Hopefully SCOTUS declines the NY case and chooses a bigger and more far reaching one this year

Doubt it. If SCOTUS didn't have an interest in hearing the case, they would have accepted NYC changing the law ahead of opening remarks. SCOTUS denied that and wants to hear the case. NBC is being intentionally dense.

herrwalther said:

Doubt it. If SCOTUS didn't have an interest in hearing the case, they would have accepted NYC changing the law ahead of opening remarks. SCOTUS denied that and wants to hear the case. NBC is being intentionally dense.

Click to expand...

They could have dismissed the appeal, or they could have declared there to be no mootness before the hearing. Instead, they allowed the appeal to proceed to argument, but said that mootness was still on the table. Roberts declining to reach the merits is the odds-on likeliest outcome and has been for months. I hope it's wrong, but this is not some made-up spin by MSNBC.

It is a pipe dream that a wonder case will appear that will wipe out the 300 local restrictions passed after Sandy Hook. The Atlantic had an interesting article that in general looking for SCOTUS to tackle things that legislatures should deal with, is a bad idea. We pray for SCOTUS because the supposed progun legislators and chief executive spout platitudes and do nothing (except ban bump stocks). The NYC case will turn out to be either mooted or a nothing burger of a decision that you can take your gun to a local range if it is unloaded and in the trunk and yes, you can stop to take a dump. We have to wait until July to know this. IMHO, that's ridiculous. If the justices vote, announce it immediately.

I'd rather see Scotus stacked in our favor better before our big day in court comes. Who trusts Roberts? Maybe Ginsburg will make my Christmas dreams come true and retire or get a contract modeling for cover girl instead.

ATLDave said:

They could have dismissed the appeal, or they could have declared there to be no mootness before the hearing. Instead, they allowed the appeal to proceed to argument, but said that mootness was still on the table. Roberts declining to reach the merits is the odds-on likeliest outcome and has been for months. I hope it's wrong, but this is not some made-up spin by MSNBC.

Click to expand...

Honestly the biggest question which has all the gun-control groups worried is not if the court will allow/disallow firearm transportation laws. The concern is whether the courts will declare that second amendment restrictions have to meet the strict scrutiny standards which apply to other enumerated civil rights. If that is declared the standard test, far and away the majority of current restrictive laws on guns will be on very shaky ground and would likely fail in future court challenges. It is a big deal.

SCOTUS will walk the fine line; inalienable rights vs the politics vs the influence of powers-that-be - anything could happen. We must always remember that we live on a planet where Greenland is ice, Iceland is green and Turkey has no indigenous turkeys - things are not always as they seem.

If that is declared the standard test, far and away the majority of current restrictive laws on guns will be on very shaky ground and would likely fail in future court challenges. It is a big deal.

Click to expand...

What empirical evidence is there that courts with an anti firearms bias will not still find grounds under any standard to support gun control? Whenever an action comes out like this which seems negative, folks say it is really good because:

1. It sets up the wonder case that will wipe out all the 300 new local restriction and free up the old ones.
2. It gives them time for the SCOTUS personnel to change to gun rights zealots.

Heller was going to change the landscape but it's ambiguity was used to support local court bans. NO, they were wrong, they misread it - so what, that's what happened. Yes, there were dissents but a dissent isn't a win. IL did have a positive Heller based result.

Remington - hope that it would protect industry. Well, it didn't and some folks think (I posted this elsewhere) that companies are being set up for a wave of suits. However, folks say that Remington's travails and the travails of other companies to come are good news because once again it sets up the magic SCOTUS case.

NYC - great news, because it might set up the next wonder case.It's like the Japanese in WWII. Every naval defeat after Midway was good news because it would set up the great fleet to fleet battle that would destroy the USN.

If the so-called progun 5 were committed to action, we wouldn't be in the legal weeds of scrutiny being the cure for some hypothetical case 5 years down the line (as restrictions proliferate, strengthening precedent, rampages continue, moral panic ensues yet again). They would have taken the Remington case and said they were protected. The NYC decision won't be mooted or limited. Carry restrictions for law abiding citizens would be voided or very easy shall issue mandated. Fat chance.

Now, I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar but I look at the behavioral outcome and I don't see much lately - except a ban on a stupid accessory. New judges - wait until a circuit voids state bans over a wide area before getting excited about them.

GEM said:

What empirical evidence is there that courts with an anti firearms bias will not still find grounds under any standard to support gun control?.

Click to expand...

Of course it's not a cure-all, and certainly a change in the scrutiny standards doesn't magically make all the laws we don't like disappear. It would however represent a change in how gun rights are viewed and the laws are challenged, meaning the underlying assumption becomes the individual right is more important than the state's interest. This puts the state in the position of having to show why they need to restrict the right, as opposed to the current situation where the general public safety is paramount and individuals have to make a case their special situation warrants protection. Not automatic wins obviously, but changes the lens through which the courts look cases.

You can look at abortion cases as the extreme example of where this can lead, with restrictions still in existance and new ones passed every year but government having an uphill climb to overcome the personal rights of the individual rather than a woman fighting city hall for her access to care.