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
  #1641  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:18 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,270
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

mootness should fail, else as others have said NY just defined the model of how to do an end-run around the legal system, and got away with it.
Until there are consequences for these bast*rds, nothing will improve.
Reply With Quote
  #1642  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:20 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 BAJ475 View Post
For those more informed than myself, what about the issue of the correct standard of review? Is this something that can be dispensed with based on mootness?
I'd like to know this as well. Standard of review (aka the second circuit shuffle) is what I have been convinced that this case is really about. NY has made an end run and is hoping the court allows it so that this business of rational basis in intermediate scrutiny guise is not addressed in this case. The banners are, IMO, trying to dodge, not a bullet, but an artillery shell here.
If the case is moot the underlying issues remain unresolved and it all seems to balance on technicalities and Roberts' attempts to seem non-political.
Reply With Quote
  #1643  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:46 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
My point is the restrictions on free speech are based on what forms of speech cause harm to another person. The equivalent of that for gun rights is you can't shoot someone or hit them with the gun. Banning certain guns or barrel lengths or calibers is not the same as banning speech that harms another person.
What is libel or not is just as grey, if not more, as banning levels of arms dangerousness.
Reply With Quote
  #1644  
Old 12-03-2019, 1:06 AM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 908
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

This is pretty unbelievable. It needs some context, so feel free to read page 42, but the fact that she says this just shows her bias. Pathetic.

Quote:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm not going to, because I want to be careful for you and for society, you're not representing if they shot somebody with a gun that you're not going to prosecute them for that?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1645  
Old 12-03-2019, 1:36 AM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 908
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

... and my favorite quote so far (about 66 pages in):

Quote:
JUSTICE GORSUCH: So we have no representations to us as to what is -- is ‘direct and continuous,’ other than coffee is okay.
(bold emphasis added by me, because it’s hilarious)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1646  
Old 12-03-2019, 5:20 AM
LINY's Avatar
LINY LINY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scbauer View Post
Not cool.
It may feel like that now but having to wait 7 months for a ruling is a whole lot better than waiting a decade for them to even grant cert on a 2A case!
__________________
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
  #1647  
Old 12-03-2019, 6:11 AM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, when all is said and done it comes down to Roberts? I remember the last time I was counting on him in a big way. If he does intend to go with the argument that the case is moot wouldn't that decision be made rather quickly? Why drag a nothing burger out for months?
Reply With Quote
  #1648  
Old 12-03-2019, 6:15 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtlaw View Post
So, when all is said and done it comes down to Roberts? I remember the last time I was counting on him in a big way. If he does intend to go with the argument that the case is moot wouldn't that decision be made rather quickly? Why drag a nothing burger out for months?
The idea that it comes down to Roberts is rather speculative IMHO. None of us are privy to any particular Justice's thoughts on the case or the kind of bargaining which may be going on behind the scenes.

It is even barely conceivable that a fascist Justice might vote against mootness and although extremely unlikely it is possible that one might even vote for recognizing the right to self-defense outside the home.

And for all we know, Thomas might split off as he did in McDonald where he did a concurring opinion.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1649  
Old 12-03-2019, 9:00 AM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, California / Princeton, New Jersey
Posts: 2,438
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scbauer View Post
This is pretty unbelievable. It needs some context, so feel free to read page 42, but the fact that she says this just shows her bias. Pathetic.


This is just taking a soundbite. These kinds of questions are asked to clarify a lack of precision or definition in a statement. In thus case, Justice Sotomayer appeared to be trying to clarify the level of prosecutorial discretion NYC intends to exercise..

It's akin to someone asking, "you don't literally mean nailing someone to the cross" when you say someone should be crucified.
__________________

"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wantedÖ and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."
Reply With Quote
  #1650  
Old 12-03-2019, 9:22 AM
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 The Soup Nazi View Post
This is just taking a soundbite. These kinds of questions are asked to clarify a lack of precision or definition in a statement. In thus case, Justice Sotomayer appeared to be trying to clarify the level of prosecutorial discretion NYC intends to exercise..

