US Supreme Court OT 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,403
Location
My forest stronghold
So does that mean that the case moves forward?
For now. NYC will try against once they're regulatory change and the change to state law go into effect.

Aside from the merits issue, I think this will be interesting in terms of how the court deals with an obvious attempt to evade review. Judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, don't like being f'ed with. Even the justices likely to side with NYC on the merits won't tolerate this BS.
 

doxdsgn

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
306
Likes
132

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
2,959
Likes
5,372
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
I hoping we see a case like U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez’s ruling of California’s magazine ban as unconstitutional make its way to SCOTUS someday.

:emoji_tiger:
 

swatgig

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
5,000
Likes
4,231
Location
In the shallow end of the gene pool
So today New York filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/108869/20190722151524926_18-280 Suggestion of Mootness.pdf

as well as a motion for an extension of time http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/108873/20190722152749234_18-280 motion to extend time to file brief on the merits.pdf
In light of the changes in state and municipal law, the City no longer has any stake in whether the Constitution requires localities to allow people to transport licensed handguns to second homes or firing ranges outside of municipal borders. So the City has no legal reason to file a brief addressing that substantive question on the merits.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,779
Likes
2,592
Location
western mass
I fail to see how there couldn't be a constitutional issue in the New York case even though the law is changed. Let's say that SCOTUS agrees the case is moot and then it goes away. The next day the New York legislature and city can immediately institute the old policy essentially invalidating the reason for claiming it isn't moot. They could simply go back and forth like this for years on end with essentially no change in the law.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,211
Likes
8,418
Location
NH (CT Escapee)

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,403
Location
My forest stronghold
So basically "pretty, pretty please don't make us lose this case"?
It's not so much, "don't make us lose this case" as it is "there's no need for us to ruin it for everyone". Everytown and the Giffords center were primary drivers behind the legislative change that supposedly makes this issue moot. While New York is more than capable of digging itself a big hole, the big guns in the anti-gun movement are terrified about any case getting to this Supreme Court.
 

rocket500

NES Member
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,822
Likes
725
Let’s hope the Court decides to end this BS in NY. Would send a strong message about infringing on the 2A.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. asks SCOTUS to tell NYC to pound sand.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/109206/20190724171218443_2019-7-24 NYSRPA response letter FINAL.pdf
Paul Clement for the win. I figured the case would end up mooted, but the way NYC has approached this in trying to force SCOTUS's hand on the mootness proceedings by refusing to follow the court's schedule in filing a merits brief is guaranteed to piss off the justices.

"This Court should reject respondents’ latest request. As petitioners will explain more fully in their response to respondents’ Suggestion, petitioners certainly do not agree that this case is moot or should be removed from the Court’s calendar. That contested issue can and will be briefed separately from the merits and provides no excuse for delaying the merits briefing. The mootness issues can and should be considered by the Court in the ordinary course, whether that is when the Court returns from recess or alongside the merits briefing and argument. In the meantime, respondents have had more than enough time to prepare their defense of the challenged provisions—provisions that they have successfully defended in both the district court and the Second Circuit and continue to insist are constitutional. There is no reason to give them even more time, or for this Court to rush its consideration of their mootness arguments, simply because respondents apparently would prefer not to defend in this Court a regime that they imposed on petitioners and other New York residents for more than a decade."​
 

swatgig

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
5,000
Likes
4,231
Location
In the shallow end of the gene pool
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. asks SCOTUS to tell NYC to pound sand.
Aaaaaaand SCOTUS told NYC to pound sand.
Jul 26 2019 Motion for a further extension of time to file respondents' brief on the merits denied.
 

Cap'n Mike

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
456
Location
Mass
Thats Awesome.
New York now only has 5 business days to cobble together merits arguments in their response brief.
Perfect.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,276
Likes
556
Location
Mass
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jpk

Editor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
579
Likes
146
Location
Worcester County, MA
New york's response has been filed. From my non lawyer understanding they basically are arguing "This case is moot and should be thrown out because the law changed. But as an aside the law was totally constitutional and the people who say it wasn't are jerks who don't understand that new york is just different and should be able to do whatever they want."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/110978/20190801121009552_18-280 NYSRPA suggestion of mootness opposition.pdf
The link provided is not New York's response. It is the PETITIONER'S (Pistol & Rifle Association) response to the REPONDENTS (City of New York) suggestion of mootness.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,098
Likes
6,538
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/111236/20190805180416324_NYSRPA v CNY Brief for Respondents.pdf

In an abundance of caution, we interpret the Court’s refusal to extend the briefing schedule as calling for substantive briefing on the constitutionality of the City’s former rule. In our view, this requires the City to do what Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is designed to avoid: engage in litigation regarding the constitutionality of a law that no longer exists and that the defendant has no desire (or even ability) to reenact. Consequently, we renew below our argument that this litigation is moot. But we also recognize that the Court may simply desire full briefing to ensure it has a full array of options. We therefore also offer a defense of the City’s former rule, in the spirit of something a Court-appointed amicus curiae might do. But to avoid any possibility of confusion, we stress that the City’s true position is that it has no view at all regarding the constitutional questions presented; as far as the City is concerned, petitioners are entirely free to engage in all of the conduct they have requested in this lawsuit.
Is it just me, or would a judge find this statement offensive for a multitude of reasons including a condensing tone?

The offending phrases:
"In an abundance of caution" "requires the City to do what Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is designed to avoid"
"But to avoid any possibility of confusion" "petitioners are entirely free to engage in all of the conduct they have requested in this lawsuit"

The statement "defendant has no desire (or even ability) to reenact" is also blatantly piss on your leg and say it is raining false.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,779
Likes
2,592
Location
western mass
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/111236/20190805180416324_NYSRPA v CNY Brief for Respondents.pdf



Is it just me, or would a judge find this statement offensive for a multitude of reasons including a condensing tone?

The offending phrases:
"In an abundance of caution" "requires the City to do what Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is designed to avoid"
"But to avoid any possibility of confusion" "petitioners are entirely free to engage in all of the conduct they have requested in this lawsuit"

The statement "defendant has no desire (or even ability) to reenact" is also blatantly piss on your leg and say it is raining false.
I guarantee you that liberals are pooping in their pants right now. If they lose this one it's a good opportunity to open the flood gates on the rest of their idiocy.
 

crispnipz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
321
Likes
358
Location
Medford
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
Who the deuce do these people think they are?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
67,007
Likes
23,660
It's not so much, "don't make us lose this case" as it is "there's no need for us to ruin it for everyone". Everytown and the Giffords center were primary drivers behind the legislative change that supposedly makes this issue moot. While New York is more than capable of digging itself a big hole, the big guns in the anti-gun movement are terrified about any case getting to this Supreme Court.
IMHO this is part of the reason why krispy kreme pardoned a couple people who wandered into NJ with handguns (like that lady from Philadelphia) and why that lady at the 9-11 Memorial got let off the hook.... because several of them have been the textbook definition of sympathetic plaintiffs....

I'm sure in Krispy Kremes case some of it was political posturing but I would bet anything "a call got received" over the issue, too...

-Mike
 

mlaboss

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,118
Likes
1,668
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,211
Likes
8,418
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Could you imagine if Trump now tried to nominate 6 more justices to head them off? Just to see the response it generated? Just a simple single tweet:

"I agree with the democrats (insert all the names from that article here) that the court has been sick for sometime and needs to heal from its constant erosion of rights, so I am sending 6 new candidates to be confirmed and bring us back to a better place."

Then say nothing else and submit 6 judges immediately.

Sit back, watch heads explode.
 

mlaboss

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,118
Likes
1,668
These landmark guns rights SCOTUS cases (Heller, McDonald, and now NYSRPA) all share a common theme: restrictions that are so onerous or arbitrary and capricious that even people who are a bit anti-gun are like "whoa, really?" I've explained the NYSRPA case to people who are not gun people, and even they are like "Wait, they can't bring their gun anywhere? Like, not even to another state completely unloaded in a locked case in the trunk of their car? Yeah, that's not reasonable."

Basically, laws that strain the definition of "common sense" gun control way beyond the point that even casual gun control advocates agree with. It's only the hardest of the hardcore gun controllers that think these sorts of laws are a good idea. And, in the end, they're shooting themselves in the foot because we get such great rulings out of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom