Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

26
highdesert wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:05 pm SCOTUS created the system of evaluating laws (levels of scrutiny) under the Equal Protection Clause. An argument could be made that 2A rights are "other rights recognized as fundamental".
One could even go so far as to say that 2A rights were already found to be "other rights recognized as fundamental", thus included in that dusty old Bill of Rights thing. Also, incorporated against the states by McDonald just in case someone missed that obvious fact. :)

That's a great list I was totally unaware of. Thanks for posting it.

Re: Ginsburg. I truly hope she's recovering and also truly hope she retires to enjoy the remainder of her time. I am somewhat terrified of an additional conservative appointment, though. While we're remaking the court, I'd propose that SCOTUS always be composed of 5/4 with a varying liberal/conservative majority. It is no place for way out of balance of either side.

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

27
We should have term limits and age limits for the SCOTUS I also think we need to look at other law schools besides the Ivy League. While we're at it let's set an upper age limit to run for president. I would set it at 60 years of age. The job if done correctly is a health hazard. Orange Slime is a prime example of the lack of mental capabilities you see with many older citizens. The can't be tolerated in a job like the President that requires an ability to absorb a a vast amount to information and make rapid sound decisions.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

28
When jurists like politicians come from limited areas of the US they can have insular views on issues. Same with law schools, an old boys/old girls network.

Roberts - MD
Thomas - GA
Ginsburg - NY
Breyer - MA
Alito - NJ
Sotomayor - NY
Kagan - MA
Gorsuch - CO
Kavanaugh - MD

There are no justices currently from the two largest states, CA and TX. I too wish Justice Ginsburg a speedy recovery, she has had a distinguished career and hopefully many more years ahead.

“It appears the votes are now there to supersize the Second Amendment’s protection for guns,” Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, told me. He was referring to the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to grant review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.

It has been 11 years since a 5–4 majority, in District of Columbia v. Heller, announced that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense. It has been nine years since the same majority held in McDonald v. City of Chicago that an identical handgun-possession right is “incorporated” by the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which means it applies to states—and cities—as well as to the federal government). The Court in Heller indicated that it was deciding only a narrow question. Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion cautioned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Then, for a decade, the high court retreated from the field, while lower courts wrestled with gun-rights challenges around the country. Those courts had a tough job: Heller and McDonald were not self-explanatory. The Court found an individual “right to bear arms” for the first time in American history, but did not explain its full scope. Is gun ownership for purposes other than self-defense also protected? Does the “right to keep and bear arms” extend to semiautomatic weapons? Are license requirements themselves violations of the right—especially if local police must approve them before they are issued? Can localities charge fees to handgun purchasers to offset the costs of gun crime? Are restrictions on public carrying of handguns—or carrying in public of concealed handguns—constitutional? The lower courts have been split on those issues, but the Supreme Court remained obdurately silent—until Tuesday. Almost of necessity, the result is likely to give lower courts what they have lacked—a constitutional test that can be applied to a wide variety of handgun restrictions. And as Winkler suggested, the new conservative majority seems likely to create a test that will invalidate many local laws—and may in fact shred the entire fabric of state and local gun regulation.

The petitioners in Rifle & Pistol are a gun-advocacy group and a number of individual New York City residents. The individuals have “premises licenses” to possess handguns in their homes, à la Heller and McDonald, but not the harder-to-get “carry licenses” to take their handguns with them when they go out.They are free to use their handguns at gun ranges for target practice and shooting contests—but only if those gun ranges are located in New York City. These limitations, the plaintiffs complain, make it difficult for them to visit out-of-town gun ranges, and to carry their guns for self-protection to second homes outside the city. Until 2001, New York issued “target licenses” that allowed transport to out-of-state target ranges. However, the state said in its brief opposing Supreme Court review:

[The New York Police Department] observed widespread abuses of the target license. Over many years, NYPD received reports of target licensees travelling with their firearms when they were not travelling to or from an NYPD-authorized range. These reports included licensees travelling with loaded firearms, licensees found with firearms nowhere near the vicinity of an authorized range, licensees taking their firearms out on airplanes, and licensees travelling with their firearms during hours when no NYPD-authorized range was open.

In effect, it seems, the city decided that allowing the “target exception” to its transportation rules was making it too easy to evade them entirely. The “premises license” limitations are unusually stringent. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld them. That decision noted that Heller and McDonald did not create a general Second Amendment test. So the court measured the restrictions by their effect on the Heller right: possession in the home for self-defense. The appeals court also noted that the city has not barred all target ranges; the plaintiffs can go to licensed gun ranges to learn to shoot. Those who prefer to go to out-of-town ranges may do that as well—most gun ranges have weapons available for loan or rent. As for second homes, the plaintiffs need only buy a second handgun and store it there for self-defense when in residence.

Without a test issued by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit employed “intermediate scrutiny.” Unlike “strict scrutiny”—a test almost impossible to pass—the intermediate test asks whether a law is “substantially related to an important governmental interest”—that is, whether it does a pretty good job of helping the government achieve a goal that seems pretty important. Balancing the mild burden on the challengers’ right against the city’s need to keep guns out of public areas, the appeals court upheld the transport regulations. The long-term aim of the gun-rights movement is to move the Second Amendment up into the tier of rights that are insulated from virtually any regulation; most prominent among these are free speech and religious freedom. The challengers’ petition in this case argues that the Supreme Court would never tolerate, for example, license fees for newspapers; it further quotes McDonald as saying that the “right to bear arms” should not be treated as a “second-class right.”

There are signs that the Court’s new conservative majority may be ready to move sharply in the direction of stricter review of gun laws. Justice Samuel Alito was in the majority in Heller and McDonald; as an appeals-court judge, he had argued that the federal government could not ban machine guns. Justice Neil Gorsuch heard no gun cases as a circuit judge, but in 2017, he joined Justice Clarence Thomas in a hard-line dissent that advocated broad gun rights. In that case, the Court denied review to a case challenging a California locality’s restrictions on carrying handguns in public. Thomas wrote in his dissent, “The right to bear arms extends to public carry.” In joining that dissent, Gorsuch sent a strong message about where he stands. As for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, he has left no doubt about his view. After the Supreme Court decided Heller, the District of Columbia revised its firearms laws to require registration of all weapons—and prohibited registration of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. In 2011, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the new law by a 2–1 vote.

The dissenting vote came from Kavanaugh. According to his reading of Heller, Second Amendment rights are not to be decided by a constitutional “test” in the ordinary sense. Courts need not “balance” a state’s interests, such as preventing crime, against the burden on gun ownership. Instead, gun-ownership rights stand on their own and need no justification in any situation. Judges should assess “text, history, and tradition” only. First, a court is to ask how a given restriction compares with those accepted by the framers of the Second Amendment (this inquiry includes “appropriate analogues [to“traditional” weapons] when dealing with modern weapons and new circumstances”). Next, it must ask how the restriction at issue compares with the role of weapons in society since the framing. Using his “text, tradition, and history” analysis, Kavanaugh wrote that he would have struck down both the assault-rifle ban and the magazine restrictions. One of his reasons was that most places in 2011 didn’t ban assault rifles; that meant the D.C. statute was not “traditional.”

Classic “originalism” is already at best subjective; we really can’t know with certainty what Americans “understood” about the Constitution when it was adopted. Legal history can be read many ways; adding in “tradition”—that is, a freewheeling assessment of the history of firearms not limited to legal sources and spanning the years from 1787 until now—creates a jurisprudential bullet that probably can pierce precedent, or public policy, or both. The Rifle & Pistol case begins, then, with four virtually certain votes against the New York law—the two newcomers, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts voted for the gun owners in Heller and McDonald. He may have been trying to keep the Court out of the Second Amendment area for institutional reasons since then, but that’s not likely to make him go back on his earlier votes when the time comes to throw down.

