certainly take place near the beginning of October.
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 05-14-2019, 3:43 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,781
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So we can expect a ruling within a few months after that? Perhaps as early as December, or else sometime early next year? That would then unstay the Young en banc.
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 05-14-2019, 3:46 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 145
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
So we can expect a ruling within a few months after that? Perhaps as early as December, or else sometime early next year? That would then unstay the Young en banc.
Almost certainly not in 2019. A case like this, likely to be a 5-4 decision with dissent(s) and concurrences, probably won’t see an opinion issued until around this time next year or later.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 05-14-2019, 3:56 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
I found it interesting that the Gifford brief didn't claim to support a side. Even they can't argue for the constitutionality of the law. The brief was all about supporting heightened scrutiny.
History, text, & tradition! Going into Heller, IIRC, the good guys argued for strict scrutiny which the Court rejected. If Giffords is calling for Heightened/Strict scrutiny then that should really cement the notion it is a bad doctrine.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 05-14-2019, 4:56 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 643
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default CRPA & GOC file amicus brief

Today, the CRPA is proud to announce it has joined Gun Owners of California in filing an important amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the parties challenging New York City’s restrictive handgun licensing scheme, which prohibits any city resident from traveling outside the city limits while in possession of a licensed handgun, as a violation of the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights, in the case of NYSRPA v. City of New York. For nearly a decade, the Supreme Court has been mostly silent on the Second Amendment, despite a flood of petitions asking it to review gun control laws or convictions from across the country. The High Court is now poised to speak and many are anxious to hear what it has to say.

Read the entire announcement here:

https://crpa.org/news/alert/amicusbrief/

The CRPA and GOC brief can be found here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...etitioners.pdf

All amicus briefs filed in this matter can be found here:

http://michellawyers.com/new-york-st...of-new-york-2/
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 05-14-2019, 5:35 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 920
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickSlinky View Post
More Amicus briefs dropped today. There are some great ones in there.

I like how the Commonwealth Second Amendment kicked off.
Gura did a good job there, in his typical style. I saw only a few weak phrases.

It was really good to read his beat-down of the wholly extra-constitutional doctrine of 'levels of scrutiny'. Older and more evil than Wicard, that canard came about only to avoid the clear and obvious meaning of the 14th.

Jim Crow lives comfortably in the labyrinth that is 'levels of scrutiny', an ugly fiction invented by the court. Perhaps after a century and a half today's court can clean up the mess it made earlier.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 05-14-2019, 6:19 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 116
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Not a surprise to see the NRA, CRPA, and CalGuns Foundation (among others) file briefs in support of NYC pistol and rifle club. But the most interesting brief IMHO is the one by the United States. I firmly believe that’s because of Trump (either directly or indirectly). Amazing honestly.
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 05-14-2019, 6:47 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,198
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
Not a surprise to see the NRA, CRPA, and CalGuns Foundation (among others) file briefs in support of NYC pistol and rifle club. But the most interesting brief IMHO is the one by the United States. I firmly believe that’s because of Trump (either directly or indirectly). Amazing honestly.

I can guarantee you that an Obama or Clinton presidency would have come down on the other side of the decision, so yes it is because of Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 05-14-2019, 7:02 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 952
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just from the number of briefs you can tell this case has every ones attention. This should be the case we have been waiting on if the court has the guts to do it's job. We shall see.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 05-14-2019, 7:14 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Quote:
THE COURT SHOULD AVOID DECIDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED
That's basically my favorite line in all these briefs.
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 05-14-2019, 7:38 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Be careful what you wish for

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
History, text, & tradition! Going into Heller, IIRC, the good guys argued for strict scrutiny which the Court rejected. If Giffords is calling for Heightened/Strict scrutiny then that should really cement the notion it is a bad doctrine.
Be careful what you wish for. The U.S. Solicitor's Amicus Brief cites to the use of "history" and "tradition" as bases for upholding a gun ban as facially valid: This Court explained in Heller that a regulation of firearms is “presumptively lawful” if it is “fairly supported” by “historical tradition.”

The African American Gun Owner's Association in their Amicus Brief precisely warned about the impropriety of using "history" of gun regulation to argue that a law is facially valid, because it is an ancient law, given the history where certain groups were denied possession of firearms.

Most laws will fail under strict scrutiny analysis, because the state will not be able to meet a) the burden imposed to, b) show a "compelling state interest"; two, c) that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and d), that the law uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose. See also Breyer dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller:
Respondent proposes that the Court adopt a “strict scrutiny” test, which would require reviewing with care each gun law to determine whether it is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U. S. 74, 82 (1997) ; see Brief for Respondent 54–62. But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws—prohibitions on concealed weapons, forfeiture by criminals of the Second Amendment right, prohibitions on firearms in certain locales, and governmental regulation of commercial firearm sales—whose constitutionality under a strict scrutiny standard would be far from clear.
Notice that Dick Anthony Heller, the respondent argued for strict scrutiny, and Justice Breyer correctly explained, as he was obligated to, that few if any gun laws would survive strict scrutiny, including the NFA. Let's not ratify an under-current or slogan contrary to Plaintiff's arguments in our lead cases.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-14-2019 at 7:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 05-14-2019, 8:00 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 350
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
That's basically my favorite line in all these briefs.
That's a pretty good call!

But my favorite is from that very brief. The Brady group's (and Team ENOUGH!) is a section they themselves call out in the table of contents and highlight in the brief:



"Strict scrutiny would prevent the government from . . ."

Um, yeah - that's what constitutional challenges on individual rights are for - to prevent the government from infringing the rights of individuals in pursuit of some claimed benefit to the government / public.

And, it gets better in the brief's initial statement -- individual rights re: the 2nd Amendment would be "potentially destructive of other fundamental rights, including the rights to speak, assemble, worship, and live."

So, one's right to do X might imperil another's right to do Y. We all know that my right to do X can defeat your right to do Y. After all, my right of free speech pretty much allows me to stop you from exercising your right to assemble. And my right to assemble (with a rough looking and large crowd) might be potentially destructive of your right to speak freely. That's the way it works - if I have a right, your rights are over-ruled because I have the right - RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!!

Who knew?

[not even addressing the "obligation" to protect public safety issue.]
__________________
________

I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 05-14-2019, 8:01 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Be careful what you wish for. The U.S. Solicitor's Amicus Brief cites to the use of "history" and "tradition" as bases for upholding a gun ban as facially valid: This Court explained in Heller that a regulation of firearms is “presumptively lawful” if it is “fairly supported” by “historical tradition.”

...

Notice that Dick Anthony Heller, the respondent argued for strict scrutiny, and Justice Breyer correctly explained, as he was obligated to, that few if any gun laws would survive strict scrutiny, including the NFA. Let's not ratify an under-current or slogan contrary to Plaintiff's arguments in our lead cases.
Good points. Thanks for the extra reading.
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 05-14-2019, 8:06 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
That's a pretty good call!

But my favorite is from that very brief. The Brady group's (and Team ENOUGH!) is a section they themselves call out in the table of contents and highlight in the brief:

So, one's right to do X might imperil another's right to do Y.
Strict scrutiny should be the analysis. It is absurd to follow the reasoning of the Brady group that to exercise the right to an abortion under the 1st Amendment, the burden of which is analyzed under strict scrutiny, would impair someone else's ability to vote under the 14th, 15th, and 26th Amendments today. The Brady group's assertion is that arms owners are marauders, who upon being armed will kill their neighbors to prevent them from Am. 1 (reading), Am. 4 (be free from search and seizure), Am. 5 (be free from forced confession and assistance of counsel), Am. 6 (be assisted by counsel at a speedy trial), Am. 7 (have the right to a jury trial), Am. 8 (be free from cruel and unusual punishment), Am. 9 (no conflict of rights*), Am. 10 (unenumerated rights are reserved by the People), Am. 11 (immunity of the States from Suit in federal court), Am. 12 (vote), Am. 13 (freedom from involuntary servitude, except for prisoners), Am. 14 (citizenship and apportioned voting), Am. 14 (due process and equal protection), etc.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-14-2019 at 8:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 05-14-2019, 8:41 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,849
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Whoever writes the majority opinion will have to be very clear, because a history and tradition test leaves a lot of room for the courts to recreate another fake 2A test that aligns with history and tradition. "You could ban the carry of guns in a market place, so we believe it is lawful to ban the carrying of firearms within 1000 feet of all marketplaces", creating a de facto no carry in SF, LA, NYC, and other places. I cannot think of anything in the history and tradition test that could be skewed so much that modern sporting rifles and 30rd magazines could be banned, but it's possible CA and other places could make a ton of hoops for people to jump through in order to purchase them legally.

I hope Thomas or someone else writes a really strong and clear opinion, because I foresee another Heller/McDonald situation, where the court will raise the bar just enough to go beyond current jurisprudence, but still rule in the favor of gun control when it doesn't fit their utopian view of gun ownership. Strict scrutiny would be the most clear and direct way of regulating the 2nd amendment. The courts in 1992 casey v planned parenthood did away with trimesters and moved to fetal viability, so it's possible and not unprecedented for the court to alter it's previous test. How much will they change it with this case though? I am not sure.

I am cautiously optimistic, but based on how much the courts have ignored Heller and McDonald, I expect there to be more shenanigans.

Last edited by wireless; 05-14-2019 at 8:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 05-14-2019, 8:50 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 350
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Strict scrutiny should be the analysis. It is absurd to follow the reasoning of the Brady group that to exercise the right to an abortion under the 1st Amendment, the burden of which is analyzed under strict scrutiny, would impair someone else's ability to vote under the 14th, 15th, and 26th Amendments today. The Brady group's assertion is that arms owners are marauders, who upon being armed will kill their neighbors to prevent them from Am. 1 (reading), Am. 4 (be free from search and seizure), Am. 5 (be free from forced confession and assistance of counsel), Am. 6 (be assisted by counsel at a speedy trial), Am. 7 (have the right to a jury trial), Am. 8 (be free from cruel and unusual punishment), Am. 9 (no conflict of rights*), Am. 10 (unenumerated rights are reserved by the People), Am. 11 (immunity of the States from Suit in federal court), Am. 12 (vote), Am. 13 (freedom from involuntary servitude, except for prisoners), Am. 14 (citizenship and apportioned voting), Am. 14 (due process and equal protection), etc.
More straightforwardly (I think) - my rights are against a collective power's (my government's) ability to restrict my actions; not against my fellow citizens exercising their own rights. My rights don't implicate theirs at all.

My right to speech doesn't impact their right to assemble and speak against my expressed views . . . unless my government weighs in to restrict my right to speak for fear of what the mob would do. But then "everyone" understands that my right to free speech isn't dependent on how my fellow citizens might react. Apparently, the Brady group and Team ENOUGH believes that my 1st amendment rights are conditioned on how my exercise of the same might inspire others to react, regardless of whether those reactions are lawful.
__________________
________

I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 05-14-2019, 9:04 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
Apparently, the Brady group and Team ENOUGH believes that my 1st amendment rights are conditioned on how my exercise of the same might inspire others to react, regardless of whether those reactions are lawful.
The Brady group is arguing that armed citizens will kill their neighbors to prevent them from exercising their rights, "...a super right potentially destructive of other rights . . . "; therefore, Strict Scrutiny should not apply. The Brady group ignores that being unarmed made the repression of the Native, African, Chinese, Japanese, poor workers, and unmarried spinsters (witches) possible.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-14-2019 at 9:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 05-14-2019, 9:09 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
That's a pretty good call!

But my favorite is from that very brief-
That whole brief is a dumpster fire. They are virtually incapable of getting all the way through a complete legal thought without interrupting themselves with statistics about “gun violence” and how any ruling would result in blood in the streets.

I just thought the plea to the Supreme Court that they not do their one job was a hilarious bit of honesty in that sea of garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 05-14-2019, 9:21 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I am cautiously optimistic, but based on how much the courts have ignored Heller and McDonald, I expect there to be more shenanigans.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. NYC is worded it won’t be a victory until the Ninth Circuit subsequently recognizes the second amendment protects anything whatsoever which, to date, has never happened through en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 05-14-2019, 9:23 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 350
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
The Brady group is arguing that armed citizens will kill their neighbors to prevent them from exercising their rights; therefore, Strict Scrutiny should not apply. The Brady group ignores that being unarmed made the suppression of the Native, African, Japanese, poor workers, and unmarried spinsters (witches) possible.
Yes; I think we're largely in agreement on their position.

I might characterize the Brady group's argument as: "Bad things might happen if you apply strict scrutiny, so don't apply strict scrutiny. After all, the enforceability of a right should be determined based upon whether or not bad things might happen. And we'll ignore all those particular bad things that might happen if you actually agree with our argument and impose a different standard - those bad things don't count."

It's an embarrassing argument but it is what it is.
__________________
________

I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 05-14-2019, 9:45 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 350
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
That whole brief is a dumpster fire. [. . . ]
I agree.

These are only amici briefs, but it is surprising how ineffectual the briefs are that purport to support the NY law or are "neutral" but argue for a limited level of scrutiny. The Giffords' brief was better, but still struck me as shockingly weak in terms of an argument around review of an enumerated individual right and how to interpret / review the same.
__________________
________

I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:04 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 601
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Strict scrutiny should be the analysis. It is absurd to follow the reasoning of the Brady group that to exercise the right to an abortion under the 1st Amendment, the burden of which is analyzed under strict scrutiny, would impair someone else's ability to vote under the 14th, 15th, and 26th Amendments today. The Brady group's assertion is that arms owners are marauders, who upon being armed will kill their neighbors to prevent them from Am. 1 (reading), Am. 4 (be free from search and seizure), Am. 5 (be free from forced confession and assistance of counsel), Am. 6 (be assisted by counsel at a speedy trial), Am. 7 (have the right to a jury trial), Am. 8 (be free from cruel and unusual punishment), Am. 9 (no conflict of rights*), Am. 10 (unenumerated rights are reserved by the People), Am. 11 (immunity of the States from Suit in federal court), Am. 12 (vote), Am. 13 (freedom from involuntary servitude, except for prisoners), Am. 14 (citizenship and apportioned voting), Am. 14 (due process and equal protection), etc.
Even more fundamentally, it expresses the view that the States have the power to regulate the exercise of the right to bear arms, but without any analysis of the language of the amendment itself. Instead, it purports to rely upon the early cases that banned concealed carry, and even the Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction southern laws regulating guns--never stopping for a moment to recognize that the Jim Crow era laws were not equally enforced, but instead were intended to assure that blacks remained unarmed and subject to the power of the white controlled government. No did it stop to ask if those older laws, while obviously enacted and enforced, were constitutional--rather it simply assumes that because they were long standing, they presumably were. Logical fallacies abound.
Lat but not least, and not citing the Constitution but the Bill of Rights, argued that the government has a duty to "protect the citizenry," without citation to any case authority which if addressed would have roundly rejected the concept as anything more than a generalized goal, not a duty.

Last edited by TruOil; 05-14-2019 at 10:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 05-15-2019, 6:58 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
Almost certainly not in 2019. A case like this, likely to be a 5-4 decision with dissent(s) and concurrences, probably won’t see an opinion issued until around this time next year or later.
I agree probably not 2019 but this case may not be one of the big ones for SCOTUS, which means it gets decided in turn and won't be one of the ones that gets issued last day of the term which is June.
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 05-15-2019, 8:22 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
So we can expect a ruling within a few months after that? Perhaps as early as December, or else sometime early next year?
My *guess* is 2019 Dec 09 will be the last day for orders before Christmas break for SCOTUS. If orals are in Oct, esp early Oct, that seems like a likely date. (People too busy with holidays, end of year business stuff, etc to care; weather too cold for mass protests/riots.)

HOWEVER, if they held it until day of last orders released in 2020 June, I would not be surprised. (That's when contentious social/political cases are often released, giving the justices time to "get out of town before sundown...." )

BOTTOM LINE: I would be surprised if we don't get a decision before 2020 July 01.

So, fewer than 14 months to go! (Or, fewer than 59 weeks to go!)

That I feel reasonably confident in saying.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-15-2019 at 9:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:26 AM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Even more fundamentally, it expresses the view that the States have the power to regulate the exercise of the right to bear arms, but without any analysis of the language of the amendment itself. Instead, it purports to rely upon the early cases that banned concealed carry, and even the Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction southern laws regulating guns--never stopping for a moment to recognize that the Jim Crow era laws were not equally enforced, but instead were intended to assure that blacks remained unarmed and subject to the power of the white controlled government. No did it stop to ask if those older laws, while obviously enacted and enforced, were constitutional--rather it simply assumes that because they were long standing, they presumably were.
That is the historical analysis employed by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald to arrive at the circular reasoning that a law is constitutional if it is ancient, because ancient laws must be constitutional (see post #575 above). The Supreme Court specially spun out of thin air a "historical" and "tradition" doctrines to preserve statutory schemes that could not survive strict scrutiny review as indicated in post #3189 in the Peña v. Cid thread and Congressional Research Office, "Post-Heller Second Amendment Jurisprudence," (2019), pp. 2 ("Yet sometimes courts take a different or modified approach from that described above and ask whether a challenged regulation falls within a category deemed “presumptively lawful” by Heller. If the law falls within such a category, a court does not need to apply a particular level of scrutiny in reviewing the restriction because the law does not facially violate the Second Amendment.") The Court could not apply a "history" and "tradition" doctrine with the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, like the 1st → 14th Amendments, as we would be left with nothing other than witch trials, summary execution, no assistance of counsel, forced confessions, constant warrantless searches of our homes (notwithstanding the Patriot Act's unlawful eavesdropping), and every form of Jim Crow. If the Sup. Crt. did that to the other amendments, there would be an uproar.

It is a good thing you critically examined the anti-democratic ramifications of relying on the history of arms legislation to guide treatment of the 2nd Amendment and pointed them out. You and the African American Gun Owners noticed that the history of arms enforcement is unconstitutional as enacted and as applied, because it is contrary to both the broad right in the 2nd Amendment ("the right of the people") and the 5th/14th Amendments. Folks who sloganize "originalism," "history," and "tradition," are arguing contrary to the Plaintiff's in our lead cases urging strict scrutiny. See Breyer dissent above in post #575.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-15-2019 at 11:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:53 AM
Kraken Kraken is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 143
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
I found it interesting that the Gifford brief didn't claim to support a side. Even they can't argue for the constitutionality of the law. The brief was all about supporting heightened scrutiny.
Gifford and Brady dont care about the actual NYC law in question. They're begging and pleading for SCOTUS to not mandate strict scrutiny for 2A cases. They know if SCOTUS mandates strict scrutiny for this fundamental/individual right, the entire house of cards of unconstitutional gun laws from the past 40 years will crumble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
Just from the number of briefs you can tell this case has every ones attention. This should be the case we have been waiting on if the court has the guts to do it's job. We shall see.
I agree. It was surprising to see 20+ amicus briefs flooding in. This will get interesting.

If the court sticks to the precise question at hand of overturning a singular NYC law, I'd predict a 9-0 decision for repeal.

In reality, I predict a 6-3 or 5-4 decision in favor of repealing NYC while closing loopholes in Heller. I'm still 50/50 on if they'll reach the step of placing strict scrutiny in the majority opinion. They may lose a few votes if Thomas, Gorsuch and Kav push it. Roberts will be the wildcard.
__________________
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. - Trench Coxe, 1788
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:59 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,849
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

It’ll be 5-4. All four voted no in Heller and McDonald will vote no in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 05-15-2019, 1:36 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,141
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I predict a 9-0 but with the 4 liberals saying yeah the NY law is total crap but we are not down with upsetting the whole apple cart.

How's that for legal speak?
__________________
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
  #593  
Old 05-15-2019, 1:56 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The amici were pretty interesting. Lots of opinions of tests, rationale, self-citing (here's my book!), mooting the case, and preserving the status quo. What would tickle my fancy would be:

1) Even if this is mooted and/or preempted by the FOPA that the entire law is unconstitutional *and* outlines that exact reasons why. I don't want to see "Under any level of scrutiny or analysis this law would fail."

2) "Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas...."
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 05-15-2019, 2:49 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,075
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
It’ll be 5-4. All four voted no in Heller and McDonald will vote no in this case.
On just the PROPERTY interest question alone - it would be very easy for SCOTUS to vote 9-0.

While NYC regulaltions make sense for NYC issued firearms to LEO, bureaucrats and elected officials - they are absolutely abhorrent when applied to privately paid for and owned firearms.

Even Charles Nichols is expecting something bigger than just a property question decision - what'll it be in that case? 7-2? 6-3? 5-4? 4-5?

Dunno...

=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
  #595  
Old 05-15-2019, 4:31 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 601
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
It’ll be 5-4. All four voted no in Heller and McDonald will vote no in this case.
Have to agree. The four dissenting justices wanted a sliding scale test that the majority rejected, i.e., the same test the recalcitrant circuits have been applying ever since. They will vote for it again, as there is no other way to validte the numerous restrictions states and municipalities ahve enacted in the name of "common sense gun safety."
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:00 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anyone monitoring the progress of those rule changes NYC claimed could moot this case? IIRC, they were planning on passing them mid May and they were to take effect mid June.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #597  
Old 05-16-2019, 3:39 AM
silvertear silvertear is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 142
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Anyone monitoring the progress of those rule changes NYC claimed could moot this case? IIRC, they were planning on passing them mid May and they were to take effect mid June.
If I'm reading things correctly, they're having a public hearing on it tomorrow at 10AM EST (http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/conten...-license-rules). I believe they're accepting comments until 9AM EST tomorrow in order to consider potential changes to the proposed amendments before they're adopted (http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/comments-view/29951). The proposed changes to try to cover their backsides and moot this can be found here https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/dow...enses-rule.pdf , though I believe that the Cato Institute in their amicus brief (pg. 12) mentions that what NYC is trying to do is exactly what the "voluntary cessation doctrine targets".

Last edited by silvertear; 05-16-2019 at 3:50 AM.. Reason: Adding a link to the pdf of proposed changes
Reply With Quote
  #598  
Old 05-16-2019, 4:25 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 12,898
iTrader: 149 / 100%
Default

Justice Department filed Amicus yesterday, says the law should be overturned http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...itedstates.pdf
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #599  
Old 05-16-2019, 4:52 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Justice Department filed Amicus yesterday, says the law should be overturned http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...itedstates.pdf
"The ban on transporting firearms to out-of-state ranges violates the dormant Commerce Clause, but not the right to travel." wonder if they are adding the "not the right to travel" because of Mance?

Love how Cato's amici calls NY "Gotham".
Reply With Quote
  #600  
Old 05-16-2019, 6:28 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,849
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
On just the PROPERTY interest question alone - it would be very easy for SCOTUS to vote 9-0.

While NYC regulaltions make sense for NYC issued firearms to LEO, bureaucrats and elected officials - they are absolutely abhorrent when applied to privately paid for and owned firearms.

Even Charles Nichols is expecting something bigger than just a property question decision - what'll it be in that case? 7-2? 6-3? 5-4? 4-5?

Dunno...

=8-|
If this was just about right to travel to your other home with a legally acquired firearm, it would have been overturned like Caetano and done nothing to expand the status quo. The fact that they granted cert means they are considering raising the baseline for infringement. Where they will put that base no one knows, but the huge flush of amici briefs is a good indication gun control advocates see the writing on the wall and are panicked.
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 4:37 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.