Yes, I can't fathom the hours of research that went into that, not to mention writing it. Pro bono only goes so far paying the mortgage.shinzen wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 6:25 pm If you were wondering, yes, these things are expensive to do. We'll be doing a fundraiser so we can do more.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
102We still got a “deal” from the other counsel.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
103Thank you for submitting the brief. I passed it on to the VCDL president in hopes it will get into the regular firearms news emails. I know it takes time, effort and money to build the organizational structures to engage in issue advocacy and litigation. I look forward to seeing more involvement in this area.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
104Very good, appellate law is a specialty and IIRC they must also be a member of the Supreme Court Bar, a membership not held by all lawyers.
Last edited by highdesert on Wed May 15, 2019 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
106SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO File Joint Amicus Brief In Challenge Of NYS Gun Law
BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have been joined by four other rights groups in an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a challenge to New York City’s restrictive handgun law that prohibits handguns licensed in the city to be taken outside the home.
Joining SAF and CCRKBA are Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Independence Institute, Millennial Policy Center and Professors of Second Amendment Law. They are supporting a lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and three private citizens against the New York City law. The case has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court.
In their brief, prepared by attorneys Joseph Greenlee with the Millennial Policy Center and David Kopel from the Independence Institute, the amici organizations contend that strict scrutiny should apply to this case, which amounts to a ban on self-defense for law-abiding citizens. They also contend that the city’s ban on most travel by citizens with their own handguns is a severe burden on the exercise of their rights.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
107Gura worked on this one.DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 1:47 pm Comm2A signs on:
BRIEF OF COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
108Utah just outlawed Karaoke. It's madness I tell you.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
109We almost submitted with Comm2a. David and Brent are tight. I like Brent a lot, non nonsense guy.DispositionMatrix wrote:Comm2A signs on:
BRIEF OF COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
Ultimately opted for out own.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
110technically, they only outlawed drunken karaoke, but I guess that's pretty much the same thing.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
111The National Sheriffs Association submitted an amicus brief, earlier the Western States Sheriffs' Assn also submitted one. From the NSA brief,
And the US government (by the Solicitor General) submitted an amicus brief supporting the petitioner (NY State Rifle and Pistol Assn).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/1 ... States.pdf
I really hope that the SCOTUS decision is broad and gets lower federal and state courts in line and is not narrowly focused on slapping down the district and 2nd circuit decisions.
To reach the primary issue in this case—whether the ban on out-of-city transport imposed by 38 R.C.N.Y § 5-23(a) (the “Rule”) violates the Second Amendment—requires the prior resolution of two major issues. First, does the Second Amendment apply outside the home? Second, if so, what is the proper constitutional standard of review: text, history, and tradition; strict scrutiny; intermediate scrutiny; or some other test? The Courts of Appeals are divided on the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Yet a large, well-designed study of defensive gun uses shows that nearly two-thirds of instances of defense with a firearm take place outside the home. The Second Circuit in this case purported to apply intermediate scrutiny, even though interest balancing tests were rejected in Heller.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... t%20al.pdfThe public safety interest alleged to support the Rule is non-existent and unproven. There is no proof that premises licensees have ever posed a threat to public safety when transporting their handguns. The NYPD has a system that requires immediate, centralized reporting of any incidents involving a licensee. Yet, even though the License Division has the data regarding incidents, if any, of violence committed by premises licensees while transporting their handguns, the City has not identified a single instance of that occurring.
And the US government (by the Solicitor General) submitted an amicus brief supporting the petitioner (NY State Rifle and Pistol Assn).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/1 ... States.pdf
I really hope that the SCOTUS decision is broad and gets lower federal and state courts in line and is not narrowly focused on slapping down the district and 2nd circuit decisions.
"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
112Bang, do they still have the Zion Curtains in UT between bars and eating areas of restaurants?
