• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme court punts New york case

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,275
Location
northern wis


In an effort to avoid an almost sure adverse ruling by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the city changed the underlying law. It was an obvious and nakedly cynical attempt to have the case declared moot and dodge a likely expansion of gun rights in the United States.

That gambit worked. In a ruling announced this morning, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has declared the case moot.



You can read the Court’s decision here.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
543
SCOTUSblog said:
Justice Samuel Alito dissented from today’s decision, in a 31-page opinion that was joined in full by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in large part by Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito was sharply critical of the decision to dismiss the case as moot, arguing that his colleagues were allowing “our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.”

First of all, Alito argued, the case is not moot: The gun owners had alleged that the Second Amendment gives them “unrestricted access” to gun ranges and vacation homes outside the city, “and the new laws do not give them that.” As a result, Alito reasoned, although the gun owners “got most” of what they wanted, they did not get all of it, “and that means that the case is not dead.” Moreover, Alito added, if the court were to conclude, as the gun owners “request and as I believe we should,” that the city’s transport ban violated the Second Amendment, the district court “on remand could (and probably should) award damages,” which would also be enough to stave off mootness.
[ ... ]
... Kavanaugh also indicated that he agreed with Alito’s “general analysis of Heller and” McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies fully to the states, and that he shares Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.” Kavanaugh posited that the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,345
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You guys need to read the opinion. Yes, it was dismissed as moot to the old law being repealed, but there are other issues still alive on remand.

You need to read Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.

The fat lady is on stage, but she hasn't started to sing.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,398
Location
White Oak Plantation
...Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.”

Well la-de-da..."some federal courts"?..."some state courts"? Another data point that SCOTUS and their rulings are worthless and weak...

The Sullivan act and its progeny remain in effect...in more places than NYC...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,345
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...Alito’s “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.”

Well la-de-da..."some federal courts"?..."some state courts"? Another data point that SCOTUS and their rulings are worthless and weak...

The Sullivan act and its progeny remain in effect...in more places than NYC...
Alito is talking about Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2012, basically upholding the Sullivan Act.

Until the SCOTUS starts upholding the peoples' rights, we ain't got a Chinaman's chance.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,717
Location
here nc
and this comes as a surprise some based on the history of the USSC
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,398
Location
White Oak Plantation
Alito is talking about Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2012, basically upholding the Sullivan Act.

Until the SCOTUS starts upholding the peoples' rights, we ain't got a Chinaman's chance.
SCOTUS remains unconvinced that the 2A is not being respected...Heller was their chance to, once and for all time, to simply state the citizenry's RTKBA "shall not be infringed."
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,345
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
SCOTUS remains unconvinced that the 2A is not being respected...Heller was their chance to, once and for all time, to simply state the citizenry's RTKBA "shall not be infringed."
As long as the USSC keeps hanging their hat on "it's not absolute" we will be at the government's mercy. As long as there is a hair to split they will be splitting that hair. The idea that the test, "is the statute written narrowly enough to satisfy a compelling government interest without violating a right" to determine the government's authority to violate the citizen's rights, then it will be used to do just that, violate citizens' rights.

We (the government) can deny you the right to conceal carry because we (the government) allow you to open carry.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,345
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
 
Top