“The impact of this case could be huge,” Winkler told me, because the Court may decide that the right to gun possession extends outside the home. The Court could undermine long-standing restrictions on concealed carry in America’s major cities, leading to hundreds of thousands more guns on the streets of Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C. Beyond that, a sharp jurisprudential turn on guns may signal that a confident conservative majority feels ready to make big leaps to the right in other areas, ranging from campaign finance to religious freedom to civil rights to abortion.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ny/581017/

We should be cautious, but optimistic about this case.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

29
That's one of the better articles I've read on the case. The big flaw in all of the reporting is the claim that this will open up a rash of people toting guns around the streets. This just isn't true. 30 states are shall issue, so anyone in those states that passes whatever the objective criteria is already carries if they desire. 12 state are constitutional carry, so anybody in those states that desires to carry already does so. 8 states are may issue, the last bastions of fear. Even in California (may issue), the majority of the counties issue for self defense and those permits are valid across the state. Those in San Francisco, Marin, LA and the like are living in a fantasy if they think there aren't already legally carried guns next to them at some point in any given day. Those living anywhere are living in a fantasy if they don't know there are illegally carried guns next to them at some point in any given day (because criminals just seem to ignore laws as part of their chosen profession). The streets are already awash in guns. So far, it doesn't seem to have been a problem with the law abiding, at least according to the amici filed by the states and Western Sheriff Association for this case.

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

30
featureless wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:13 pm Those in San Francisco, Marin, LA and the like are living in a fantasy if they think there aren't already legally carried guns next to them at some point in any given day.
They live permanently in condition white, unaware that illegal and legal guns are all around them. And they believe that police have to protect them and the schools their children.

Ginsburg mentioned at one time that Roe vs Wade should have been rolled out in increments, so the country could adjust to legalizing abortion. They did it with same-sex marriage, after US vs Windsor which was a signal to those arguing for same sex marriage. The first federal district court to rule in favor of same sex marriage (after Windsor) was in Utah in December 2013, a new district court judge invalidated a portion of Utah's constitution and made it legal in UT. The 10th Circuit upheld it and momentum built up, cert petitions went to SCOTUS and were denied until a case from the 6th Circuit made it to SCOTUS and it was legalized. This case could provide guidance to the lower federal courts and we could start winning lawsuits in federal district courts and appellate courts against state laws and local ordinances. In addition a win here would provide guidance to state courts.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

31
The problem which anti gun folks have with this case is simple fact is it is the tread which is going to undo everything when it comes to gun laws,
As I always tell to those who praise NYC gun laws keep in mind but DJT and his lawyer Michael Cohen got their gun permits without jumping through any hoops

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/nyre ... cense.html
President Trump, his eldest son, and his former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, were among a roster of rich and powerful people who received gun licenses from the New York Police Department in return for special favors, a former lieutenant has claimed in court papers.
The former lieutenant, Paul Dean, said the men received permits to carry guns in New York City without the proper paperwork after donating to two charities with close ties to the department. They were among a list of other well-connected people who Mr. Dean said benefited from a “systematic culture of corruption” that stretched from the department’s gun licensing division to the upper echelons of the department.
The police commissioner, James P. O’Neill, said the allegations by Mr. Dean, who has pleaded guilty to approving gun licenses in exchange for bribes while he was the second-in-command of the department’s licensing division, are “highly suspect.”

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

32
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted review of a case involving the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The case challenges a New York City law that prohibits transporting handguns, even licensed and unloaded ones, to places outside of the city, including to a second home or a shooting range. For the last decade, the high court has been missing in action on the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, the court found, for the first time, that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms (District of Columbia vs. Heller). Two years later it ruled in McDonald vs. City of Chicago that the 2nd Amendment applied to city and state laws, not just federal ones.

