SCOTUS Grants Cert to a Gun Case! (NY State)

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,055
Location
NH
Today, the court vindicated LKB’s prognostication powers, granting cert to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, a case that challenges the city’s prohibition on transporting licensed, locked and unloaded handguns outside the city.

While ruling the law unconstitutional would seem to only overturn New York City’s law, LKB expects a narrowly crafted opinion that declares that any law that restricts Second Amendment rights would be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest possible threshold.

If that were to happen, it . . .

…would nuke just about all the Heller-agnostic Court of Appeals rulings out there (which typically hold that 2A challenges get only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review), and make it very hard for district and circuit judges to continue to wink at Heller. When laws are subject to “strict scrutiny” constitutional analysis — for example, laws that impose prior restraints on free speech — almost never survive the challenge.

That would mean our friends living behind enemy lines in states like California, Washington , Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maryland would have many of their constitutionally protected gun rights restored.

We, like you, will be watching this case closely. Stay tuned.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Grants Cert to NY State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of NY Gun Rights Case - The Truth About Guns
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
4,836
Likes
7,077
Location
SE MA
When I opened NBC News this morning their headline was SCOTUS allows Trump to enforce Transgender Military Ban and it also said SCOTUS refused to hear the NY Gun case (along with a couple other decisions they made re DACA, an Indiana Abrtion law). I just went back and checked that article and they removed any reference to the gun case.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
1,557
Likes
493
Location
Allenstown, NH
If they deny Certiorari that means the lower ruling stands.

-Mike

Yes, Certiorari. Not Centauri, no one denies Londo.

NUKL4.gif
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
921
Location
Merrimack Valley
Does anyone have an opinion on how this bodes for concealed carry and other 2A rights? It seems to me that they picked a case challenging ridiculous restrictions, rather than something like Gould that would have broader impact. I'm worried about what the upshot will be. They may vote only to expand 2A jurisprudence slightly, and stop there.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
19,765
Likes
36,136
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
I think they will rule in a manner which affirms the requirement for strict scrutiny. Which would make challenges to dumb laws easier and potentially end May Issue. Also make NY and NJ obey the FOPA.

It would be a nice pimp slap across the face of belligerent lower courts hell bent on ignoring Miller, Heller, and Caetano.
 
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,360
Likes
2,395
I think they will rule in a manner which affirms the requirement for strict scrutiny. Which would make challenges to dumb laws easier and potentially end May Issue. Also make NY and NJ obey the FOPA.

It would be a nice pimp slap across the face of belligerent lower courts hell bent on ignoring Miller, Heller, and Caetano.

Based on my totally inexpert analysis, this seems the most likely explanation. It lays the groundwork for subsequent cases to challenge other dumb laws and require courts to use the highest level of scrutiny for evaluating their constitionality.
 

John42056

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
237
Likes
283
From SCOTUS blog (Justices to review New York gun rights case - SCOTUSblog)

The Supreme Court’s calendar for April was already full before last week’s conference, so the new grant likely won’t be argued until the fall. The justices’ eventual ruling in the case could stick to the relatively narrow question of whether the city’s law is constitutional, or it might shed light on a broader and more consequential question: whether the right to have a gun extends outside the home. Either way, the court’s opinion in the case probably won’t come until the spring of 2020.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,503
Location
Central Ma.
From SCOTUS blog (Justices to review New York gun rights case - SCOTUSblog)

The Supreme Court’s calendar for April was already full before last week’s conference, so the new grant likely won’t be argued until the fall. The justices’ eventual ruling in the case could stick to the relatively narrow question of whether the city’s law is constitutional, or it might shed light on a broader and more consequential question: whether the right to have a gun extends outside the home. Either way, the court’s opinion in the case probably won’t come until the spring of 2020.
NICE! Now if Ruthie would only retire( I wouldn't wish any ill health on the woman) we 'd have a slam dunk.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
3,495
Likes
3,162
Likely, not sure how all that works though, I just know that the process takes a long assed time, but at least its in their queue now...

-Mike
And likely when RGB will have retired. 6-3, maybe 5-4 if Roberts or Kavanaugh turns on us.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
3,495
Likes
3,162
I think they will rule in a manner which affirms the requirement for strict scrutiny. Which would make challenges to dumb laws easier and potentially end May Issue. Also make NY and NJ obey the FOPA.

It would be a nice pimp slap across the face of belligerent lower courts hell bent on ignoring Miller, Heller, and Caetano.
What's the difference between non strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny? How strict? Shall not be infringed strict?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
722
Likes
416
it might shed light on a broader and more consequential question: whether the right to have a gun extends outside the home.

I am continuously irked by statements like this. The onus should never be on the citizen, but rather on the state to prove it is authorized to generate such laws. If every publication parsed it like: "it might shed light on a broader and more consequential question: whether the power to infringe on bearing arms outside the home is legal," we'd see a lot less infringement. I'd like to couple that with asset forfeiture and mandatory jail sentence for politicians that vote "yes" on, or fail to veto such legislature.
 

crispnipz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
442
Likes
586
Location
Melrose
Assuming that Baker, Maura, and their minions don’t ignore or defy the ruling.

Bob

Well when MA SJC got owned by SCOTUS in Caetano (stun guns/tasers were illegal in MA), MA can change the law to accommodate, which they did. SCOTUS forced MA to make stun guns legal and now they are on the condition that you need an LTC. I have no idea how MA would change the law WRT to restrictions on LTCs if/when SCOTUS forces MA's hand, but I would imagine something like a live fire test or stricter rules in the process of getting one.
 

Glockster30

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,665
Likes
3,906
Location
Milky Way
Assuming that Baker, Maura, and their minions don’t ignore or defy the ruling.

Bob

I don't see how they could defy the ruling if SCOTUS rules on the case using Kavanaugh's wording from the article wrt strict scrutiny. In essence, Kavanaugh stated that there's "no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles."


“In Heller,” Kavanaugh noted, “the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller‘s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.”
 

Glockster30

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,665
Likes
3,906
Location
Milky Way
Doesn't it mean 5 think so?

No, Rob is right. Four vote to take the case, which they haven't done in several other 2nd Amendment cases because they didn't think that they had the 5 votes when Kennedy was on board or the case wasn't good enough for them to use strict scrutiny.
 
Top Bottom