Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

National NY is trying to ditch SCOTUS case by rescinding law. How might this impact Young vs Hawaii case?

arakboss

Messages
2,829
Reactions
4,895
It looks like NY is trying to make the SCOTUS abandon the concealed carry case by rescinding the law that the case was about. My understanding is the 9th circuit was waiting for the SCOTUS decision on the NY case before advancing on the Young vs Hawaii case. How do you think this might play out for Young if the SCOTUS drops the NY case? Could Young bypass the 9th circuit and join the NY case, to keep it alive?

 

User 1234

Messages
1,336
Reactions
3,490
I read that New York attempted this six weeks ago and asked the USSC to dismiss the appeal as moot, but the USSC rejected the request.

A defendant’s voluntary cessation of the challenged activity does not moot the case unless there is a reason that the defendant cannot resume the activity later, and no past damages are in play.
 

ZA_Survivalist

Messages
5,635
Reactions
8,410
It looks like NY is trying to make the SCOTUS abandon the concealed carry case by rescinding the law that the case was about. My understanding is the 9th circuit was waiting for the SCOTUS decision on the NY case before advancing on the Young vs Hawaii case. How do you think this might play out for Young if the SCOTUS drops the NY case? Could Young bypass the 9th circuit and join the NY case, to keep it alive?

When my buddy was in a self defense case (assault) even though both parties refused to press charges the DA still forced him through the system and he received a charge anyway.

Eff NY, rule on the case and force them to comply.
 
OP
A

arakboss

Messages
2,829
Reactions
4,895
I read that New York attempted this six weeks ago and asked the USSC to dismiss the appeal as moot, but the USSC rejected the request.

A defendant’s voluntary cessation of the challenged activity does not moot the case unless there is a reason that the defendant cannot resume the activity later, and no past damages are in play.
They did try to get the Court to drop the case a little while back because of some changes in how the NYPD was handling enforcement. I believe this latest effort is a newer push as a result of the State basically rescinding the challenged law.
I agree the Court should still address it so NY doesn't just reinstate the law again. In addition it should imho address the Hawaii case as well.
 

Slobray

Messages
2,415
Reactions
7,378
They did try to get the Court to drop the case a little while back because of some changes in how the NYPD was handling enforcement. I believe this latest effort is a newer push as a result of the State basically rescinding the challenged law.
I agree the Court should still address it so NY doesn't just reinstate the law again. In addition it should imho address the Hawaii case as well.
The anti's are running scared because they're afraid that SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Constitution.

New York City Backs Off Gun Restrictions To Avoid Supreme Court Defeat
New York City Asks Supreme Court to Drop Gun Case
New York & Gun Lawsuit -- City Tries to Squelch a Gun-Rights Lawsuit | National Review

It's so bad that even the leftist media is starting to take notice:

USA-Chain Saw Bayonet-Today said:
New York City announced Friday it has amended rules restricting where licensed guns can be taken outside the home, a move intended to prompt the Supreme Court to dismiss a challenge from gun rights groups.

The change, posted on a city website without fanfare, allows gun owners to take their firearms to a home, business or shooting range outside city limits. Until now, the city had limited those with possession licenses to seven shooting ranges inside city limits.

/////Snip/////

The change, posted on a city website without fanfare, allows gun owners to take their firearms to a home, business or shooting range outside city limits. Until now, the city had limited those with possession licenses to seven shooting ranges inside city limits.
Gun control groups had urged the city to change its rules in hopes a quick surrender would prompt the justices to drop the case. The city's police department held a public hearing last month on the proposed changes and announced a final rule Friday that will take effect in 30 days.
New York City limits on transporting guns eased in effort to get Supreme Court challenge dismissed



Ray
 

Goosebrown

Messages
4,440
Reactions
11,246
Wait for them today plaintiffs has no standing because law is gone. Then remember that Row in Row v Wade didn’t have standing either because she was no longer covered under abortions ban having given birth

Not exactly the same but close enough to have the argument
 
Messages
1,417
Reactions
3,002
Worth reading that. NY City has not only decided to scrap its transportation regs, it got an anti-2A legislature and an anti-2A governor to sign a new law where the state preempts all city laws on transportation! The NY antis wet their bed and are now loosening (*) gun laws for the sole purpose of keeping SCOTUS from hearing the case.

The attorney on the good side responded to the city: PDF of Letter Against City -- it appears this letter predates the NY Gov's signature on the transportation preemption bill, but it is worth reading. The points are, roughly speaking:
  • The City's refusal to take any position on whether the law they previously defended is Constitutional, means the City is not repentant for its prior behavior and may renew that behavior (if it was repentant, it would join the pistol club and ask for the law to be overturned).
  • The process for seeking a determination of mootness is governed by certain court rules and the letter request violates that process, not least of all because it makes it impossible for the other side to respond to the issue of whether the case actually is moot.
  • Even if the law is moot now, there may be harms that continue to this day from past City conduct, and those harms need to be addressed.
  • Parties who self-moot a case don't get an automatic out because of how easily and obviously that can be gamed (pass law, repeal when challenged, pass again when case dismissed) and it is valuable to get guidance on what the limits are for a certain type of law.
Anyway -- I love this case. The antis passing pro-gun legislation -- that's so sweet!

(*) of course they can always put them back the way they were before if SCOTUS decides the case is moot and doesn't hear it. Probably their whole plan.
 
Messages
1,417
Reactions
3,002
The City of NY filed a brief today arguing that the case is moot: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/108869/20190722151524926_18-280 Suggestion of Mootness.pdf

I'm concerned that it might actually work, particularly because NY State passed a law that would prevent NY City from re-implementing its travel restrictions so it is harder to argue that this is a disingenuous change.

Part of the problem seems that Plaintiffs originally sought only an injunction against application of the law and did not allege any personal monetary damages and with the changes in the law, they've won everything they sought (at least that is what the brief linked above claims, I haven't looked at the original complaint). While I don't fault plaintiffs for not seeking monetary damages, it may be something that parties might want to consider in future lawsuits in order to protect against tactical changes in the law making the case moot (I also don't fault plaintiffs for not having a crystal ball -- who would imagine NY City and even NY State would capitulate so fully).

The way I'd see this work is that the plaintiffs would sue to change the law and allege some kind of damages to be proven at trial, the main case would go through a pre-trial summary judgment phase on the issue of whether the law itself is Constitutional, and SCOTUS would be required to give guidance on the law so the trial on damages would be able to proceed correctly. Even if the law was changed during the litigation, instruction on how to apply the old law to the trial for damages would be necessary because it is the law in effect at the time of the complaint that matters, and thus the chance the case would be considered moot would go way down because that repealed law would have to be examined separately from whatever its current state is.
 

NEW CLASSIFIED ADS

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Ed's Guns and Gear
    5.00 star(s)
    With multiple FFL/shops closing over the last few months, it’s nice to see Ed doing so well...
    • PNW Partisan
  • Ed's Guns and Gear
    5.00 star(s)
    Ed's a great guy with a good peronality and good customer service. I enjoy supporting his small...
    • jaytee0115
  • Revelation Arms
    1.00 star(s)
    I will preface this with the fact that this poor reference is only based on my experience...
    • trekkerpaul
  • Wildcat Mountain
    5.00 star(s)
    This is my family's and my selfs favorite spot to go for hand gun practice and just plinking...
    • Tccae708
  • Adaptive Firing Solutions
    5.00 star(s)
    What a great deal on transfers. Good guy and he makes it very easy. He had fast communication...
    • glorydays4ever