New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Mooted & GVR'd 4/27/20

[HarryS]

The courage of their belief in the wisdom(s) that led to the law is lacking, it would appear.

[wolfwood]

Is that even possible after SCOTUS already granted cert? Couldn't they still hear the case because of New York's differentiation between premise permits and carry permits?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I looked at the complaint just now there is only a request for injunctive and declaratory relief so if the ordinance is lifted the case is moot.

The Second Circuit's opinion would be vacated as if it never was but the Supreme Court would not reach the merits

[mit31]

From Americanbar.org:

Conclusion
While

Is that even possible after SCOTUS already granted cert? Couldn't they still hear the case because of New York's differentiation between premise permits and carry permits?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[jyc]

There are two references that leads me to believe that NY is under a lot of pressure to moot this case by changing the law:

Is that even possible after SCOTUS already granted cert? Couldn't they still hear the case because of New York's differentiation between premise permits and carry permits?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[mshill]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/2705601002

No matter what you think may happen, the other side sure is worried how the court will rule in this case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I read that they are now rushing to change the law.... which would mean that SCOTUS no longer has to hear/adjudicate this?

There are two references that leads me to believe that NY is under a lot of pressure to moot this case by changing the law:

If it isn't negated by New York City's actions, the gun case will shed light on the Supreme Court's transformation under President Donald Trump.

[510rick]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/2705601002

No matter what you think may happen, the other side sure is worried how the court will rule in this case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You got that right!!!! I think all we can do is hope the decision is on a broad spectrum and reiterates the rights we have to include much more then transporting . Im no scholar but also feel as if the SCOTUS is ready to reiterate just what the 2nd means .

[wtyler3]

I read that they are now rushing to change the law.... which would mean that SCOTUS no longer has to hear/adjudicate this?

[jyc]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2705601002

No matter what you think may happen, the other side sure is worried how the court will rule in this case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Califpatriot]

Here is the problem with that. SCOTUS typically tells the lower court where it erred. And way the courts have applied (or misapplied) Heller, it doesn’t matter if they clarify a “right to transport”. It won’t help unless they address the 1 step test the courts have been applying to gun control laws:

1) Does the law pass intermediate scrutiny?
a. Yes – The law stands. Stop here. No need to determine if a right is being infringed, because intermediate scrutiny is good enough to infringe the right as long as someone, somewhere, somehow can exercise the right in some limited form. (ie we do let you drive to one of 7 ranges in the city, so this is just a “reasonable” limitation on the right).
b. No – Go to step 2 (note I call it a one-step test because everything passes intermediate scrutiny with these lower courts, so it never gets this far)

2) Using text and history, determine if a core 2A right is being infringed (again we never get this far).

It would be really awkward if they didn’t address the “scrutiny” issue.
SCOTUS: There is a right to transport a firearm
Lower Court: That’s nice and we don’t disagree, but we applied intermediate scrutiny and this passed the test. After all, this isn’t a total ban on transporting a firearm, we are just putting some boundaries around it….So, are we good? We’re affirmed?

So, they have to at least address scrutiny (unless they rule there is no right to transport, unlikely). In order of worst case to best:

-The court correctly applied intermediate scrutiny – We affirm (0% chance)

-Intermediate scrutiny is the right standard, but this law does not pass the test (very low chance) – We overturn

-We aren’t going to address the right level of scrutiny, but this law does not pass intermediate scrutiny nonetheless (medium chance) – We overturn (This would indicate a very reluctant Roberts)

- You should have applied strict scrutiny – We overturn (good chance)

- You should have applied history/text – We overturn (good chance)

I think you're confusing intermediate scrutiny and rational basis. Now, intermediate scrutiny has been used effectively by courts in the heller context to mean rational basis, but it's conceivable that scotus could lay put a middle ground between rational basis and strict scrutiny.

[tenemae]

Roberts will join with liberals and Ginsburg in vegetative state to reaffirm that anything can be restricted for public safety.

Ginsburg is the one who granted extension

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

Jul 19 2018 Application (17A1393) to extend further the time from August 3, 2018 to September 2, 2018, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Jul 23 2018 Application (17A1393) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until September 4, 2018.

[Offwidth]

You all talking as if overturning this silly law is a done deal. Roberts will join with liberals and Ginsburg in vegetative state to reaffirm that anything can be restricted for public safety.

Just watch.

[CurlyDave]

...(Hint: SCOTUS doesn't take cases to resolve trivial issues.)

The Supreme Court takes about 80 cases each year. Maybe 5 of them are on the news programs.

They may not be trivial, but they are not all of high importance.

OTOH every firearms case they have taken is newsworthy.

[ritter]

Agreed, Phiremin. Given the opportunity to define constitutional law/limits that they have already ruled on and (largely) been ignored on vs ruling on a minor technicality, which gives more reason to grant cert? Roberts may not be overtly pro gun but he did sign on to the Heller and McDonald majority opinions, both of which indicated that lesser scrutiny is not appropriate. And Roberts is concerned with perception of his court's legitimacy, which would include adherence to SCOTUS rulings by lower courts, especially with regard to enumerated constitutional rights. I suspect he will be on board with a decision that defines scrutiny and bear, as defined in the two prior cases, to ensure compliance with his court's decisions. If this wasn't a gun case, I suspect we'd see a crossing the lines by one or more liberal justices to support legitimacy of SCOTUS rulings as well.

[Phiremin]

No, they will just say FOPA takes precedence. Does not matter scrutiny, does not matter 2A.

[Offwidth]

No, they will just say FOPA takes precedence. Does not matter scrutiny, does not matter 2A.