SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case - NYSRPA v. Bruen — Decision … soon

[kuug]

We'll agree to disagree on whether SCOTUS has fools, and I'll modify the games description. There is some strategy and politics involved, but I wouldn't call it games. Regarding NYSRPA, a few on the conservative bloc did call out NYC's shenanigans while voting to dismiss on the technicality. On it's merits they would have ruled with the 2A, by the letter of the law I can understand why they let it go. I don't agree with it and wish they stopped the NYC game playing, but if anything, they stayed true to the law.

They most certainly did not rule on NYSRPA v NYC on legal technicalities. They bent to political pressure from the Democrats who were threatening court packing. Roberts and Kavanaugh made calculated decisions to sacrifice NYSRPA v NYC to appease Democrats demands. The Democrats have a supermajority in NYS and NYC essentially runs that state. There is nothing to stop NY from reinstating their restrictions the second they eventually take SCOTUS back. The justices are absolute fools. They bought the Democrats years of time and justified openly making threats against the court's integrity.

[wireless]

Will be very interesting to see what SCOTUS does now that Barret is on the court with a circuit split on carry. The case isn't a garbage case either.

Regardless of what someone may think Heller means when they talk about open carry, the fact of the matter is, Kavanaugh and probably Gorsuch would never voted to make open carry the law of the land. It just won't happen. You have to factor politics into all of this unfortunately.

[SandHill]

Umm, last I checked, the First Amendment has no such "shall not be infringed" language. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To abridge means "to curtail." The fact that the Congress used different words suggests they intended a different meaning.

OK, so let's say I concede that there is a distinction between "abridge" and "infringe" which is meaningful in this context. Let's further assume, arguendo, that "abridge" menas exceptions are permitted, and "shall not be infringed" means "no exceptions."

Where does that lead us in practical terms? Is it your position that the Second Amendment means you can "bear" any weapon, anyplace, any time, with no "exceptions?" Say for example that you wanted to bear an M249 and a couple of drums of ammo while attending an AOC town hall. Is that your right? How about in a federal courthouse while the Ninth Circuit is considering a gun rights case?

If so, as I asserted above, that is not a mainstream view. Even Scalia made it clear that was not what Heller meant. There is no judicial or legislative precedent for the position that the Second Amendment means "no exceptions" and there is 230 years worth of precedent for "exceptions."

[Paladin]

Wow...this case wasn't on the radar. Doesn't look like its even on the SCOTUS docket yet.

It is now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

[SandHill]

It is now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html

Awesome, OP. Bringing us the news before it happens!

[Citizen_B]

They most certainly did not rule on NYSRPA v NYC on legal technicalities.

Straight from the horses (SCOTUS) mouth:

"After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a secondhome or shooting range outside of the city, which is the pre-cise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint."

Lesson to the wise:

If you ask for it in your "prayer for relief", and the defendant gives it to you...case can be mooted.

If you don't like the way your case might get mooted, make sure your prayer for relief specifies a "burrito", not a "taco".

Mr. Rabbit and I final agree! NY State gave specifically and exactly what NYSRPA requested. If you follow the letter of the law, the case MUST be mooted. The fact NY State did it right when cert was granted is the gamesmanship part. Personally I hated the fact SCOTUS did that as it sends the message they won't step out of their lane and smack down games, but they did acknowledge the timing of the regulation change as BS.

[TruOil]

OK, so let's say I concede that there is a distinction between "abridge" and "infringe" which is meaningful in this context. Let's further assume, arguendo, that "abridge" menas exceptions are permitted, and "shall not be infringed" means "no exceptions."

Where does that lead us in practical terms? Is it your position that the Second Amendment means you can "bear" any weapon, anyplace, any time, with no "exceptions?" Say for example that you wanted to bear an M249 and a couple of drums of ammo while attending an AOC town hall. Is that your right? How about in a federal courthouse while the Ninth Circuit is considering a gun rights case?

If so, as I asserted above, that is not a mainstream view. Even Scalia made it clear that was not what Heller meant. There is no judicial or legislative precedent for the position that the Second Amendment means "no exceptions" and there is 230 years worth of precedent for "exceptions."

You know of course that private ownership of cannon was not uncommon, and for all I know is still legal. (Black powder cannon are legal in California, for example.) Prior to the NFA, ownership of fully automatic weapons was legal, and remained so after the NFA as long as one was willing to undergo a background check and pay a tax. Private ownership of machine guns is still legal, for that matter, as long as the firearm was manufactured prior to a date certain. I understand where Scalia went in Heller, but I have to wonder how much of that was in order to get Roberts to sign on an obtain a majority. Allowing full bore freedom was likely a bridge too far, even if that was the intent of the Amendment. Where we get into trouble is by allowing restrictions of the right as to "time, place and manner" as is the case with the First Amendment cases, as such limitations can be used to justify urban carrying bans and the GFSZA.

[sulla123]

I see the usual windbags are in full throated chest thumping. I'll check back when there's news on the case. Excluding Paladin from the windbag description, of course.

[Paladin]

Just thinking about what sort of timeline we’re facing:

2020 mid-Dec: request cert; response request, response extensions, Response and Reply
2021 mid-March: distribute then grant cert for next fall; briefs
2021 October: orals
2022 January or later: decision/opinion

A long shot would be a relatively quick GVR with a per curiam opinion ala Caetano. But I doubt that, even with a dissent, because I think Thomas wants to write & sign a magnum opus 2nd A opinion as his legacy.

[press1280]

Caetano. But I doubt that, even with a dissent, because I think Thomas wants to write & sign a magnum opus 2nd A opinion as his legacy.

I doubt we get a per curiam just based on the fact the court has booted so many of these cases already. Too contentious.

[kuug]

Straight from the horses (SCOTUS) mouth:

"After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a secondhome or shooting range outside of the city, which is the pre-cise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint."

Lesson to the wise:

If you ask for it in your "prayer for relief", and the defendant gives it to you...case can be mooted.

If you don't like the way your case might get mooted, make sure your prayer for relief specifies a "burrito", not a "taco".

Oh, and as myself and another Calgunner noted before - the whole homeless question was completely ignored by ALL parties - never presented in any way throughout the litigation.

=8-|

Yes I'm sure Roberts, who seemed to have a heavy interest in killing off the case when his power as the court's center was threatened with court packing, would say that plaintiffs received all relief they wanted. That is certainly not the conclusion that the attorney for the plaintiffs showed or what precedent showed

Roberts and his fellow activist justices ignored precedent, plaintiffs did not receive the injunction they asked for as relief. The case was not moot, it was dismissed for political reasons.

[Paladin]

NY Solicitor General submitted a request today for a thirty-day extension to file its opposition to granting cert from January 22 to February 22.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/165773/20210108191609335_20-843%20Respondent%20extension%20motion.pdf

[press1280]

NY Solicitor General submitted a request today for a thirty-day extension to file its opposition to granting cert from January 22 to February 22.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...n%20motion.pdf

This probably won't be the first such request either.

[kuug]

This probably won't be the first such request either.

[NiceGuyInSanJose]

NY Solicitor General submitted a request today for a thirty-day extension to file its opposition to granting cert from January 22 to February 22.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...n%20motion.pdf

But jan 22 to feb 22 is actually 31 days....