"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
113We can hope and the magic eight ball says "definitely so," but we won't know for a while yet. It's amazing how many Amici have been filed and most all of them revolve around level of scrutiny rather than the stupidity of the law.highdesert wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 4:50 pm I really hope that the SCOTUS decision is broad and gets lower federal and state courts in line and is not narrowly focused on slapping down the district and 2nd circuit decisions.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
114Yes, IIRC the Respondent (City of New York) has until August 2019 to reply. Hope this gets scheduled for argument early in the 2019/2020 Term which starts October 7, 2019, so maybe we get a decision before June 2020.featureless wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 5:00 pmWe can hope and the magic eight ball says "definitely so," but we won't know for a while yet. It's amazing how many Amici have been filed and most all of them revolve around level of scrutiny rather than the stupidity of the law.highdesert wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 4:50 pm I really hope that the SCOTUS decision is broad and gets lower federal and state courts in line and is not narrowly focused on slapping down the district and 2nd circuit decisions.
"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
117As far as I know they are still required by law.highdesert wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 4:52 pmBang, do they still have the Zion Curtains in UT between bars and eating areas of restaurants?
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
118excellent!senorgrand wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 11:34 pm SCOTUS BLOG too
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotus ... -york/amp/
CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
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
119Interesting that Gifford's isn't in either camp, their brief is on what test should be applied. Brady doesn't support either side and their conclusion is,
The Court should dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted or should remand for lower courts to address whether statutory grounds resolve the case and whether this case is moot. If the Court does address the Second Amendment questions, it should decline to endorse strict scrutiny and should instead apply a test that leaves intact the States’ broad power to protect the public from violence.
"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
120"States Rights"
Funny how everyone is eager to offer states the right to restrict individual rights...
Funny how everyone is eager to offer states the right to restrict individual rights...
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
121It is interesting. I don't recall any Amici defending the law, only suggesting watered down standards are perfectly suitable for icky guns 'cause there atta be a law.highdesert wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 4:06 pm Interesting that Gifford's isn't in either camp, their brief is on what test should be applied. Brady doesn't support either side and their conclusion is,The Court should dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted or should remand for lower courts to address whether statutory grounds resolve the case and whether this case is moot. If the Court does address the Second Amendment questions, it should decline to endorse strict scrutiny and should instead apply a test that leaves intact the States’ broad power to protect the public from violence.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
122A couple of weeks ago, the New York Police Department held an unusual public hearing. Its purpose was to make a Supreme Court case disappear. In January, the court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun regulation. The city, fearing a loss that would endanger gun control laws across the nation, responded by moving to change the regulation. The idea was to make the case moot.
The move required seeking comments from the public, in writing and at the hearing. Gun rights advocates were not happy. “This law should not be changed,” Hallet Bruestle wrote in a comment submitted before the hearing. “Not because it is a good law; it is blatantly unconstitutional. No, it should not be changed since this is a clear tactic to try to moot the Scotus case that is specifically looking into this law.” David Enlow made a similar point. “This is a very transparent attempt,” he wrote, “to move the goal post in the recent Supreme Court case.”
There is a precedent for the city’s strategy, from a surprising source. The National Rifle Association tried a similar tactic in connection with the 2008 Supreme Court case that ended up revolutionizing Second Amendment law, District of Columbia v. Heller.
The N.R.A. was initially skittish about the case, which was brought by a scrappy group of libertarian lawyers led by Robert A. Levy. “The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case,” Mr. Levy said in 2007. “It was a very acrimonious relationship.” As Mr. Levy and his colleagues were persuading a federal appeals court to strike down part of Washington’s tough gun control law, the N.R.A. tried to short-circuit the case. “The N.R.A.’s next step was to renew its lobbying effort in Congress to repeal the D.C. gun ban,” Mr. Levy wrote in 2008 in a Federalist Society publication. “Ordinarily that would have been a good thing, but not this time.” “Repealing D.C.’s ban would have rendered the Heller litigation moot,” he wrote. “After all, no one can challenge a law that no longer exists.”