It's akin to someone asking, "you don't literally mean nailing someone to the cross" when you say someone should be crucified.
Agreed, though It seemed odd that she, like some here on CG, seems to have some notion that the question before the court involves 'carry'. Clement even reminded her that they are only asking for unfettered transport when she asked why they hadn't brought a carry case (cough...Peruta). Generally locked, unloaded transport doesn't involve many shootings. I do feel that she definitely has a bias to her questioning but I'd hate to say she has her mind made up already (though she may , just as Thomas may)
Reply With Quote
  #1651  
Old 12-03-2019, 9:56 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtlaw View Post
So, when all is said and done it comes down to Roberts? I remember the last time I was counting on him in a big way. If he does intend to go with the argument that the case is moot wouldn't that decision be made rather quickly? Why drag a nothing burger out for months?
1) I agree this comes down to Roberts. I suspect he regrets Heller and would rather not expand 2A rights any further. Just my opinion. But the lack of SCOTUS taking any 2A cases since Heller seems to support this. 4 votes needed for cert, but they could never get Kennedy and Roberts.

2) Iím not expecting a quick decision. I expect the losing side will want to issue a dissent, which will take time to write.
Reply With Quote
  #1652  
Old 12-03-2019, 9:59 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 Phiremin View Post
1) I agree this comes down to Roberts. I suspect he regrets Heller and would rather not expand 2A rights any further. Just my opinion. But the lack of SCOTUS taking any 2A cases since Heller seems to support this. 4 votes needed for cert, but they could never get Kennedy and Roberts.

2) Iím not expecting a quick decision. I expect the losing side will want to issue a dissent, which will take time to write.
All available evidence suggests it was Kennedy and not Roberts who didnít want to expand the 2A. There is zero evidence other than pure speculation that Roberts wasnít in favor of expanding 2A precedent. Furthermore, post Kennedy evidence suggests this is true.
Reply With Quote
  #1653  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:07 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,704
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

I was VERY surprised at the plaintif's lawyers and a potentially costly error made very early in this case. One of the issues involving mootness is that plaintifs have the right to ask to be paid "damages" they suffered as a result of the law at issue. However, the suit as filed, does not make any damages claims. This is potentially important to whether the case is moot or not. The Solicitor General (SG) had remarked in a brief that one reason the case is not "moot" even though the law has been taken off the books is because the plaintifs can still potentially recover damages. The Justices in discussion raised the issue that they haven't filed for damages, and you want to file for them NOW, not at just the 11th hour, but at 11 : 59 : 45? That didn't come off sounding kosher. Note to all future 2A defending attorneys... FILE FOR DAMAGE CLAIMS AT THE OUTSET, ON DAY ONE. You may be glad you did later.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #1654  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:12 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,704
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

The problem with Roberts isn't his judicial competence nor his inclinations on 2A jurisprudence.

Many have long suspected that many of his votes have been "influenced" by forces outside of his control. Whether those forces are still in play, at this late stage of swamp drainage, remains to be seen. Let's hope Pinocchio has cut the strings and wants to become a real boy.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #1655  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:21 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,907
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
I was VERY surprised at the plaintif's lawyers and a potentially costly error made very early in this case. One of the issues involving mootness is that plaintifs have the right to ask to be paid "damages" they suffered as a result of the law at issue. However, the suit as filed, does not make any damages claims. This is potentially important to whether the case is moot or not. The Solicitor General (SG) had remarked in a brief that one reason the case is not "moot" even though the law has been taken off the books is because the plaintifs can still potentially recover damages. The Justices in discussion raised the issue that they haven't filed for damages, and you want to file for them NOW, not at just the 11th hour, but at 11 : 59 : 45? That didn't come off sounding kosher. Note to all future 2A defending attorneys... FILE FOR DAMAGE CLAIMS AT THE OUTSET, ON DAY ONE. You may be glad you did later.
Damages?

How much in terms of dollars can one place on deprivation of a civil right?

WRT deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights what might the damage be for the potential inability to defend oneself in his hotel room or second home?

I do have a suggestion. Since the inability to defend oneself could lead to the loss of his life, put the NYC ***hats in prison for life. That'll teach the gun grabbers a lesson they won't forget.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #1656  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:22 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,704
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
Read the transcript.. Interesting. I don't know which way Roberts will go on mootness, but I think the case against mootness was stronger.

The important exchange for me was on the Gorsuch/Dearing discussion on whether a controversy still exists:

Gorsuch: But you're asking us to say that there is no controversy now. So I am trying to just nail down exactly what is the delta, if any, remaining in the relief that might have been sought and the relief you've provided.

Dearing: ... In short what I'm saying is this is not relief that was ever sought. There may be a controversy here, but it's a new controversy, it would need to be litigated in a new case.

