Court tosses NY case that could have expanded gun rights

[wahsben]

April 27, 2020
For immediate release

Pratt, Heller React to SCOTUS’ Decision on NYSRPA v. New York, Alito’s Dissent

Springfield, VA – Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) today reacted to the Supreme Court’s determination that the NYSRPA v. New York case was moot.

The Court concluded that New York City’s change of its ordinance made the case moot, meaning it no longer presented a live “case or controversy” for the Court to decide.

GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt noted that several Justices lamented that the lower courts have not faithfully applied the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions. “Sadly, the Supreme Court today squandered an opportunity to remedy the failures of lower courts in correctly applying the Second Amendment,” said Pratt.

“As the GOA/GOF amicus brief in this case points out, the clear standard of ‘shall not be infringed’ and the Second Amendment should be the guiding principle of courts, not so-called ‘balancing tests’ that weigh constitutionally-protected rights against public safety. The Court missed an opportunity to correct lower courts, which have inappropriately applied balancing tests to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.”

To be sure, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent bases its conclusion primarily on the Heller case and the text and history of the Second Amendment. But he also analyzes New York City’s public safety justifications and, in discussing “heightened scrutiny,” his opinion gives the impression that such analysis has some place in the Second Amendment.

GOF Senior Consultant Dick Heller — who was the chief plaintiff in the landmark gun rights case from 2008 — noted that, “DC v. Heller made it explicitly clear that so-called ‘safety’ considerations have no place in limiting the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right. And perhaps that is why neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Kavanaugh joined that part of the Alito opinion. Indeed, Justice Kavanaugh previously held in Heller II that the appropriate test was ‘text, history, and tradition’ — not Justice Breyer’s ‘judge empowering interest balancing.’

Pratt concluded: “Hopefully the Court will take Justice Kavanaugh’s lead and grant certiorari in another Second Amendment case soon — and analyze the case pursuant to text, history, and tradition, rather than a means-end interest balancing test such as intermediate or strict scrutiny.”

 

[T-Unit]

I dont agree with that ( I am an idiot though) if you look at any 2a case in existence every single one of them could be used by the Supreme Court to deal with levels of scrutiny because every one of them uses the level of scrutiny to deny 2a rights. The Worman case is a great example of the abuse of levels of scrutiny that the supreme court could take up at any point and make ar15's protected arms AND sh@t all over the levels of scrutiny these courts are using all in one swoop. I looked at the NY case as more of being able to carry outside the home and I dont think the court wanted to go down that road yet with the makeup of the court so I'm not too suprised I guess

It wasn't even about carrying a loaded gun for the reason of self defense tho, it was about merely transporting a firearm from one point to another and SCOTUS wouldn't touch it because if it's anything in regards to what guns gov't says you can have or has to deal with guns outside the home, the conservative justices don't want to touch it.

Or in this case John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[SFC13557]

WSJ has an editorial today stating Roberts f***** us. He let the Dems intimidate him just like on Obamacare. What a POS! Kavanaugh gave him cover but hopefully after the election the Conservatives will get some balls. We need Ruthie to "retire" and get another conservative who will nullify Roberts spineless cowering to Dems.

 

[Gusp]

Here is the WSJ editorial:

The Chief Justice Ducks on Gun Rights
The Court majority cowers to Senate Democratic threats.

By The Editorial Board

What an enormous abdication. The Supreme Court ducked its first Second Amendment case in a decade on Monday, and the only plausible explanation is that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to avoid becoming a target of vengeful Senate Democrats.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Chief joined the four liberals and a (conflicted) Justice Brett Kavanaugh in declaring moot a challenge to New York City’s onerous gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York). At issue is a New York City rule that prevents residents with gun licenses from transporting their guns from their city homes to shooting ranges and homes outside the city. Obtaining even a “premises” license requires a $431 fee and police investigation into an applicant’s mental health, criminal history and moral character. It can take six months.

After the High Court accepted the case, the city revised its ban to let the plaintiffs tote their guns (locked and unloaded) “directly” between residences and other permitted destinations. The state Legislature passed a similar law. Case moot, New York politicians declared.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democrats also weighed in with an amicus brief threatening the Justices if they didn’t follow their orders to drop the case. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”



The majority buckled and ignored previous rulings to do it. As Justice Alito writes, the Court’s precedents hold that “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Plaintiffs want to transport their firearms without worrying about getting arrested if they stop somewhere along the way. The city even admitted in oral arguments that it’s unclear whether this is allowed. Justice Alito says this and more make the rule’s violation of the Second Amendment “not a close call.”

On the mootness point, Justice Alito also pokes his colleagues with this hypothetical: “A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit?” You know the answer.

Justice Kavanaugh’s role here is curious because, while he joined the majority on mootness, he wrote a concurrence agreeing with the dissent on the Second Amendment merits. This looks to us as if he is trying to protect the Chief Justice from being the fifth vote, and the sole “conservative,” providing a liberal victory while making clear he’s still a solid vote himself for gun rights. The phrase for this is too clever by half.

Justice Kavanaugh may agree with the Chief that the Court needs to avoid political controversies, especially with Democrats threatening to pack the Court if they win the White House and Senate in November. But the Court’s timidity on gun rights amid Senate threats means that liberal and media intimidation will escalate. The Court hasn’t taken a Second Amendment case in a decade, even as cities and states erode its landmark Heller decision bit by bit. The Court is sending a signal that the Second Amendment is the exception in the Bill of Rights, a second-class freedom.

“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” Justice Alito warns. He’s right but too polite.

The Chief Justice is carving out a reputation as a highly political Justice whose views on the law can be coerced with threats to the Court’s “independence.” The danger for the Court is that, in bending to these threats, the Chief is compromising the very independence he claims to want to protect.

 

[Dadstoys]

I don't think there is much doubt at this point that someone has pictures of Roberts with either a dead hooker or a live boy.

 

[Broc]

But other guns cases remain in the high court’s pipeline and the justices could decide to hear one or more of those next term.

"Could decide" ... sure. It is sad.

 

[Coyote33]

It wasn't even about carrying a loaded gun for the reason of self defense tho, it was about merely transporting a firearm from one point to another and SCOTUS wouldn't touch it because if it's anything in regards to what guns gov't says you can have or has to deal with guns outside the home, the conservative justices don't want to touch it.

Or in this case John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

Is this the case that is now moving forward?

 

[T-Unit]

Is this the case that is now moving forward?

No. The new case doesn't directly deal with transporting of a firearm from one location to another, instead it's about whether states have the authority to deny people from carrying a gun outside the home on the basis of cause or need.

 

[JayMcB]

No. The new case doesn't directly deal with transporting of a firearm from one location to another, instead it's about whether states have the authority to deny people from carrying a gun outside the home on the basis of cause or need.

How do you adequately explain to these commie gun grabbing dickwads that it's not called the Bill of Needs? It's infuriating.

 

[T-Unit]

How do you adequately explain to these commie gun grabbing dickwads that it's not called the Bill of Needs? It's infuriating.

They won't stop, so you focus on continuing to speak the truth and hope someone catches the message during transmission.

 

[ToddMcF2002]

Why anyone has faith in SCOTUS is beyond me

 

[Boghog1]

States now have the play book, if it looks like the states case could lose then they change the law to avoid national damage

They have pulled that shit for years