National Oral Argument Summary: New York State Rifle and Pistol v. NYC

[awshoot]

There is a solid account of the oral argument that went down today at SCOTUSblog: Argument analysis: Justices focus on mootness in challenge to now-repealed New York City gun rule - SCOTUSblog

The short version is that it seems that most of the time and questions dealt with whether the NY City and State changes to the law have made the case moot. The four liberal justices clearly favor ruling based on mootness, two (or four) conservatives don't (Thomas and Kavanaugh didn't ask questions but it is a safe bet where they fall), and Roberts asked questions tending to hint he favored a mootness ruling. (Roberts -- this guy sure knows how to make himself important doesn't he?).

Vox is crowing about how this means that those in favor of the Constitution can suck it: The fight to expand gun rights may have hit a snag in the Supreme Court

I really hope SCOTUS doesn't blow it, it's actually bigger than this case. I ran across this opinion piece on the topic where the premise is: "It is time for the Supreme Court of the United States to defend its preeminent role in constitutional interpretation and to address lower-court nullification of the Second Amendment." Symposium: Supreme Court should address lower court nullification of the Second Amendment - SCOTUSblog It got me thinking that in some ways, the states (with the support of the lower courts), are actually in open insurrection against the Bill of Rights (meaning the Constitution, meaning the USA). These cases aren't examples of an oops, or accidentally taking something to far -- many states are intentionally defying the US Constitution. It's like a war of secession is happening right now, but without any smoke or bangs and so we don't notice so much.

Read More

 

[Ura-Ki]

Exactly, Open Insurrection by the States and lower courts, mainly funded by our newest POTUS hopeful one Mikail Bloomburg and his minions!
Time for the People to answer back, if and when SCOTUS does it's job and stands the 2nd up as it should, WE THE PEOPLE need to hold the States feet to the fire on it all!

 

[zenbreath]

'No No No, we repealed the law! Please dont check if it was Constitutional!'

 

[Superglide]

Keep and bear arms is unequivocally clear to me.
It has nothing to do with stopping to visit my mother-in-law or a restroom.
Step up and decide.

 

[Hueco]

Wait wait wait. So NYC has separate permits, one for having a gun in the home and another for outside the home...and it's possible to have only the inside the home one?

So every single person that has only that inside the home license is breaking the law every time they buy a new gun (and thus, have to transport it home)?

Sounds like entrapment to me. Strike all that crap down SCOTUS!

 

[awshoot]

Wait wait wait. So NYC has separate permits, one for having a gun in the home and another for outside the home...and it's possible to have only the inside the home one?

So every single person that has only that inside the home license is breaking the law every time they buy a new gun (and thus, have to transport it home)?

Sounds like entrapment to me. Strike all that crap down SCOTUS!

They did have a law that if you have a premises license, you had to keep it there and could only transport it to and from one of seven gun ranges inside city limits (but not to others outside or to other homes a person might own) and presumably from a shop to home (though I never really read the law).

The city fought tooth and nail to keep the law, winning all the way to the appellate court. Then SCOTUS accepted the case and they literally ____ a brick and changed the law. New York City: Let's repeal this gun control law. Gun owners: Hell, no!

The very reason they changed the law was they did not want it to get struck down and for SCOTUS to have a chance to expand gun rights. That's what the whole deal about mootness is -- if the case is "moot" there is no controversy left and SCOTUS technically can't make a decision on the issue. There are however principles in play that frown on that sort of gamesmanship and commentators in the know say the law has enough wiggle room for the court to go either way on mootness. If they decide it isn't moot, they go to the merits and that has the potential to be a good thing for gun owners -- depending on Roberts of course.

But yeah -- that law was pure bull. The whole thing was designed to jack up gun owners.

 

[Goosebrown]

They did have a law that if you have a premises license, you had to keep it there and could only transport it to and from one of seven gun ranges inside city limits (but not to others outside or to other homes a person might own) and presumably from a shop to home (though I never really read the law).

The city fought tooth and nail to keep the law, winning all the way to the appellate court. Then SCOTUS accepted the case and they literally ____ a brick and changed the law. New York City: Let's repeal this gun control law. Gun owners: Hell, no!

The very reason they changed the law was they did not want it to get struck down and for SCOTUS to have a chance to expand gun rights. That's what the whole deal about mootness is -- if the case is "moot" there is no controversy left and SCOTUS technically can't make a decision on the issue. There are however principles in play that frown on that sort of gamesmanship and commentators in the know say the law has enough wiggle room for the court to go either way on mootness. If they decide it isn't moot, they go to the merits and that has the potential to be a good thing for gun owners -- depending on Roberts of course.

But yeah -- that law was pure bull. The whole thing was designed to jack up gun owners.

Good explanation. More cases are coming. If it's not this one it'll be soon and the next one won't be moot.

Keep your fingers crossed and hope Thomas and Ginsberg resign. We could use two young conservatives there.

 

[RicInOR]

A good read on this topic:

Overview of Oral Arguments in NYS Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York

The Court will likely dismiss the case as moot. But how? Through a quick, unsigned DIG? Or through a signed, divided opinion in June?

reason.com

JOSH BLACKMAN is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the President of the Harlan Institute. Follow him @JoshMBlackman.

 

[awshoot]

A good read on this topic:

Overview of Oral Arguments in NYS Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York

The Court will likely dismiss the case as moot. But how? Through a quick, unsigned DIG? Or through a signed, divided opinion in June?

reason.com

JOSH BLACKMAN is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the President of the Harlan Institute. Follow him @JoshMBlackman.

That's a good article and the comments are illuminating too. I'm down to this one, which I love:

John
December.3.2019 at 4:58 pm
is the second law sufficiently different from the first to create a new case or controversy? I don't see how it is. Both laws put restrictions of the same character on the right to bear arms. It is just that the second is slightly less restrictive. The legal issues at play and the facts are exactly the same. It is the same case.
What if the case involved a contract dispute over the sale of a house. The pleadings said "the brown house located at 99 Walnut Street". Then before it got to the appellate court, the house was painted and was now red. Is it a new case or controversy? The house is now red not brown. The pleadings are wrong. No it wouldn't be. And the reason is that there is a minimal level of factual changes to a case necessary for it to become a new case or controversy.
This case is closer to that level than the brown house case. But, I don't think it meets it nonetheless. If the law really were different rather than making a few minimal changes, I would agree that it was. But it isn't. It is the same law just in a slightly altered form. They repainted the house in metaphorical terms.