Gun Rights and SCOTUS in the new session

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supposedly the Court was hearing motions to moot the NYSRPA v. NYC case on 1 Oct. Does anyone know when a decision will be published? If not mooted, the case should be argued the first part of December.
 
IMHO, these are not that significant cases. The court can simply void the NYC law with a quite limited decision that does not expand gun rights beyond that situation. Folks hope for a broad decision that strikes down all kinds of carry bans but I don't see it.

The others - they do nothing to stop the infringements of state bans, difficulty in getting carry permits or precluding a Federal AWB. Suits on those issues were not taken up or if new are still sessions away.

Thus, I'm not getting excited if bump stocks are protected UNLESS that decision is used to void all the weapons and mag bans - which won't happen.
 
The issue with the Bushmaster case is that the Sup. Ct. of CT simply ruled that the trial was not summarily blocked by the PLCAA and it was returned to the trial court. This is an interlocutory appeal that SCOTUS often rejects as there is no final judgment. However, it does touch on a federal law and has national implications so they can do so if they wish.

The NYC case deals with the idiosyncratic approach to 2A analysis that the 2nd Circuit has taken more than the specific regulation in the case. The travel issue deals with the virtual evisceration of the privileges and immunities clause in Slaughterhouse that ironically left travel as one of the few rights covered under the clause. My guess is that a majority on the court might actually want to rein the 2nd a bit here and will go on to consider the case. Roberts may also want to get back into the good graces of his erstwhile colleagues on the right due to the recent last minute flip flop on the Census case this summer. Roberts appears to resemble CJ Burger or Stone in his decisionmaking and neither had very successful tenures as Chief.
 
SCOTUS dismissed NYS moot argument in NYSRPA v. NYC so oral arguments will be heard 12/2/2019. The question before the court is whether the 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.
 
SCOTUS dismissed NYS moot argument in NYSRPA v. NYC so oral arguments will be heard 12/2/2019. The question before the court is whether the 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.

They did not quite dismiss the moot argument as that is one of the legal questions that today's Supreme Court order added to the oral arguments for the case in December.
 
I hope they won't allow the case to be mooted. If they do, the anti-gun states will pass an endless series of restrictive and obviously illegal / unconstitutional laws, let them ride until they finally reach SCOTUS, then rescind them at the last minute. Rinse and repeat.
 
I don't have anything to add except "I Wish Justice Scalia was still on the court".

Sadly I have to agree. IMO Roberts is easily swayed by the last person he talks to. In fact I think the addition of two new Conservative Justices will make him more likely to side with the Liberals on the bench. The next appointment to the Supreme Court will likely be the most important decision the President will make for a generation.
 
Sadly I have to agree. IMO Roberts is easily swayed by the last person he talks to. In fact I think the addition of two new Conservative Justices will make him more likely to side with the Liberals on the bench. The next appointment to the Supreme Court will likely be the most important decision the President will make for a generation.

Yes , that is the risk!
 
I Wish Justice Scalia was still on the court
We now have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who I consider much better than Scalia because they have the ears of other justices due to their intelligent and impeccable reasoning with sway towards "Originalist" thinking of honoring the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as originally written, intended and updated to "current times" with 27 amendments. With both of them being "young", they will continue to rule for decades to come.

Even Ginsburg defended Gorsuch and Kavanaugh - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ruth-bader-ginsburg-brett-kavanaugh-is-a-very-decent-man/

Ginsburg - "My two newest colleagues are very decent, very smart individuals."

And Gorsuch spoke these words in a recent CNN interview - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are.

Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away. That's the idea
"

"Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent.

... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"

At 16:10 minute of video, when asked about president Trump commenting in 2017 that "Neil Gorsuch, he will save people's Second Amendment rights", Gorsuch replied, "My business is your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced"

At 16:45 minute of video, when asked about the US Constitution needing to change to better reflect current times, Gorsuch replied, "The original Constitution now includes 27 amendments passed by the 'We the People' ... 'We the People' amended the Constitution, ... to fix the injustices... improved the Constitution, made it a better document. And that is the proper process to do that" :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

He then does a great job of explaining the meaning of "Originalism". :thumbup:

 
Last edited:
I am hoping that Amy Barrett is chosen and seated by the fall of next year. I dont believe Ruth will be a Justice much longer.
Conservative "Originalist" and supporter of the Second Amendment?

Sure. :thumbup:

She wrote an impressive dissent for Kanter v. Barr on Second Amendment rights - http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...1478:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2309276:S:0#page=27

"Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons ... Felon voting rights are a good example: a state can disenfranchise felons, but if it refrains from doing so, their voting rights remain constitutionally protected. So too with the right to keep and bear arms: a state can disarm certain people (for example, those convicted of crimes of domestic violence), but if it refrains from doing so, their rights remain constitutionally protected. In other words, a person convicted of a qualifying crime does not automatically lose his right to keep and bear arms but instead becomes eligible to lose it.

... First, none of the relevant limiting language made its way into the Second Amendment. Second, only New Hampshire’s proposal - the least restrictive of the three - even carried a majority of its convention ... Third, proposals from other states that advocated a constitutional right to arms did not contain similar language of limitation or exclusion.

... Heller ... squarely holds that 'the Second Amendment confer an individual right to keep and bear arms,' ... Heller ... emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia.

... The Second Amendment confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self defense, and not limited to civic participation (i.e., militia service)

'Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions ... employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.' Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms."
 
Last edited:
I have been surprised that Ginsberg has not retired because of her serious medical issues. But I think she's waiting or hoping for a Democratic President before she retires.
 
I said before, we all pin our hope on the decision (if the case is taken) to be the heavenly bugle call of gun rights. Heller was supposed to be such. However, it wasn't. This could just be such a limited case to really leave all the repressive laws in place and might even support the more repressive laws in place with mealy mouth caveats added to sooth Roberts.

As far as
The Second Amendment confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self defense

I want to repeat that the emphasis on self-defense will set up an attack on anything other than a simple handgun with limited capacity as a 'dangerous and unusual weapon', not needed for self-defense. That has been seen in the lower courts supporting state weapons and mag bans. Heller did not unambiguously protect them and opened the door for bans - although Heller fans said it didn't and is misintepreted. Behaviorally, though - that's what happened.

Look our common and contentious threads where folks say they carry revolvers. I understand that from a personal preference and the utility of the J frames for pocket carry. The downside is that some of the revolver folks go beyond that and denounced the need for anything greater in a reasonably probably self-defense scenario. If I were presented a ban case to the Court, I would read those folks from numerous gun forums to make the case that the folks with ARs or handguns with higher cap mags are NUTS as those guns are unnecessary.

Unless SCOTUS takes a case that eliminates state bans and threat of a Federal AWB and wipes out burdensome carry restrictions, I'm not excited about NYC, unless they surprise and go for a very expansive decision. I doubt that.
 
I have been surprised that Ginsberg has not retired because of her serious medical issues. But I think she's waiting or hoping for a Democratic President before she retires.
Ruth will leave the Court in one of two ways: Retire as soon as a Democrat is in office, or be carried out on a gurney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top