2nd Amendment Thread

[clubgop]

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. granted sub nom. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, N.Y., 139 S. Ct. 939 (2019)

The provision of a New York City licensing scheme (Rule 5-23), under which an individual with a "premises license" for a handgun may remove the handgun from the designated premises only for specified purposes, did not violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the fundamental right to travel, or the First Amendment. The Second Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny and held that the burdens imposed by the Rule did not substantially affect the exercise of core Second Amendment rights, and the Rule contributed to an important state interest in public safety substantial enough to easily justify the insignificant and indirect costs it imposed on Second Amendment interests. The court also held that the Rule did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause by hindering interstate commerce; the right to travel interstate where nothing in the Rule prevented plaintiffs from engaging in intrastate or interstate travel; or the First Amendment where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the ability to join a specific gun club, or the ability to transport their licensed firearms to a shooting club outside of New York City, qualified as expressive association. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 02-23.html

See also: https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/podcasts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

SCOTUS will probably say it's moot. Which is too bad, because the law sounded like a lot of B.S.

I thought it was moot before cert. and they took it anyway? Why would they take it to only kick it?

[de officiis]

I don’t know, but that’s what happened.

[clubgop]

I don’t know, but that’s what happened.

Did they kick it?

[de officiis]

I don’t know, but that’s what happened.

Did they kick it?

I'm pretty sure they heard oral argument on it, so the next step would be the issuance of an opinion.

[clubgop]

I don’t know, but that’s what happened.

Did they kick it?

I'm pretty sure they heard oral argument on it, so the next step would be the issuance of an opinion.

So, you dont know if they did? When I say kick it, I mean kick it back to a lower court. Not overturn the policy. Is that not what you mean?

[de officiis]

I’m saying the Court hasn’t ruled. It hasn’t affirmed, reversed/remanded, or dismissed the appeal.

[Fife]

Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led the way, asking Clement what was left of his case, if his clients had already received everything they wanted. Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed Ginsburg’s concern. She told Clement that he was asking the justices to take a case “in which the other side has thrown in the towel” and “opine on a law that’s not on the books anymore.”

Clement maintained that there is still a live controversy for the justices to tackle because, if his clients had prevailed in the district court, they would have asked for a declaration that the transport ban was unconstitutional and an order that would not only bar the city from enforcing the ban in the future, but also would prohibit it from considering past violations of the ban in future licensing decisions. Moreover, Clement added, the new scheme only allows continuous and uninterrupted travel outside the city, which means that gun owners can’t make stops for coffee or to use the restroom. More broadly, Clement continued, allowing a government to moot a case after the Supreme Court grants review would set a bad precedent.

. . .

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed more sympathetic, however. When Wall described the gun owners’ theory that the case is still a live controversy because of the restrictions on their ability to stop for coffee or a restroom break while traveling as a “close call,” Gorsuch asked aloud, “Why isn’t that good enough? Why isn’t there a live controversy?”

. . .

The justices will meet this week to vote on the case. Even if a majority believes that the case is moot, we may not know for some time, because a ruling on mootness would almost certainly be accompanied by an opinion (and a dissent) explaining the justices’ views.

[de officiis]

The NY law just illustrates how the Second Amendment is viewed as a second-class citizen on the tier of constitutional liberties in some states. God help places like NY if SCOTUS decides that laws restricting Second Amendment rights are subject to strict scrutiny.

[Hastur]

Biden is coming for your guns. He's also pretty unhinged if you ask me. Geez, what an asshole he is in that confrontation.



Support Jerry Wayne
https://www.gofundme.com/f/buy-jerry-wa ... hare-sheet

[The Conservative]

Biden is coming for your guns. He's also pretty unhinged if you ask me. Geez, what an asshole he is in that confrontation.



Support Jerry Wayne
https://www.gofundme.com/f/buy-jerry-wa ... hare-sheet

Trump is going to get 4 more years without needing to open his mouth to defend his positions.