Only an intensive counter effort kept the case alive, Mr. Levy wrote. “After expending considerable time and energy in the halls of Congress, we were able, with help, to frustrate congressional consideration of the N.R.A.-sponsored bill,” he wrote. The N.R.A. came around in the end. In the Supreme Court, it supported the suit, working closely with the lawyers who had brought it. The court’s decision in the Heller case established an individual right to own guns, imperiling gun control laws around the nation. But aside from one follow-up case in 2010, the court has not elaborated on the scope of the right.
With the departure of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the arrival of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court seems ready to start. It agreed to hear the New York case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, just months after Justice Kavanaugh joined the court. Unless the case is dismissed, it will be argued in the fall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/p ... ntrol.htmlThe question of whether the changes to the city’s gun regulation will make the case moot is a hard one. The city lost an initial skirmish at the court last month when the justices turned down its request to suspend the filing of briefs while changes to the regulation were considered.
The plaintiffs opposed that request. “To state the obvious, a proposed amendment is not law,” they wrote. The changes to the regulations will happen soon enough, though, and the Supreme Court will then have to consider whether there is anything left to decide.
The court has said the “voluntary cessation” of government policies does not make cases moot if the government remains free to reinstate them after the cases are dismissed. But formal changes in laws may be a different matter. To hear the plaintiffs tell it, the court should not reward cynical gamesmanship. “The proposed rule making,” they wrote, “appears to be the product not of a change of heart, but rather of a carefully calculated effort to frustrate this court’s review.”
"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
123New York City announced Friday it has amended rules restricting where licensed guns can be taken outside the home, a move intended to prompt the Supreme Court to dismiss a challenge from gun rights groups. The change, posted on a city website without fanfare, allows gun owners to take their firearms to a home, business or shooting range outside city limits. Until now, the city had limited those with possession licenses to seven shooting ranges inside city limits.
Gun owners who sought to take their firearms to second homes or shooting ranges outside the city challenged the rules in federal court, but the rules were upheld last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case next fall. Gun control groups had urged the city to change its rules in hopes a quick surrender would prompt the justices to drop the case. The city's police department held a public hearing last month on the proposed changes and announced a final rule Friday that will take effect in 30 days.
"The Police Department ... reviewed the rules and determined that it was possible to modify them to reflect a carefully considered accommodation to the interests of licensees while also ensuring the safe transport of handguns," the announcement said.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 525877001/The Cato Institute, a libertarian group favoring gun rights, warned that the rules could be changed "just long enough for the case to be dismissed."
But Adam Winkler, a UCLA School of Law professor and author of a book on the gun rights battle, said the challengers only sought an injunction to stop New York's rules from being enforced. If repealed, he said, "the case should be moot, because the challengers will have effectively won."
The effort by gun rights groups to get a case before the Supreme Court is based on the hope that its new, five-member conservative majority will be more sympathetic to gun rights, in much the same way that anti-abortion groups are hoping for a high court crackdown on reproductive rights.
"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
124So cavalier with constitutional rights, are governments. Here's hoping SCOTUS calls the bluff. I believe there are at least three other cases pending SCOTUS cert based on the outcome of this one, not to mention all of the firearms cases at lower courts. I believe SCOTUS will see it for what it is and continue with the case.
Re: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
125Yes, NYC tried once to derail this case and SCOTUS said no, I have no doubt they'll petition to try again before oral argument next Fall. Hopefully SCOTUS views this as more than an administrative regulation that could be reimposed tomorrow, but as faulty interpretations of SCOTUS decisions from the City of New York, the federal district court (SDNY) and the federal circuit court (2nd). The NYPD lawyers and officers who wrote the regs and the federal judges who gave their opinions all live in NYC - group think?featureless wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:55 amSo cavalier with constitutional rights, are governments. Here's hoping SCOTUS calls the bluff. I believe there are at least three other cases pending SCOTUS cert based on the outcome of this one, not to mention all of the firearms cases at lower courts. I believe SCOTUS will see it for what it is and continue with the case.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan