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

76
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:12 am SCOTUS has denied New York's pleas to delay. This is appears to be good news for the case in our favor and may indicated SCOTUS is not impressed with New York's efforts to moot the case by legal shenanigans.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_f2q3.pdf
NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.
The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied.
:clap:

Definitely good news. Wondering what other tricky "legal shenanigans" they'll try. Their issuance regs/rules favor the rich and powerful like Donnie and his family. Once they change the reg/rule no doubt they'll argue again that the appeal is moot - as Clement pointed out, they've had more than six years while this case traveled through the courts to change the reg and didn't.
"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

78
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:37 am With the current Dem focus on ban everything gun related, we desperately need some wins at SCOTUS if we have any hope of retaining gun rights when the power pendulum swings.
Definitely and as some of the commentaries have pointed out, SCOTUS has to give lower courts step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate federal, state and local gun laws in line with Heller, McDonald and 2A. They'll have to be just like a grade school teacher, give federal and state courts the criteria and draw the lines that they cannot cross arbitrarily. Federal, state and local law makers also need lines drawn. It needs to be a very detailed decision, hoping some of the their law clerks are already sketching out the decision based on the appellant and respondent briefs. And it needs to be very clear so that even the most anti-gunner group can understand it without their legal beagles. My wish list. :lol:
"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

79
highdesert wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:58 am
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:37 am With the current Dem focus on ban everything gun related, we desperately need some wins at SCOTUS if we have any hope of retaining gun rights when the power pendulum swings.
Definitely and as some of the commentaries have pointed out, SCOTUS has to give lower courts step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate federal, state and local gun laws in line with Heller, McDonald and 2A. They'll have to be just like a grade school teacher, give federal and state courts the criteria and draw the lines that they cannot cross arbitrarily. Federal, state and local law makers also need lines drawn. It needs to be a very detailed decision, hoping some of the their law clerks are already sketching out the decision based on the appellant and respondent briefs. And it needs to be very clear so that even the most anti-gunner group can understand it without their legal beagles. My wish list. :lol:
Yes, lower courts continue to believe that intermediate scrutiny is fine for 2A issues and defaulting to "state knows best" is perfectly acceptable for determining fit. Why don't we accept that approach for speech, race or religion cases, I wonder....

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

80
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:16 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:58 am
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:37 am With the current Dem focus on ban everything gun related, we desperately need some wins at SCOTUS if we have any hope of retaining gun rights when the power pendulum swings.
Definitely and as some of the commentaries have pointed out, SCOTUS has to give lower courts step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate federal, state and local gun laws in line with Heller, McDonald and 2A. They'll have to be just like a grade school teacher, give federal and state courts the criteria and draw the lines that they cannot cross arbitrarily. Federal, state and local law makers also need lines drawn. It needs to be a very detailed decision, hoping some of the their law clerks are already sketching out the decision based on the appellant and respondent briefs. And it needs to be very clear so that even the most anti-gunner group can understand it without their legal beagles. My wish list. :lol:
Yes, lower courts continue to believe that intermediate scrutiny is fine for 2A issues and defaulting to "state knows best" is perfectly acceptable for determining fit. Why don't we accept that approach for speech, race or religion cases, I wonder....
Right on, the states "compelling interest" always wins in blue state courts. They use bogus reasons like a "law enforcement need" without any facts or science thinking of microstamping. You're right, the 1st would never get a pass like that from the 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

81
highdesert wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:04 pm
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:16 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:58 am
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:37 am With the current Dem focus on ban everything gun related, we desperately need some wins at SCOTUS if we have any hope of retaining gun rights when the power pendulum swings.
Definitely and as some of the commentaries have pointed out, SCOTUS has to give lower courts step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate federal, state and local gun laws in line with Heller, McDonald and 2A. They'll have to be just like a grade school teacher, give federal and state courts the criteria and draw the lines that they cannot cross arbitrarily. Federal, state and local law makers also need lines drawn. It needs to be a very detailed decision, hoping some of the their law clerks are already sketching out the decision based on the appellant and respondent briefs. And it needs to be very clear so that even the most anti-gunner group can understand it without their legal beagles. My wish list. :lol:
Yes, lower courts continue to believe that intermediate scrutiny is fine for 2A issues and defaulting to "state knows best" is perfectly acceptable for determining fit. Why don't we accept that approach for speech, race or religion cases, I wonder....
Right on, the states "compelling interest" always wins in blue state courts. They use bogus reasons like a "law enforcement need" without any facts or science thinking of microstamping. You're right, the 1st would never get a pass like that from the courts.
When red states start passing veiled state religion laws, you will know. They have already tried, but just wait to see what is coming down the road.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ds/274646/

A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.

The legislation grew out of a dispute between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU says the board has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers.

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the bill states.

The bill might be pointless grandstanding, but it's just one of many pointless pieces of grandstanding that signal the revival of nullification as a legal theory in the Obama years, mostly among conservatives who have claimed that states could disregard duly passed federal laws on matters like health care or gun control. (Liberals have indulged too, demanding that the feds not enforce drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana.)

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.
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

83
Heard one religious studies professor refer to NC as the buckle of the Bible Belt, those in NC can give us a better picture. The Rowan County Board of Commissioners are about to be slapped down by the state and federal courts. There are still public schools and public school districts that allow prayers in schools in the US, unless someone files a lawsuit and gets an injunction, they continue to do their own thing.
"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

85
highdesert wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:58 am
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:37 am With the current Dem focus on ban everything gun related, we desperately need some wins at SCOTUS if we have any hope of retaining gun rights when the power pendulum swings.
Definitely and as some of the commentaries have pointed out, SCOTUS has to give lower courts step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate federal, state and local gun laws in line with Heller, McDonald and 2A. They'll have to be just like a grade school teacher, give federal and state courts the criteria and draw the lines that they cannot cross arbitrarily. Federal, state and local law makers also need lines drawn. It needs to be a very detailed decision, hoping some of the their law clerks are already sketching out the decision based on the appellant and respondent briefs. And it needs to be very clear so that even the most anti-gunner group can understand it without their legal beagles. My wish list. :lol:
Any idea which justice could write such a decision? Do any of the current justices (or their clerks) have a Scalia-esque interest in shooting sports?
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

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

86
Buck13 wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:25 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:58 am
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:37 am With the current Dem focus on ban everything gun related, we desperately need some wins at SCOTUS if we have any hope of retaining gun rights when the power pendulum swings.
Definitely and as some of the commentaries have pointed out, SCOTUS has to give lower courts step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate federal, state and local gun laws in line with Heller, McDonald and 2A. They'll have to be just like a grade school teacher, give federal and state courts the criteria and draw the lines that they cannot cross arbitrarily. Federal, state and local law makers also need lines drawn. It needs to be a very detailed decision, hoping some of the their law clerks are already sketching out the decision based on the appellant and respondent briefs. And it needs to be very clear so that even the most anti-gunner group can understand it without their legal beagles. My wish list. :lol:
Any idea which justice could write such a decision? Do any of the current justices (or their clerks) have a Scalia-esque interest in shooting sports?
Thomas and Gorsuch have both written pretty blistering opinions when SCOTUS has denied taking recent 2A cases. I think either would be up to he task. Roberts might even be inclined to do so. My understanding is Roberts is concerned with the legitimacy of SCOTUS. He signed on to Heller and McDonald so I don't believe the way lower courts have dealt with those decisions sits well with him.

Pretty sure Ginsburg and Alioto are out. :) (altough Caetano was unanimous and heavily sited Heller, so who knows)

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

87
Buck13 wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:25 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:58 am
featureless wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:37 am With the current Dem focus on ban everything gun related, we desperately need some wins at SCOTUS if we have any hope of retaining gun rights when the power pendulum swings.
Definitely and as some of the commentaries have pointed out, SCOTUS has to give lower courts step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate federal, state and local gun laws in line with Heller, McDonald and 2A. They'll have to be just like a grade school teacher, give federal and state courts the criteria and draw the lines that they cannot cross arbitrarily. Federal, state and local law makers also need lines drawn. It needs to be a very detailed decision, hoping some of the their law clerks are already sketching out the decision based on the appellant and respondent briefs. And it needs to be very clear so that even the most anti-gunner group can understand it without their legal beagles. My wish list. :lol:
Any idea which justice could write such a decision? Do any of the current justices (or their clerks) have a Scalia-esque interest in shooting sports?
IIRC it's up to the most senior justice in the majority to write it or select another justice, the Chief if he's in the majority makes the assignment. The draft opinions get passed around and changes made to get the buy in of the most justices. I agree with featureless, Roberts has developed a macro view as head of the federal judiciary and he's looking at the Roberts court in history, compared to the Warren court, the Berger court, the Rehnquist court...
"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

88
Brief submitted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
New York City’s draconian restrictions on the
possession and transport of handguns are
unconstitutional three times over. First and foremost,
the City’s restrictive premises-only license and
accompanying transport ban are wholly incompatible
with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
The City’s regime is premised on the notion that
Second Amendment rights do not extend beyond the
curtilage and that any ability to transport firearms for
use elsewhere is a matter of privilege, not right. That
notion cannot be squared with the text, history, or
tradition of the Second Amendment.

The text of the Second Amendment guarantees a
right to “keep and bear arms,” and the prefatory
clause makes clear beyond cavil that the framers
anticipated that citizens would be able to transport
their firearms from their homes to the training
ground. The tradition and history of the Second
Amendment likewise confirm that the framers did not
protect merely a homebound right. Indeed, many of
the historical sources surveyed in Heller make plain
that the right protected by the Second Amendment is
not just an individual right but one that extends
beyond the home and encompasses a right to carry
firearms, not just to transport them unloaded. But
whatever the precise metes and bounds of the right to
keep and bear arms may be, text, history, and
tradition confirm that the right is not confined to the
“the inside of the premises” in which one lives. 38
R.C.N.Y. §5-23(a)(2).

That alone suffices to doom the City’s novel
regime, for it is antithetical to the text, history, and
tradition of the Second Amendment and cannot
survive any mode of scrutiny appropriate for a
fundamental constitutional right. The fact that the
Second Circuit upheld the policy while purporting to
apply heightened scrutiny underscores all that is
wrong with means-end scrutiny in the lower courts.
This Court’s teaching is clear that when it comes to
fundamental rights, strict scrutiny applies. And
whether the scrutiny is strict or intermediate, the
hallmark of heightened scrutiny is that it is the
government’s burden to demonstrate narrow tailoring.
The Second Circuit evaded that fundamental
requirement by positing that there is some “core” of
the Second Amendment (essentially guaranteeing
that rights deemed non-core will be under-protected),
and that the challenger must show that the core was
substantially burdened, by which it means effectively
banned (shifting the burden and guaranteeing that
serious restrictions short of bans are permitted). None
of that is remotely consistent with this Court’s cases.
If means-end scrutiny has a role to play in Second
Amendment cases, then this Court must make clear
that courts may not apply heightened scrutiny in
name only.

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

90
Still going through it.
These restrictions [New York City firearms regulations] likewise impose significant constraints inside the city. A premises licensee may not even transport his handgun to a gunsmith for servicing without first obtaining written permission from a city official.
"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

92
18 new Amicus briefs filed this week. Interestingly, the Brady Bunch is screaming about level of scrutiny, not the case itself. Are they worried? ;)

One wonders what the Brady Bunch would think if other constitutional rights were given the same two-step approach the "lower courts have coalesced around"... Like misleading free speech to make an agenda against other's rights.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... 8-280.html

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

93
BRIEF OF FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION, FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, AND THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

U.S. Supreme Court Must Strike Down New York City Gun Control Rule and Tell Lower Courts to Enforce the Actual Text of Our Constitution’s Second Amendment, Argue Three Second Amendment Groups
The brief argues that many “courts have been relentless and creative in their efforts to uphold virtually any restriction on keeping or bearing arms,” and that those courts “lack the clear and firm guidance required for them to follow the law, rather than their predilections,” as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals did in the decision below by excluding much protected conduct from the supposed “core” of the Second Amendment, denying those things meaningful protection. But, the organizations’ brief says, “Rights covered by the text of the Second Amendment – as interpreted and understood according to history, practice, and public meaning when it and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted – are not divided into lesser and greater categories. The Constitution itself has done the categorizing and those rights covered ‘shall not be infringed.’ Period.” Indeed, the court filing argues, “There is no further clause beginning with “except * * *.” No qualification of the prohibition saying some of those rights can be infringed a little, or if the government really feels strongly about it, or has reconsidered the costs and benefits of protecting such rights.”

The organizations also argue that so-called “tiers” of scrutiny used by courts are a “wholly judicial invention” that “should be viewed with skepticism when applied to conduct directly protected by the constitutional text.” Rather, they say, the “proper approach . . . would be to examine the text of the Second Amendment in light of the history, tradition and public meaning,” and “if the regulated conduct falls within the protection of such text, the regulation should be struck down” without need for further analysis. “Such a textual and categorical approach – government action forbidden by the Second Amendment is actually forbidden – is more faithful to the Constitution and would avoid much, if not all, of the gamesmanship now used by the courts applying watered-down versions of tiered scrutiny,” they argue.

“As our brief makes clear, the Constitution’s text means that all laws which ‘infringe on Second Amendment rights ‘shall not be infringed’,” explained FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “We believe that the Second Amendment’s text should not only guide the analysis, but is itself the the more constitutionally faithful analysis. History and tradition may well inform the contours of the right to keep and bear arms, but even those are extra-textual considerations best used to understand the contemporaneous meaning of the language rather than to supplement or restrict the language used. When honestly and appropriately applied, constitutional scrutiny in Second Amendment cases means that the American people must be able to access and exercise a robust and broad array of constitutionally-protected instruments and conduct.”

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

95
highdesert wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 5:07 pm The latest amicus brief is from the Liberal Gun Club, kudos Lara !
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 20Club.pdf
From that doc:
Thus, the City’s selection of an outright ban on travel, in lieu of permitting at least unloaded and secured transport, cannot satisfy any level of heightened scrutiny.
Very succinct in the whole thing! Conclusion: judgement should be reversed. Strong! Well done!

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

96
Good quote CDF, after my first read through some quotes I liked.
Fundamentally, by requiring no tailoring at all, the Second Circuit effectively applied only rational basis review, as tailoring is one of the lynchpins of any level of heightened scrutiny.
The Second Circuit is hardly alone on this key point. Rather, in the context of the Second Amendment, most of the Courts of Appeals to consider the issue have simply ignored narrow tailoring and alternative means requirements. This results in an empty judicial review, one that is nothing but a mechanical and predictable determination that, yes, the legislature could have reasonably found that this or that burden could possibly have done something to decrease the likelihood that someone would negligently or criminally misuse a firearm—so the law is constitutional.
The failure of the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits to impose any sort of narrowtailoring or alternative means requirements (under any form of heightened scrutiny) should be called out for what it is: a deliberate attempt to subject the protections of the Second Amendment to a death by a thousand cuts by failing to give it the judicial treatment accorded to other rights.
This means that a person living in New York City can obtain a number of non-resident permits and can be ultimately entitled to carry a handgun for selfdefense in at least 38 states. Thus, notwithstanding that a New York City resident will most likely be unable to obtain a license to carry a handgun within the City, that resident could nevertheless obtain multiple non-resident permits from other states. Accordingly, a qualified New York City resident could lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense under the laws of approximately 38 other states—if that resident could get her gun out of the City. But, of course, this is not actually possible— because the transport ban precludes it. While one can obtain the permits that would authorize carry in all of these other states, the transport ban makes it unlawful to bring one’s gun there in the first place. The transport ban effectively renders the rights that would exist in those 38 other states null and void, including in Connecticut, which is less than a 25 minute car ride from the City.
... New York City residents are entirely precluded from attending classes with their handguns outside of the City. None of these premium out-of-state schools are, as a practical matter, available to a New York City resident. These schools typically require that students bring their own handguns, and in any event, training at a high level with a borrowed gun is a poor approach to become safe and proficient with one’s own gun.
"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

98
featureless wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 6:01 pm Great Amici, Lara! Well argued and made some new substantial points I haven't seen elsewhere. Yes, fit is important!

I cannot thank Club leadership enough for providing the means and will to do this. It truly warms my heart. Thank you.
I second it! :clap2:
"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

99
Lara and the other counsel listed set the right tone, GOA's amicus is more aggressive which is their style. Their brief is aimed at Justice Thomas and quoting Heller and McDonald.
CONCLUSION For years, this Court has defended neither the Second Amendment nor its own opinions. That failure has not gone unnoticed. The lower courts have grown increasingly bold in their disrespect for this Court’s decisions and the Second Amendment’s text. Unfortunately, the opinions below are not aberrations. Rather, they are the norm. The lower courts reject the People’s choice in ratifying the Second Amendment as written. They reject this Court’s decisions stating as much. Rather, these courts have laid out their own vision for this country based on the personal policy preferences of unelected and unaccountable judges.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

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