Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=331)
-   -   New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Cert granted 1-22-19 (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1486495)

ShadowGuy 10-29-2018 10:03 PM

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York: Cert granted 1-22-19
 
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Issue: Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right to travel

Listed for 1/4/19 conference initially
Relisted for 1/11/19 conference
Relisted for 1/18/19 conference
Cert Granted in 1/22/19
NYC Requests a stay pending a proposed law change to allow additional approved locations in an attempt to resolve the complaints and render the case moot. 4/12/19
SCOTUS denies request for stay on 4/29/19
NYSRPA brief submitted on 5/7/19
NYC brief submitted on 8/5/19

Next step is scheduling the oral arguments that may happen as early as Dec 2019 or we may see a per curium decision.

SCOTUS Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/

There is lots of speculation on what will be decided in this case.

*Will it be a narrow ruling just to correct this specific law in NYC?
*Will it be a wide reaching ruling on the right to bear arms outside the home?
*Will it be a wide reaching ruling on the right to keep arms outside the home?
*Will the court set a strict scrutiny precedent for the 2nd amendment rather than intermediate or heightened scrutiny prevelent in lower courts?

Other cases are being held pending this decision. See post 671 for list:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=671

Updates from other contributors:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirearmFino (Post 23001918)
Amicus briefs filed in support today:

In supprt of neither party:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns (Post 22680821)
New York City and NYSRPA have asked the Court to set a briefing schedule that has NYSRPA file its brief on May 7 and NYC file its brief on August 5.

This briefing schedule would allow the Court to hear oral arguments during the October session.


R Dale 10-30-2018 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prwterbird (Post 22277874)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Issue: Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right to travel

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/

It is scheduled for the Nov 2 conference. As far as I know this may be an option to break the long 2A dry spell for a SCOTUS opinion.

The 2nd Circuit decision is crazy and seems like a slam dunk for the new Supreme Court to cement the right to bear outside the home, without getting caught up in the open\concealed arguments.

I don't think any gov should have the right to ban someone from leaving their border or city limits with their own legally owned property. New York is beginning to look like what the communist countries are doing.

ShadowGuy 10-30-2018 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Dale (Post 22279967)
I don't think any gov should have the right to ban someone from leaving their border or city limits with their own legally owned property. New York is beginning to look like what the communist countries are doing.

California is bad. NYC is asinine. And they way they twist the constitution. Just read it, plain as day. "Shall not be infringed" .

Glock21sfsd 10-31-2018 8:05 AM

Maybe I am not up to date on this but, is this saying that if you live in New York you cant take your firearms out of new York? to go shooting? or for any purpose?

P5Ret 10-31-2018 9:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prwterbird (Post 22280949)
California is bad. NYC is asinine. And they way they twist the constitution. Just read it, plain as day. "Shall not be abridged" .

Do you have the Reader's Digest version of the Constitution? I think the word your looking for is INFRINGED.

bhp1410 10-31-2018 11:34 AM

How the hell is this even a law... How could you keep a straight face??

ShadowGuy 10-31-2018 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P5Ret (Post 22282411)
Do you have the Reader's Digest version of the Constitution? I think the word your looking for is INFRINGED.

Haha.

Just checking to see if anyone was paying attention. :)

R Dale 10-31-2018 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glock21sfsd (Post 22282188)
Maybe I am not up to date on this but, is this saying that if you live in New York you cant take your firearms out of new York? to go shooting? or for any purpose?

I just found this out myself but apparently it's true, this kind of thing goes unopposed at the federal level so it will continue and spread to other areas. It seem our system of government in trying not to have a all powerful tyrannical government spreads the power around to the states making them sovereign with their own rights managed to create states and local governments that have become corrupted and now we have the problem that the founders of our government was trying to prevent but now at the local level.

Paladin 10-31-2018 7:57 PM

I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Paladin 10-31-2018 8:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prwterbird (Post 22277874)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Issue: Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right to travel

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/

It is scheduled for the Nov 2 conference.
As far as I know this may be an option to break the long 2A dry spell for a SCOTUS opinion.

The 2nd Circuit decision is crazy and seems like a slam dunk for the new Supreme Court to cement the right to bear outside the home, without getting caught up in the open\concealed arguments.

I don't see where it says it's scheduled for Nov 2 conference at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html

The last thing with a date is: "Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 8, 2018." (emphasis added)

TruOil 11-01-2018 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin (Post 22284547)
I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

There is a basis for that under the Gun Owners Protection Act (which the police and prosecutors refuse to recognize in NY) that is supposed to be a blanket exemption for unlawful carry is unloaded and in a locked container. As a separate point, why the heck does NYC care if anyone takes their gun with them when they leave town? It is frivolous to suggest that there is a higher risk of harm to the public at large when carrying a gun out of town than there is if when a gun can be legally carried from the home to the range and back within city limits.

R Dale 11-01-2018 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruOil (Post 22287040)
There is a basis for that under the Gun Owners Protection Act (which the police and prosecutors refuse to recognize in NY) that is supposed to be a blanket exemption for unlawful carry is unloaded and in a locked container. As a separate point, why the heck does NYC care if anyone takes their gun with them when they leave town? It is frivolous to suggest that there is a higher risk of harm to the public at large when carrying a gun out of town than there is if when a gun can be legally carried from the home to the range and back within city limits.

It not about harm to the public but it's about making firearm ownership as inconvenient as possible. There have been people arrested at airports while leaving town that was not even residents of NY and NJ and it was clear there was no criminal intent.

TruOil 11-02-2018 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Dale (Post 22287135)
It not about harm to the public but it's about making firearm ownership as inconvenient as possible. There have been people arrested at airports while leaving town that was not even residents of NY and NJ and it was clear there was no criminal intent.

Although MOST I certainly agree that this is what is going on, I was merely referencing the argument that the /city is making in support of its ordinance.

wolfwood 11-15-2018 9:54 AM

opposition brief filed

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...Opposition.pdf

mshill 11-15-2018 2:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfwood (Post 22337972)

Unbelievable. Apparently, NYC believes that the 2A is all about "self defense in the home". Talk about reading Heller with blinders on. If SCOTUS does not take this and ***** slap NYC with it they will never take anything. At the very least take it and send the case back down with the proper wording from Heller that the 2A is "most acute in the home".

ShadowGuy 11-15-2018 6:33 PM

The opposition brief is so biased. I would love to hear what Thomas and Alito would say.

TruOil 11-16-2018 2:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshill (Post 22338888)
Unbelievable. Apparently, NYC believes that the 2A is all about "self defense in the home". Talk about reading Heller with blinders on. If SCOTUS does not take this and ***** slap NYC with it they will never take anything. At the very least take it and send the case back down with the proper wording from Heller that the 2A is "most acute in the home".

This is the new anti-gun meme. Massachusetts said it isn't a right outside the home, that he right is limited to the home, carry outside the home is subject to regulation in the interest of public safety; Hawaii is pounding that drum in Young, now saying that three additional circuits agree; and they all cite Heller for that proposition--or in the case of Young, the Peruta case from the Ninth Circuit. (which doesn't say that anymore than Heller does.) This has been coming for a while. At first the courts were avoiding the question, merely assuming that the right existed outside the home, but with the Supreme Court refusing to take any of these cases--and time running out on a few of its Democrat members--they are pushing even further, trying to eliminate the right entirely, making it a mere privilege subject to complete discretionary governmental control. That is the goal, after all.

ShadowGuy 11-16-2018 4:54 PM

I cant even comprehend how it got this bad. Everyone agrees you have a right to self defense in and out of your home. But you can only defend your self with a gun within your home. Outside the home your SOL. Makes no sense.

press1280 11-17-2018 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruOil (Post 22342429)
This is the new anti-gun meme. Massachusetts said it isn't a right outside the home, that he right is limited to the home, carry outside the home is subject to regulation in the interest of public safety; Hawaii is pounding that drum in Young, now saying that three additional circuits agree; and they all cite Heller for that proposition--or in the case of Young, the Peruta case from the Ninth Circuit. (which doesn't say that anymore than Heller does.) This has been coming for a while. At first the courts were avoiding the question, merely assuming that the right existed outside the home, but with the Supreme Court refusing to take any of these cases--and time running out on a few of its Democrat members--they are pushing even further, trying to eliminate the right entirely, making it a mere privilege subject to complete discretionary governmental control. That is the goal, after all.

The courts are essentially saying this without saying it directly (note how they all try to distinguish themselves from Moore). Instead, they have made a two-tier system where the "core" is the home and public carry is satisfied with some kind of licensing system, whether permits are issues in reality or not.
And don't forget they are now trying to claim Nunn and Chandler(the basis of Heller) can be disregarded since they were from slave states.

Ubermcoupe 11-17-2018 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin (Post 22284547)
I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

My vote (wishful thinking) is for PC based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring anything related to 2A.

My 2nd vote is a ruling in favor of NYSRPA based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring 2A, with a concurrent opinion by Thomas (maybe another) saying he also supports a decision in favor of NYSRPA because of 2A.

:shrug:

LINY 11-23-2018 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe (Post 22345311)
My vote (wishful thinking) is for PC based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring anything related to 2A.

My 2nd vote is a ruling in favor of NYSRPA based on commerce and freedom of movement, completely ignoring 2A, with a concurrent opinion by Thomas (maybe another) saying he also supports a decision in favor of NYSRPA because of 2A.

:shrug:

You bring up a good point- in fact I’d love to see a case come forward challenging the CA and NY etc pistol laws using the Interstate Commerce precedents....

Does anyone know if something like that ever been attempted before?

ShadowGuy 11-29-2018 7:25 AM

Distributed for conference on 1/4/19

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/

Reply of Petitioners

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...18%20FINAL.PDF

It’s slowly making its way forward.

kuug 12-01-2018 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prwterbird (Post 22385647)
Distributed for conference on 1/4/19

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/

Reply of Petitioners

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...18%20FINAL.PDF

It’s slowly making its way forward.

This case will be our litmus test. It seems like a slam dunk to me. If the justices deny cert we should not get our hopes up until we get one more justice on the supreme court.

TruOil 12-03-2018 9:08 PM

Nice reply brief. You've at least got a shot if for no other reason than that the law is as stupid as the D.C. law challenged in Heller. If it flies, will NJ's ban on HPs anywhere but between the gun store and the home be far behind? If hey are good enough to defend your house, they should be good enough anywhere you are allowed to carry; where the bullet is doesn't change its characteristics.

Librarian 12-04-2018 11:44 AM

TTAG article https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...n-waiting-for/

Quote:

TTAG reader and attorney LKB, who watches the progress of gun rights cases very closely, opined that the Court was waiting for just the right case, one that the pro-2A side judges to be ideal for re-affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms and striking another blow for the RKBA.

In his opinion, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York is just such a case.

desertjosh 12-10-2018 9:31 PM

Holy crap, this is the first I've heard of this. Tagged

wireless 12-11-2018 12:26 AM

If they do take this case I highly doubt they will address “carry”. The scope of the question they’ll answer will be fairly narrow. It might do a little bit more than Caentano, but I don’t see this helping AWB, mag capacity, or may-issue.

It would be a good opportunity to slam the lower courts who use “intermediate scrutiny”. That might do us some good.

This will be interesting to see what happens. The case is fairly innocuous in the grand scheme of things and won’t really hurt the core anti-2a agenda unless the opinion is crafted to do just that. With Roberts on the court, I don’t think that will happen though.

2Aallday 12-16-2018 10:44 PM

Wow. Just when you thought California was bad...

I like the tortured logic here, though. In the home, but certainly not your vacation home. You’ll need another gun for that. A vacation gun. NYC wants us to buy more guns, then? Well, if you’re going to twist my arm...

Paladin 12-28-2018 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prwterbird (Post 22277874)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280

Update: Listed for 1/4/19 conference, next update likely on 1/7/19

I wonder if RBG will be attending the conference in 1 week? :popcorn:

press1280 12-29-2018 5:04 AM

While I'd like SCOTUS to take the case, if they did only one case in the next year, I'd rather have them address a true right to carry case, which makes this case a moot point since a NYC unrestricted permit would no longer be impossible to get.

ccmc 12-29-2018 7:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by press1280 (Post 22489787)
While I'd like SCOTUS to take the case, if they did only one case in the next year, I'd rather have them address a true right to carry case, which makes this case a moot point since a NYC unrestricted permit would no longer be impossible to get.

Absolutely. Ideally we would see a ruling that does away with carry permits altogether and simply states the Second Amendment means what it says.

ShadowGuy 01-04-2019 12:25 PM

So I am trying to learn the procedure here in the court. From what I understand there are likely 4 outcomes for Monday.

Grant - more briefing and possibly oral arguments leading to a decision.
Relist- discuss granting cert at the next conference.
Hold- Nothinh happens and it sits until a relist.
Denied- it’s over.

Does that seem right?

Matir 01-04-2019 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prwterbird (Post 22512062)
So I am trying to learn the procedure here in the court. From what I understand there are likely 4 outcomes for Monday.

Grant - more briefing and possibly oral arguments leading to a decision.
Relist- discuss granting cert at the next conference.
Hold- Nothinh happens and it sits until a relist.
Denied- it’s over.

Does that seem right?

That sounds right, but there's no guarantee that they release the outcome Monday, AIUI.

wireless 01-04-2019 2:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prwterbird (Post 22512062)
So I am trying to learn the procedure here in the court. From what I understand there are likely 4 outcomes for Monday.

Grant - more briefing and possibly oral arguments leading to a decision.
Relist- discuss granting cert at the next conference.
Hold- Nothinh happens and it sits until a relist.
Denied- it’s over.

Does that seem right?

The court can issue an opinion/order without hearing the case. It doesn’t happen often but it did in cantaeno.

TruOil 01-04-2019 2:41 PM

I would also add that if cert is granted, there will be oral argument...in a year or so.

dscoduc 01-04-2019 2:44 PM

Oh man this is as hilarious as it is scary. Why anyone would live in a slime infested socialist/communist city like New York is just baffling.

At some point I suspect that CA will adopt a law or set of laws that finally pushes me to give up and move away. Not quite there yet but something like this NY law of restricting free travel would do it for sure.

ShadowGuy 01-06-2019 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wireless (Post 22512379)
The court can issue an opinion/order without hearing the case. It doesn’t happen often but it did in cantaeno.

From what I understand they are releasing opinions on Tuesday. I doubt it will be on this case.

wpage 01-06-2019 12:07 PM

What a shame for gun owners who live in NY. Gov Cuomo and his minions have really violated the constitution. Good luck to the NYS rifle and pistol Association this should be a easy win.

ShadowGuy 01-07-2019 7:17 AM

Nothing on this case in the orders released. I guess that’s good news as I wasn’t denied yet. From what I read, it is likely that and case they are actually considering gets held then relisted for a few rounds until they can draft and review the opinions.

Jimi Jah 01-07-2019 8:31 AM

Roberts, the social liberal will take any steps necessary to avoid any gun case getting to his court. He's done this since 2009 and I see no reasoning for him to change.

Thanks, Bush.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.