NYC Gun Case Goes To US Supreme Court Today

Status
Not open for further replies.

Speedo66

Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
11,040
Location
Flatlandistan
This was the case where NYC told holders of "premises" permits they could only remove their handgun from their home to practice at one of seven ranges in NYC, and could not take them out of the city to another range or a second home.

Once appeals were filed to SCOTUS, the city changed their laws as they knew it was a loser, and wanted the case declared moot. The court said no, and will start proceedings there today.

The court hasn't taken on a gun rights case in about a decade, some attribute its change to the current composition of the court. Many feel gun rights have been trampled in the interim.

Here is an article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/guns-supreme-court.html
 
One thing to watch out for is that the Court rejected dismissal of the case on the basis of mootness but is allowing NY City to bring it up at oral arguments. Don't be surprised that Dred Chief Justice Roberts sides with court liberals in an opinion to dismiss the case on the grounds of mootness after the oral arguments.
 
One thing to watch out for is that the Court rejected dismissal of the case on the basis of mootness but is allowing NY City to bring it up at oral arguments. Don't be surprised that Dred Chief Justice Roberts sides with court liberals in an opinion to dismiss the case on the grounds of mootness after the oral arguments.

Maybe. Another, more optimistic (from our perspective) reading would be that allowing mootness arguments at hearing makes sure that the current/revised law, which still includes a large number of restrictions, can be addressed. If those remaining restrictions (such as no-stopping-on-the-way-to-the-range) are unconstitutional, then there is no mootness. Inviting argument about mootness "joins" that issue, even if it was not addressed below.

I'm not saying that's right, nor that this is what the Justices are thinking... but that's another possible way to read the tea leaves.
 
Maybe. Another, more optimistic (from our perspective) reading would be that allowing mootness arguments at hearing makes sure that the current/revised law, which still includes a large number of restrictions, can be addressed. If those remaining restrictions (such as no-stopping-on-the-way-to-the-range) are unconstitutional, then there is no mootness. Inviting argument about mootness "joins" that issue, even if it was not addressed below.

I'm not saying that's right, nor that this is what the Justices are thinking... but that's another possible way to read the tea leaves.

If I was hopeful, I would take your tack. But, Roberts' behavior as Chief Justice in several high profile cases in his career has resembled that of his predecessor Warren Burger or if you go back far enough, Harlan Fiske Stone. Chief Justices playing political games on the court generally come to grief as they eventually lose respect as honest bargainers from the other justices.

Ironically, from what I understand, even the liberals on the Rehnquist court appreciated Rehnquist as an administrative Chief Justice after suffering through the Burger era because Rehnquist staked out his position on cases and did not play games with opinion assignments, court resources, or devious backdoor bargaining on cases.
 
The article mentions that the plaintiffs argued that there might be monetary damages still to be decided, and also that there might be violations under the previous law, thus the fact that the city changed the law is immaterial.
 
If I was hopeful, I would take your tack. But, Roberts' behavior as Chief Justice in several high profile cases in his career has resembled that of his predecessor Warren Burger or if you go back far enough, Harlan Fiske Stone. Chief Justices playing political games on the court generally come to grief as they eventually lose respect as honest bargainers from the other justices.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court did survive as an institution under both those guys. There's perhaps an argument that their actions came at a great personal cost in terms of prestige but were ultimately necessary to preserve the Supreme Court as an institution able to have its own political capital and ability to have its rulings applied/honored by the other branches of government.

Of course, that's narrative pattern I kind of enjoy in history and fiction - the actor who accepts personal shame for some greater good. Sort of an interesting twist on the idea of going out in a blaze of glory... Not saying it actually applies to those two cases, just that one could tell the story in that way.
 
I can only hope SCOTUS lights NYS gun laws as a whole on fire. Legally owning a firearm anywhere in the state is ridiculously restrictive and expensive.
 
This is a common tactic used by the State of Kansas. They continue to enforce a law that they know will be struck down while the case works it way through appeal process which takes several years. Then just before the case is a few months for reaching the Supreme Court they change their policy or law and argue the case is moot. It must be a successful tactic because they do it regularly.
 
I really did not want to be right here but the signs at oral arguments regarding Dred Justice Roberts are not encouraging. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/second-amendment-supreme-court.html
Suspect it will be dismissed for mootness as the liberal bloc seems united and Roberts did not appear encouraging. Pro 2a lawyers spent their time addressing mootness questions rather than merits of case.

Here is an analysis of today's oral arguments.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/...-repealed-new-york-city-gun-rule/#more-290537
 
I really did not want to be right here but the signs at oral arguments regarding Dred Justice Roberts are not encouraging. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/second-amendment-supreme-court.html
Suspect it will be dismissed for mootness as the liberal bloc seems united and Roberts did not appear encouraging. Pro 2a lawyers spent their time addressing mootness questions rather than merits of case.

Here is an analysis of today's oral arguments.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/...-repealed-new-york-city-gun-rule/#more-290537


Why Trump needs 1 more conservative justice to replace a liberal one.
 
It's to much to hope for a wide decision that the state can't limit the right to carry without a demonstrated need. Such as within a courtroom.
 
The article mentions that the plaintiffs argued that there might be monetary damages still to be decided, and also that there might be violations under the previous law, thus the fact that the city changed the law is immaterial.

I agree. The district court can allow the complaint to be amended to include damages. There's no reason to not send the case back down so the plaintiff can file a motion to amend the complaint unless there's another reason to reject mootness. That reason is for violations under the prior law. The City's lawyer saying that no charges will be sought against violations under the prior law are self serving if not disingenuous . If the new law doesn't waive prosecution for violations under the prior law, then the possibility for violations under the prior law is real given that one lawyer's word doesn't amount to a legislative enactment.
 
I can only hope SCOTUS lights NYS gun laws as a whole on fire. Legally owning a firearm anywhere in the state is ridiculously restrictive and expensive.

They can't.

The Supreme Court didn't work that way. They hear specific cases, and only the relevant laws to those specific cases are considered.

They will not, for example, "go after" the SAFE Act in this instance, unless there's some aspect of this Act which is specifically relevant to this case. And even then, they will only address that aspect of the Act.
 
NYC lawyers are arguing that the State of NY has passed a law prohibiting the City from passing another restrictive law like is before the Court.

What does the new law allow a gun owner to do with transporting his guns?

I also agree that Roberts is not to be trusted with protecting the 2A. I think he is easily swayed the last person he talks too. I think Scalia had a strong influence on Roberts and unfortunately for us the ladies on the bench have him in their camp
now.
 
Last edited:
Bummer that we're not likely to get a big ruling, but it is positive that the anti-gun justices are looking to play defense and not reach merits.
 
I suspect the court will do what they did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and punt when it comes to the broader issue. That seems to be the trend right now.
 
There is one other possibility, one of the issues is that the plaintiffs did not ask for damages in their original suit. It is possible that if NYS Rifle Association has members that were punished by loss of their permit for past violations could still have standing to challenge the laws based on past behavior of NY City. That would keep the case from being dismissed as moot but might require it be sent back to the NY Dist. Ct. for reappraisal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top