Ever since, there has been deafening silence. Until this week, the Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to hear another gun control case, and liberal state and local governments have taken advantage of this judicial neglect to methodically chip away at gun rights. That is not how the court normally operates. Once it clarifies a constitutional right, the court usually hears a stream of cases to guide lower court implementation. After Brown vs. Board of Education struck down racial segregation in public schools, for example, it took three decades for the court to finish applying the decision to other institutions and to articulate principles to guide remedial plans. The lower courts and resistant states took years to get the message.

The court’s reluctance to protect the 2nd Amendment beyond its first, halting steps, may stem from its own tentative reasoning. The constitutional text declares: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Liberals have long argued that this language only protects the right of a state to create a militia, not an individual right to own and use firearms. In Heller, however, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the 2nd Amendment recognized an individual natural right of self-defense that preexisted the Constitution. Heller sparked claims that conservative judicial activists had invented a right to bear arms that went beyond the Constitution’s text. So the court must now ground the right more securely in the constitutional firmament. The Roberts court — expected to be more conservative with the replacement of the unpredictable Anthony M. Kennedy with Brett M. Kavanaugh — can achieve this by further rooting the 2nd Amendment’s text in the broader framework of natural rights.

The founding generation believed in natural law and natural rights, and the Constitution is steeped in that belief. As the Declaration of Independence declared, all men, as rational beings created by God, possessed certain inalienable rights. One of these rights, many of the great political philosophers of the day noted, was the right to self-defense. The 2nd Amendment incorporates an understanding of the breadth and scope of that natural right. With its overdue decision to hear another 2nd Amendment case, the court can finally elevate the right to keep and bear arms to the same level as the others in the Bill of Rights. Often, the Supreme Court provides in its rulings a test lower courts can apply to determine whether a constitutional right has been infringed. Up to now, the court has failed to articulate any test to protect gun rights, allowing lower courts to do as they please. So they have upheld 10-day waiting periods before a firearm purchase, bans on semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, and prohibitions on carrying a firearm, either openly, concealed, or both. Hence, courts have allowed governments to trample gun rights with only superficial justification, in ways inconceivable if the right at issue was speech or privacy. And for the last decade, the Supreme Court has only looked the other way.

To ensure the equal treatment of constitutional rights, the court should establish a test fully rooted in the original understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This would require examining firearms regulations around the time of the enactment of the 2nd Amendment. This would also require adopting a natural rights framework that presumptively allows the exercise of the right to bear arms until it infringes on another’s equal rights, or causes physical harm to a person or property. The Constitution, for example, would not allow the 2nd Amendment to justify shooting a person or damaging property except in self-defense. Resolving the conflict between reasonable regulations and the constitutional right to bear arms, when brought forward in cases with real facts, will allow the Roberts Court to finally construct a framework for the protection of the 2nd Amendment, and compel the lower courts and state governments to follow it.

Far too often for too long, the 2nd Amendment has been a second-class right, banished to the back of the constitutional bus. If the American people want to ban guns to curb criminal violence, they can. But they must first amend the Constitution. The courts should not be allowed to delete parts of the Constitution they don’t like through creative judicial editing. That is what led to one of the Supreme Court’s greatest sins: allowing racial segregation for so long. Until the people decide otherwise, the court’s constitutional duty is to keep enforcing the right to keep and bear arms just as it would any other constitutional right. The Constitution does not elevate some rights over others, and neither should the court.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

33
highdesert wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:29 pm
There are no justices currently from the two largest states, CA and TX. I too wish Justice Ginsburg a speedy recovery, she has had a distinguished career and hopefully many more years ahead.
Chief Justice Roberts was from Texas he was Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court when Bush appointed him to the SCOTUS.

It would be nice to have the next appointment from California if they were like Earl Warren. But I don’t see that happening.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

34
TrueTexan wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:37 am
highdesert wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:29 pm
There are no justices currently from the two largest states, CA and TX. I too wish Justice Ginsburg a speedy recovery, she has had a distinguished career and hopefully many more years ahead.
Chief Justice Roberts was from Texas he was Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court when Bush appointed him to the SCOTUS.

It would be nice to have the next appointment from California if they were like Earl Warren. But I don’t see that happening.
A different John Roberts, it's a common name. The CJ was a circuit judge on the DC US Court of Appeals. IIRC the last Texan on SCOTUS was Justice Tom Clark. Kennedy was from CA, he was on the 9th Circuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

36
DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:43 pm Just adding this link because one reminded me of the other.
NYC Handgun Permit Applications Backed-Up 8 Months
Were we to get strict scrutiny out of the SCOTUS case, I wonder if later it could have ramifications for a carry-related case.
It would. The Young case in Hawaii would be impacted if CA9 grants en banc panel review--Hawaii only issues carry permits to LEO or security guards. There is also a carry-related case awaiting a cert derision at SCOTUS. It is Rogers vs New Jersey.

Rogers link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 8-824.html

Edited to add: Rogers specifically asks
1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the
right to carry a firearm outside the home for self defense.
2. Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside
the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special
need to carry a firearm.

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

37
Word on the netz is that New York is actively working to repeal the transport law in question so SCOTUS won't have to be bothered with it (and won't have the opportunity to define the 2A). If this were to happen, what's to stop NY from reintroducing the same law in the next session since there's no opinion on its constitutionality? I will hold my tongue on what I think about this tactic so as not to break my keyboard.

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

38
I won't theorize on NYC repealing the ordinance, but at the time SCOTUS granted Cert the ordinance was in effect and if the case was accepted to guide lower courts (and states, counties and cities) then that reason still exists. Vaguely I remember another similar case (not firearms related) but can't recall the details, there have probably been many cases. If it's repealed, NYC could petition to dismiss the SCOTUS appeal and does that mean they going to pay all court costs and attorneys fees in the case since in a way they're admitting they were wrong? Can't wait for the next chapter.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

40
featureless wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:13 pm
highdesert wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:06 pm Can't wait for the next chapter.
I do wish George R. R. Martin would hurry up about it.
:lol: When Game of Thrones ends there will be a glut of British actors begging him to write a new series.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

43
And a commentary from the Federalist Society, where Trump gets his judges.
For the first time in a decade, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued the City of New York challenging the latter’s ban on taking a licensed handgun out of the licensee’s home; the only exception to that ban is that the handgun may be taken to a gun range within the City. Thus, a New Yorker whom the City itself has licensed to possess a handgun cannot transport her handgun to a weekend second home (even to exercise the core constitutional purpose of self-defense), to an upstate county to participate in a shooting competition, or even across the bridge to a neighboring city for target practice. From the City’s perspective, it is better for a handgun owner to leave her firearm in her vacant house in the City, where it is more susceptible to burglary.

The City baldly asserted—without offering any evidence whatsoever—that the ban is necessary for “public safety,” due to some unspecified risk supposedly created by licensees transporting their handguns—in compliance with unchallenged parts of the City’s law—unloaded and locked up in containers separate from ammunition. The City was unable to explain how a licensee inflicts any risk on society when transporting her firearm through the City to a shooting range or other location outside the City, but not when transporting the identical firearm under identical conditions by identical means within the five boroughs. New Yorkers are famous for imagining that their municipal limits delineate the outer reaches of Western Civilization, but this is a bit much.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the ban based on “intermediate scrutiny,” even though that standard requires that a restriction actually works to achieve a legitimate goal. This case is thus a stark reminder of how much the lower courts have watered down the Supreme Court’s decisions in DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), which held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right and invalidated the DC and Chicago handgun bans.

The City urged the Supreme Court not to take the case, arguing that the City’s handgun transport law is an outlier that doesn’t exist anywhere else in America. But the aggrieved petitioners insisted that was all the more reason for the Court to review it. The handgun bans at issue in the Court’s prior Second Amendment decisions were also rare and extreme legal limitations on firearms. Yet they were, for that very reason, good vehicles for the Court to begin drawing the lines that demarcate the minimum that the Second Amendment protects. One starts with the core protection of a constitutional right, not with its more problematic outer limits, and one makes one’s way with small, incremental steps. This case affords the opportunity for the Court to examine the terms and application of the intermediate-scrutiny legal test embraced by the Second Circuit and most other lower federal courts. The Supreme Court may choose to redirect judicial scrutiny to the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition, which Justice Scalia emphasized in the seminal Heller opinion—and which Justice Kavanaugh employed in a dissent when he was on the D.C. Circuit. Or the Court may direct application of strict scrutiny where the core right is at stake, or may remind the lower courts that intermediate scrutiny isn’t toothless. The lower courts are sorely in need of this kind of guidance and discipline, as they have treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-post ... f-new-york
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

44
featureless wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:09 pm
K9s wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:05 pm I would be thrilled if this takes the 2A issue off the table for 2020 and bankrupts the NRA. I can dream...
From a national perspective, yes. From a California-centric perspective, we'll take any fucking relief we can get!
I am sure NY and IL are thinking the same thing.

For some reason, I think they will ban abortion first and demure on this one. The right wing makes too much money on gun panics.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

46
featureless wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm
K9s wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:25 pm For some reason, I think they will ban abortion first and demure on this one. The right wing makes too much money on gun panics.
Don't even utter that thought. Recall, the Stay Puffed Marshmallow Man.
We saw this with every GOP "promise" since 2016. They cut taxes for the wealthy and stole SCOTUS seats. No suppressors or gun rights. The ACA still exists. Nothing for the people except cruelty and hatred.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

47
I've been looking at this more, and I've found a few articles. Slate seems to think that if the law reaches SCOTUS, both concealed and open carry restrictions will quickly fall nationwide.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... eller.html

And PS mag has this to say
According to University of California–Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler, a specialist in constitutional law, the case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York) could have far-reaching impact, possibly creating a constitutional right to public carry that would undermine gun-control legislation across the country.
https://psmag.com/news/brett-kavanaugh- ... gun-rights

McDonald, Heller, and Young sounds like a law firm, I know, but those three decisions were big, and now this NY one is big too. Interesting times.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

48
CDFingers wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:10 am I've been looking at this more, and I've found a few articles. Slate seems to think that if the law reaches SCOTUS, both concealed and open carry restrictions will quickly fall nationwide.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... eller.html

And PS mag has this to say
According to University of California–Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler, a specialist in constitutional law, the case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York) could have far-reaching impact, possibly creating a constitutional right to public carry that would undermine gun-control legislation across the country.
https://psmag.com/news/brett-kavanaugh- ... gun-rights

McDonald, Heller, and Young sounds like a law firm, I know, but those three decisions were big, and now this NY one is big too. Interesting times.

CDFingers
The Slate article is one we discussed, Stern is anti-gun and it shows.
Either way, Kavanaugh cannot shake the specter of his confirmation fight; this week, some conservative outlets reported that House Democrats may revive the debate about whether the justice lied under oath during his testimony.
It's time that House Democrats put Kavanaugh's confirmation to rest, it's over and they lost. McDonald and Heller are SCOTUS decisions, Young is from a 9th Circuit panel which could be over turned on en banc review. Lower federal courts and state courts need guidance and so do state legislatures. Hopefully they'll schedule arguments in this case for this spring, both sides argued before the 2nd Circuit so should be ready to go. To get to 5, it has to be an opinion that recognizes the concerns of all the majority justices.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

49
CDFingers,

As Highdesert says, Young isn't finished yet. The 3-judge panel ruled in favor but it's currently awaiting en banc request where a full panel of the CA9 can and will (if they take it) contort themselves in all manner of ways to overturn it.

And yes, the lower courts need a standard for review. In the New York case, 17 states are requesting such, as is the Western Sheriffs Association. In the Rogers case (a carry case currently waiting on SCOTUS determination), I believe it is 27 states that are requesting clarification. It is difficult to make and enforce law when each District has a vastly different definition of Heller and McDonald and citizens of different states are experiencing vastly different access to an enumerated right.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests