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

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,516
Likes
7,778
Location
North Shore
They are continuing shouting "Moot" on the news.
Which does mean they are sweating it actually being heard.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Roberts will want to make up for the ungodly f*ck he threw into us with Obamacare.
On the other hand they probably still have the same pictures of him with a dead hooker or a live boy, so who knows.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
16,252
Likes
7,638
I read the transcript. What I find most interesting about these hearings is how ridiculously short they are for such important topics.
This isn’t Law & Order. It’s supposed to be a time when the justices can clarify points within the briefs. Today it’s more a show of what each judge is thinking.
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
12,172
Likes
5,506
Location
In Orbit
On the other hand they probably still have the same pictures of him with a dead hooker or a live boy, so who knows.
ButWait... I thought all that shit was good with the Progs now, including the discussions about fantasies with Little Leaguers on Twitter.
 

TLB

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,200
Likes
1,788
Location
Heading for greener pastures
They are continuing shouting "Moot" on the news.
Which does mean they are sweating it actually being heard.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Roberts will want to make up for the ungodly f*ck he threw into us with Obamacare.
On the other hand they probably still have the same pictures of him with a dead hooker or a live boy, so who knows.
Seems to be a bit of wishful thinking from the left (the media) about mootness. Shocking!

From a non-lawyer perspective, it's obvious they changed the law to hopefully about Scotus. It seems like there are some angles that indicate it may not be moot. But more importantly, these lower courts need to be set straight. Seems like mootness shouldn't matter for that...
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,516
Likes
7,778
Location
North Shore
Seems to be a bit of wishful thinking from the left (the media) about mootness. Shocking!

From a non-lawyer perspective, it's obvious they changed the law to hopefully about Scotus. It seems like there are some angles that indicate it may not be moot. But more importantly, these lower courts need to be set straight. Seems like mootness shouldn't matter for that...
It's pretty clear that Sotomyer and Ginsburg have already made up their minds ('Cause Guns ) .
I'd say that was a given no matter what the merits of the case were.
I'm curious to see if the juice was worth the squeeze on Kavanaugh.
 

TLB

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,200
Likes
1,788
Location
Heading for greener pastures
It's pretty clear that Sotomyer and Ginsburg have already made up their minds ('Cause Guns ) .
I'd say that was a given no matter what the merits of the case were.
I'm curious to see if the juice was worth the squeeze on Kavanaugh.
I think Roberts is the question/problem. He is the "tie breaker" on this issue. I'm not worried about Kavanaugh, especially after what the left did to him during the nomination.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,117
Likes
3,412
Location
My forest stronghold
This case is very likely to get DIGed on mootness, and that may not be such a bad thing. This was a VERY narrow question and gave the court the opportunity to make a very narrow ruling. The antis may have shot themselves in the foot (again). The shadow docket is 12 or 13 petitions deep and all of the them give the court a better opportunity to make a broader ruling.

I read the transcript. What I find most interesting about these hearings is how ridiculously short they are for such important topics.
Most arguments are this short. The meat and potatoes of these cases are in the pleadings. Arguments are simply an opportunity for the parties to underscore their positions and are the only opportunity the justices have to ask questions. The interesting change this term is that the justices are holding their tongues for two full minutes before hitting the attorneys up with questions. (although Justice Ginsberg seems to have forgotten the new rule today)
 
Last edited:

67ray

NES Member
Rating - 100%
167   0   0
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
1,793
Likes
841
Wow that was a great read. The Justices don't seem to be that keen on the mootness argument, seeing through NY's transparent attempt to avid and effectual relief/injunction.

Now my prognostication - the Court will grant a narrow injunction against RKBA inside the home, in transport to a second home, or for training purposes. This will be a win but will of course leave open the question of right to carry most anywhere in a jurisdiction subject to public safety concerns.
 

Woodsy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
4,738
Likes
1,870
Location
In the north woods likely hunting or trapping
This case is critical in many ways. Interesting questions from the justices. I did like the one “can I stop to visit my mother on the way to the range” of course that answer was no. I hope they rule against NY the right to ownership there is already so suppressed it’s ridiculous.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
I continue to believe that a narrow ruling on the merits is possible. Roberts could be playing the long game and could offer some of the moderate liberal justices (Breyer/Kagan) that they can either join him in a narrow merits ruling that affirms RKBA outside the home but goes no further, or they can get a narrow 5-4 ruling that's much broader.

Roberts is a movement conservative but he's also deeply concerned about the staying power and long term legitimacy of his court's rulings. This would be perfectly in line with that. It would also set up lots of future strong 5-4 rulings for 2A cases from the shadow docket.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
14,445
Likes
5,134
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
We don't find out until next summer when they release the decision and the majority/dissenting opinions.

It's not like fapping; there is no instant gratification with the Supreme Court.

Any theory right now is supposition.
You only get know right away if you deflate a football.

View: https://youtu.be/9D2R69gVyZ0
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,827
Likes
1,608
Location
RI
I read the transcript. What I find most interesting about these hearings is how ridiculously short they are for such important topics.
80-95% of the information you want to put in front of the justices, you put in the brief. The briefs are the heart of an appellate argument. The way oral argument is supposed to work is "ok, counsel, we've read your brief and we have questions about legal points X, Y, and Z here in your brief."

You don't argue facts on appeal. You don't talk about topics not in your brief. You don't make arguments that aren't in your brief.

The briefs are where its at. This isn't a trial.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,275
Likes
8,545
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
80-95% of the information you want to put in front of the justices, you put in the brief. The briefs are the heart of an appellate argument. The way oral argument is supposed to work is "ok, counsel, we've read your brief and we have questions about legal points X, Y, and Z here in your brief."

You don't argue facts on appeal. You don't talk about topics not in your brief. You don't make arguments that aren't in your brief.

The briefs are where its at. This isn't a trial.
I get that and I've read the briefs. Having read them, I find this oral discussion extremely short, especially on questions for NYC side. There are a lot of follow up questions I thought of whole reading this transcript and i find the lack of discussion surprising. Well, maybe not surprising since I see how SCOTUS rules retardedly all the time.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,827
Likes
1,608
Location
RI
I get that and I've read the briefs. Having read them, I find this oral discussion extremely short, especially on questions for NYC side. There are a lot of follow up questions I thought of whole reading this transcript and i find the lack of discussion surprising. Well, maybe not surprising since I see how SCOTUS rules retardedly all the time.
Oral argument isn't "a discussion." A lot of questions is usually a good thing - the justices are engaged and have a lot on their minds. You don't pay appellate counsel to go up there and ramble on. If appellate counsel is doing all the talking, he's not engaging the justices enough to spur them to ask questions.

This isn't a discussion among equals - appellate counsel's job is to inform the justices. That means being "in the hot seat" and responding to the justices, not talking about what he wants to talk about. Again, that's what you do in the brief because the brief is where you make your argument.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,275
Likes
8,545
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Oral argument isn't "a discussion." A lot of questions is usually a good thing - the justices are engaged and have a lot on their minds. You don't pay appellate counsel to go up there and ramble on. If appellate counsel is doing all the talking, he's not engaging the justices enough to spur them to ask questions.

This isn't a discussion among equals - appellate counsel's job is to inform the justices. That means being "in the hot seat" and responding to the justices, not talking about what he wants to talk about. Again, that's what you do in the brief because the brief is where you make your argument.
I was referring to the Justices. Not counsel. I expect a lot more questions from all of them. It is clear what Justices are trying to have a real probing debate to bring issues to light and which ones are grandstanding from their clearly made decision or basically sleeping on the job.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,170
Likes
6,680
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC
When talking about continuous travel, why did Clement fail to bring up NYC's blatant and disrespect for FOPA's safe travel provisions? Why would NYC respect state transportation law when it doesn't respect federal transportation law?

That alone should make it evident the case isn't moot.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,796
Likes
2,614
Location
western mass
To this end, the guy who drives the truck delivering shotguns to Bass Pro is "bearing arms"...
Wasn't this the problem with the original gun free school zones law? There was a trucker whose truck broke down within 1,000 feet of a school zone and the trucker only found afterwards that he had firearms in the back of his truck and was charged with carrying guns in a gun free zone? I thought we were already way past that?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,030
Likes
2,892
Oral argument isn't "a discussion."
... because the brief is where you make your argument.
OK, so you don't make the argument in "the argument", but in "the brief"? Did I get that right?



When talking about continuous travel, why did Clement fail to bring up NYC's blatant and disrespect for FOPA's safe travel provisions? Why would NYC respect state transportation law when it doesn't respect federal transportation law?

That alone should make it evident the case isn't moot.
I was also wondering about this.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
14,445
Likes
5,134
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,827
Likes
1,608
Location
RI
OK, so you don't make the argument in "the argument", but in "the brief"? Did I get that right
Lawyers submit the briefs in advance of oral arguments. You can't make arguments that aren't in the brief. The judges ask questions about what's in the brief or if something should be.
 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
985
Likes
311
Wasn't this the problem with the original gun free school zones law? There was a trucker whose truck broke down within 1,000 feet of a school zone and the trucker only found afterwards that he had firearms in the back of his truck and was charged with carrying guns in a gun free zone? I thought we were already way past that?
U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case that got the original GFSZA thrown out. It was the first time since Wickard v. Filburn that SCOTUS drew lines around Congress's power to regulate damn near anything it pleased as "interstate commerce" by saying that the matter at hand didn't have enough of a connection to interstate commerce. The case involved a 12th grade student who carried a loaded revolver into his high school.
 
Top Bottom