Dearing admits there "may" be a controversy here, so how exactly can he claim at the same time that the plaintiffs got everything they asked for? If he wants to claim the plaintiffs got everything they asked for, his answer must be there is no controversy left in order to justify mootness. Saying there may still exist controversy but it needs to be litigated in a new case is an exact reason not to moot the current case and address the controversy.
He's saying that though plaintifs may be due payment for "damages" and that may/may not be a legit claim... it's not part of THIS suit. He's saying if they wanted damages they should have filed for them... but they didn't, so it's not part of THIS case... though he says they have the right to file a NEW case to try to recover those damages. Via that line of reasoning he negates "damages" as an argument against mootness.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #1657  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:25 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,704
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
Damages?

How much in terms of dollars can one place on deprivation of a civil right?

WRT deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights what might the damage be for the potential inability to defend oneself in his hotel room or second home?

I do have a suggestion. Since the inability to defend oneself could lead to the loss of his life, put the NYC ***hats in prison for life. That'll teach the gun grabbers a lesson they won't forget.
Regardless of the amount ( one dollar, a million dollars - any incidental expenses "caused" to plaintifs by the law) every 2A case needs a damages claim IF ONLY as a strategic move to prevent mootness claims down the line when the defendant starts pulling these mootness shenanigans. You may never recover one cent... but a CLAIM for one cent, beats NO CLAIM as a mootness defense every time.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #1658  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:32 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,907
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
Regardless of the amount ( one dollar, a million dollars - any incidental expenses "caused" to plaintifs by the law) every 2A case needs a damages claim IF ONLY as a strategic move to prevent mootness claims down the line when the defendant starts pulling these mootness shenanigans. You may never recover one cent... but a CLAIM for one cent, beats NO CLAIM as a mootness defense every time.
I'll trust you on that since while I've read every Perry Mason book, I am neither a lawyer or a miracle worker, Jim.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #1659  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:11 AM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
He's saying that though plaintifs may be due payment for "damages" and that may/may not be a legit claim... it's not part of THIS suit. He's saying if they wanted damages they should have filed for them... but they didn't, so it's not part of THIS case... though he says they have the right to file a NEW case to try to recover those damages. Via that line of reasoning he negates "damages" as an argument against mootness.
Gorsuch isnít talking about monetary damages, heís talking about the deference between what relief was granted by negating the old law and enacting the new law, with what the plaintiffs actually would have pursued. NYC says they gave everything plaintiffs asked for, plaintiffs disagree and is making the case to show why. Gorsuch is trying to understand what the gap is. Should that gap be non-insignificant, a controversy still exists.
Reply With Quote
  #1660  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:35 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 244
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
Gorsuch isnít talking about monetary damages, heís talking about the deference between what relief was granted by negating the old law and enacting the new law, with what the plaintiffs actually would have pursued. NYC says they gave everything plaintiffs asked for, plaintiffs disagree and is making the case to show why. Gorsuch is trying to understand what the gap is. Should that gap be non-insignificant, a controversy still exists.
Which he calls the "delta" in his orals.
Reply With Quote
  #1661  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:52 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Excerpt from WSJ Editorial: ... This triggered amusing exchanges over whether stopping for “a cup of coffee” or to visit Mom along the way would qualify as continuous. Justice Neil Gorsuch zoomed in: “So we have no representations to us as to what is—is direct and continuous, other than coffee is okay.” Counsel for New York Richard Dearing: “Coffee . . . what I can represent because—because it’s come up before, coffee, restrooms, food, gas, the kinds of things that you ordinarily would stop for in the course of travel, I hadn’t considered the mother or mother-in-law example before. I think that’s going to need to play out in the state courts.” ...

Right ... the question of whether detours on a “direct and continuous” transport of a firearm qualifies as reasonable versus unreasonable is discretionary and undefined, and NYC’s attorney expects such questions to be addressed by further litigation in state courts, perhaps by people who are arrested for ‘unreasonable’ detours. Therefore a “live controversy” still exists, admitted by NYC’s own attorney. A live controversy that can only be resolved by a decision by SCOTUS.

Also, if SCOTUS moots this case, they will send a strong message to the anti-gun state and city governments that they can pass just about any gun restriction they like, and simply play it out through the courts over decades ... then, for the 1% that eventually get granted cert, simply pull the NYC mootness trick for those. The other 99% of regulations would still stand. That would set a terrible precedent that will not be lost upon the liberal left anti-gun governments.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 12-03-2019 at 12:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1662  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:05 PM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 562
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
Right ... the question of whether detours on a ďdirect and continuousĒ transport of a firearm qualifies as reasonable versus unreasonable is discretionary and undefined, and NYCís attorney expects such questions to be addressed by further litigation in state courts. Therefore a ďlive controversyĒ still exists, admitted by NYCís own attorney. A live controversy that can only be resolved by a decision by SCOTUS.

Also, if SCOTUS moots this case, they will send a strong message to the anti-gun state and city governments that they can pass just about any gun restriction they like, and simply play it out through the courts over decades ... then, for the 1% that eventually get granted cert, simply pull the NYC mootness trick for those. The other 99% of regulations would still stand. That would set a terrible precedent.
And this, combined with the veiled threat about packing the court if the Dems win in 2020 is why they absolutely must take this up and provide a smack-down of epic proportions to the states and localities trying this, the lower courts and those who would think that they can influence the court with their petty thuggery. They need to hit and bear to mean at minimum unrestricted travel with an unloaded weapon and define strict standards for deciding 2A cases going forward with no room for this intermediate scrutiny two-step BS that the lower courts have been getting away with.

They should also use the opportunity to strike down any extraneous requirements for ownership (premises permit, FOIA card, FSC, etc) - you pass the BG check on a sale, that's it. No additional requirements to purchase or possess required. I know it's reaching, but given that they've basically punted for most of a decade, they should come back and apologize with a big, expansive win for the constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #1663  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:32 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overvi...-of-new-york/#

Josh Blackman thinks they will moot the case.

None of this explains why Roberts chose not to moot the case over the summer with the liberal wing, and instead wait until oral argument to decide on mootness doctoring They only have a limited number of cases per year. Why fill up oral argument day when you’ll vote to moot the case? He’s had ample time to figure out how he will vote. Was NY’s case really all that compelling to change his mind? It didn’t seem like that it was anymore compelling than what was already submitted in writing.

Last edited by wireless; 12-03-2019 at 12:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1664  
Old 12-03-2019, 1:33 PM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 562
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
None of this explains why Roberts chose not to moot the case over the summer with the liberal wing, and instead wait until oral argument to decide on mootness doctoring They only have a limited number of cases per year. Why fill up oral argument day when youíll vote to moot the case? Heís had ample time to figure out how he will vote. Was NYís case really all that compelling to change his mind? It didnít seem like that it was anymore compelling than what was already submitted in writing.
If we go with the theory that he has truly been compromised somehow and is therefore required per the terms of his blackmailers to be overtly hostile to the 2A, it makes perfect sense - run the clock and play for time while draining the resources of your enemy. Instead of just tossing it and starting game clock back in motion on those other cases held pending NYSRPA, he keeps the clock stalled by requesting orals on something he ultimately doesn't actually care about so that he can forestall any other movement on other cases until next term (and post election) by not issuing the decision until June.

If Trump wins another term and Roberts' actions remain suspect, he should probably task a clean slate DoJ to figure out who has the goods on Roberts and charge them and Roberts under the appropriate criminal statutes.
Reply With Quote
  #1665  
Old 12-03-2019, 1:44 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm no spring chicken. This case may be my best chance to see it turn around. Knock on wood.
Reply With Quote
  #1666  
Old 12-03-2019, 2:02 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 ironpegasus View Post
If we go with the theory that he has truly been compromised somehow and is therefore required per the terms of his blackmailers to be overtly hostile to the 2A, it makes perfect sense - run the clock and play for time while draining the resources of your enemy. Instead of just tossing it and starting game clock back in motion on those other cases held pending NYSRPA, he keeps the clock stalled by requesting orals on something he ultimately doesn't actually care about so that he can forestall any other movement on other cases until next term (and post election) by not issuing the decision until June.

If Trump wins another term and Roberts' actions remain suspect, he should probably task a clean slate DoJ to figure out who has the goods on Roberts and charge them and Roberts under the appropriate criminal statutes.
By theory you mean conspiracy theory, because thereís no evidence heís being blackmailed. Epstein log is suspicious but plenty of people flew on his plane who arenít guilty of anything. And if anyone thinks his great crime of using a shady international adoption agency to adopt white orphans and give them an amazing life in the US, youíre kidding yourselves if you think that holds any water with the American public.

Or the more plausible theory is that heís made a misguided attempt to make the court appear a certain way to the American public rather than vote along constitutional principles, which there is plenty of evidence of by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #1667  
Old 12-03-2019, 3:07 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,902
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Wouldn't it be a kick if Ginsberg is the 5th. After all she's proud and probably doesn't like the lower courts pissing on SCOTUS ether. Plus, maybe a hint of senility can work in our favor she did ask a very interesting question after all.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #1668  
Old 12-03-2019, 3:20 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I dont think they will moot this case. It leaves a huge opportunity for governments to game the system. Like if they grant cert to Pena, so the state changes the microstamping to microchipping, it gets mooted and we all got to start over again.
Reply With Quote
  #1669  
Old 12-03-2019, 3:32 PM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 562
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Or the more plausible theory is that heís made a misguided attempt to make the court appear a certain way to the American public rather than vote along constitutional principles, which there is plenty of evidence of by the way.
A misguided attempt that at this point he has to clearly know is causing the court and his legacy more harm than good based on the perception by both sides. What does that gain him except animosity from everyone?

Either way blackmailed or not, it's clear that he's not honoring the oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Given how much the bureaucratic state has manipulated so much else illegally and in contravention to the constitutional and due process norms, we ought to be giving all of our public servants a once-over to make sure they're actually on the side of the US Constitution.

Whether he's being blackmailed or just complicit in the erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the way that he's failed to address the clear failures of the FISA courts despite mountains of evidence of malfeasance and malpractice in the administration of those courts, courts that he personally is responsible for overseeing, deserves a thorough investigation into whether he was involved in said malfeasance or merely incompetent to do his job. That needs to be undertaken by a clean slate DoJ or otherwise non-compromised special prosecutorial team.
Reply With Quote
  #1670  
Old 12-03-2019, 4:18 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,907
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Wouldn't it be a kick if Ginsberg is the 5th. After all she's proud and probably doesn't like the lower courts pissing on SCOTUS ether. Plus, maybe a hint of senility can work in our favor she did ask a very interesting question after all.
I want her to snooze during the hearing, wake up suddenly and shout "DIVORCE GRANTED!"
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #1671  
Old 12-03-2019, 4:31 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 ironpegasus View Post
A misguided attempt that at this point he has to clearly know is causing the court and his legacy more harm than good based on the perception by both sides. What does that gain him except animosity from everyone?

Either way blackmailed or not, it's clear that he's not honoring the oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Given how much the bureaucratic state has manipulated so much else illegally and in contravention to the constitutional and due process norms, we ought to be giving all of our public servants a once-over to make sure they're actually on the side of the US Constitution.

Whether he's being blackmailed or just complicit in the erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the way that he's failed to address the clear failures of the FISA courts despite mountains of evidence of malfeasance and malpractice in the administration of those courts, courts that he personally is responsible for overseeing, deserves a thorough investigation into whether he was involved in said malfeasance or merely incompetent to do his job. That needs to be undertaken by a clean slate DoJ or otherwise non-compromised special prosecutorial team.
I agree with your take on Roberts as a judge, but this nonsense about him being compromised makes our entire community look like idiots the more it's parroted. I already see it has taken hold on social media and major conservative news websites.
Reply With Quote
  #1672  
Old 12-03-2019, 5:45 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,802
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
I want her to snooze during the hearing, wake up suddenly and shout "DIVORCE GRANTED!"
now that would be funny.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #1673  
Old 12-03-2019, 6:30 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,980
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I feel that if mootness is granted it opens the door for all kinds of unconstitutional laws that will stay on the books for the years it takes to get to SCOTUS and then be repealed and replaced at the 11th hour, talk about death by 1000 cuts.

NY needs to be B slapped and hard or we enter a new era of unconditional laws that will be repealed and replaced at the last moment, this is a new tactic that needs to end now.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #1674  
Old 12-03-2019, 7:59 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,857
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Monetary damages not filed? Yeah, the case had been going on for years and at the last moment NY changes the law - there was no time to file for damages as explained by Clement those damages are part of the process that got short circuited by NY state. It's a complete non-issue that is still on the table.
Reply With Quote
  #1675  
Old 12-03-2019, 8:34 PM
ngnrnlo ngnrnlo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
Regardless of the amount ( one dollar, a million dollars - any incidental expenses "caused" to plaintifs by the law) every 2A case needs a damages claim IF ONLY as a strategic move to prevent mootness claims down the line when the defendant starts pulling these mootness shenanigans. You may never recover one cent... but a CLAIM for one cent, beats NO CLAIM as a mootness defense every time.
A small damage claim, like a nominal $1, will not work because the defendant will agree to pay in full, mooting the claim. Defendant may even decide to pay in full as soon as the complaint is filed, without even submitting an answer to the complaint.

The damage demand should be high enough that defendant will not pay just to get rid of the claim. The large amount need not be justified before judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #1676  
Old 12-03-2019, 9:30 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,839
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngnrnlo View Post
A small damage claim, like a nominal $1, will not work because the defendant will agree to pay in full, mooting the claim. Defendant may even decide to pay in full as soon as the complaint is filed, without even submitting an answer to the complaint.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngnrnlo View Post
The damage demand should be high enough that defendant will not pay just to get rid of the claim. The large amount need not be justified before judgment.
Interesting point! They could ask for a billion dollars, knowing that the other side will never agree to it, even if it's an amount that will never actually be awarded, it will keep the controversy live.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #1677  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:20 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overvi...-of-new-york/#

Josh Blackman thinks they will moot the case.

None of this explains why Roberts chose not to moot the case over the summer with the liberal wing, and instead wait until oral argument to decide on mootness doctoring They only have a limited number of cases per year. Why fill up oral argument day when you’ll vote to moot the case? He’s had ample time to figure out how he will vote. Was NY’s case really all that compelling to change his mind? It didn’t seem like that it was anymore compelling than what was already submitted in writing.
This is what I don't understand either. Why waste everyone's time and money arguing a moot case? I can't imagine NYC came up with any new surprise arguments for mootness during the hearing. Everyone knows what game they are playing. If Roberts wants the case mooted, why not just dismiss it over the summer and hear another case? The only reason I can think of is that Roberts wants to absolutely torture gun rights people who thought they actually had a chance of getting a win.

Last edited by pistol3; 12-03-2019 at 10:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1678  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:38 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 pistol3 View Post
This is what I don't understand either. Why waste everyone's time and money arguing a moot case? I can't imagine NYC came up with any new surprise arguments for mootness during the hearing. Everyone knows what game they are playing. If Roberts wants the case mooted, why not just dismiss it over the summer and hear another case?
This case is just not making sense right now. We don't know any of the reasoning behind the actions. If they thought it moot why not just call it early and bring up another case? There has to be some tug of war going on behind the scenes or maybe two factions that are both loathe to give in on this point.
We get dragged along like the kids in a messy divorce.
Reply With Quote
  #1679  
Old 12-04-2019, 3:02 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
This is what I don't understand either. Why waste everyone's time and money arguing a moot case? I can't imagine NYC came up with any new surprise arguments for mootness during the hearing. Everyone knows what game they are playing. If Roberts wants the case mooted, why not just dismiss it over the summer and hear another case? The only reason I can think of is that Roberts wants to absolutely torture gun rights people who thought they actually had a chance of getting a win.
Because Roberts needed to hear those assurances that this law is dead, wonít be resurrected and no past infractions will be held against anyone (although Iím not sure how that is enforced short of running another case up to SCOTUS, which could take years and who knows what the court will look like then). He is expecting a vigorous dissent from Thomas and Gorsuch and needed this hearing as cover.

But to me, making this case moot really undermines the credibility of the court. It says if you are caught stealing (in this case metaphorically the constitutional rights of people in NYC) and you are caught, just give back what you took and promise not to do it again. No harm no foul. And then to have the 2nd circuit rubber stamp what you did and SCOTUS is just going to look other way.
Reply With Quote
  #1680  
Old 12-04-2019, 4:19 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,521
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Because Roberts needed to hear those assurances that this law is dead, wonít be resurrected and no past infractions will be held against anyone (although Iím not sure how that is enforced short of running another case up to SCOTUS, which could take years and who knows what the court will look like then). He is expecting a vigorous dissent from Thomas and Gorsuch and needed this hearing as cover.

But to me, making this case moot really undermines the credibility of the court. It says if you are caught stealing (in this case metaphorically the constitutional rights of people in NYC) and you are caught, just give back what you took and promise not to do it again. No harm no foul. And then to have the 2nd circuit rubber stamp what you did and SCOTUS is just going to look other way.
Even if it is mooted the 2nd circuit opinion will be vacated.
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 7:24 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.