New York City Backs Off Gun Restrictions To Avoid Supreme Court Defeat

Cavalier Knight

Cavalier Knight

.40 S&W
Messages
106
Reaction score
90
Location
New York
The Supreme Court should dismiss a challenge to New York City’s gun transportation ban because a new ordinance will moot the case, city lawyers told the justices Wednesday.

The ordinance and a newly enacted state law will give the plaintiffs who challenged the transportation ban everything they have sought in court, making dismissal the appropriate course, city lawyers wrote in a letter to the high court.

“The new city regulation gives petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit,” assistant corporation counsel Richard Dearing wrote. “The new state law, upon signature by the governor, will make the case doubly moot.”

New York City Backs Off Gun Restrictions To Avoid Supreme Court Defeat

SCOTUS - Letter dated July 3, 2019 of City of New York, et al. submitted: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/107174/20190703170251906_Letter to Supreme Court.pdf
 
Celt

Celt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,150
Reaction score
18,409
Location
Westchester
Fuck these assholes for trying to subvert the system. I think the court will say "too bad" because the state could just change the law again. And the case is also about the level of scrutiny given to 2a cases.. we really need strict scrutiny to be established for all 2a cases.
 
MothMan

MothMan

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,415
Reaction score
11,013
Location
Point Pleasant, WV
If the high court does nothing then the shitty will write a rule/regulation putting the restrictions back on. I want to think the court knows that.
 
Shadow2

Shadow2

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,065
Location
Westchester
Did you notice the disclaimer at the bottom

"Disclosure: The reporter’s wife was involved with this litigation."

Rights where already denied. Now you get to be held accountable for it and the next court inline gets to grant compensation. Shale issue unrestricted carry sounds about right, what do you guys think.

Did NYC open up a new can of worms? whats the logic in letting NYC permit holders being allowed to travel throughout the state but state permits can't travel into NYC? What narrowly tailored public safety goal does that promote.
 
Last edited:
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
3,721
Reaction score
7,621
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
Shadow2 said:
Did you notice the disclaimer at the bottom

"Disclosure: The reporter’s wife was involved with this litigation."

Rights where already denied. Now you get to be held accountable for it and the next court inline gets to grant compensation. Shale issue unrestricted carry sounds about right, what do you guys think.

Did NYC open up a new can of worms? whats the logic in letting NYC permit holders being allowed to travel throughout the state but state permits can't travel into NYC? What narrowly tailored public safety goal does that promote.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid of Robert’s,- he is looking more and more like a liberal turncoat. IF however, he holds it together for this, everything I have read indicates that this case could have far reaching potential. IF SCOTUS rules that strict scrutiny must be used with all 2A rulings, it could knock out a pile of laws on appeal, including Sullivan and Safe for starters.

I also think it could be very interesting to see SCOTUS rule that it must be a two way street, and that if persons with an NYC permit can carry outside the 5 boroughs, that those of us likewise with non NYC permits must be allowed to carry throughout the entire state as well. Now that is something I really want to see! It would be absolutely great to see Deblasio, DA Vance, the Princess, and many others lose their shit over such a ruling.
 
Last edited:
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,729
Reaction score
12,792
Location
Rochester
Shadow2 said:
Shale issue unrestricted carry sounds about right, what do you guys think.
Click to expand...

I think it's crap.
You're still having to get "permissions" to exercise a Right. You're still unable to even TOUCH a pistol in NY unless you beg the Albany Reich for their approval first.

Fuck that.

Any firearm with a NICS check only. No more restrictions on standard capacity, no more restrictions on cosmetic additions, no more restrictions on additions that improve handling and safety, and NO MORE DATABASES!
 
ArmedCorgi

ArmedCorgi

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,425
Reaction score
22,648
Location
Utahardia
Grimscale said:
I think it's crap.
You're still having to get "permissions" to exercise a Right. You're still unable to even TOUCH a pistol in NY unless you beg the Albany Reich for their approval first.

Fuck that.

Any firearm with a NICS check only. No more restrictions on standard capacity, no more restrictions on cosmetic additions, no more restrictions on additions that improve handling and safety, and NO MORE DATABASES!
Click to expand...
I'd take it a step further and say no more NICS.
 
Mosinitis

Mosinitis

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,643
Reaction score
6,849
Location
NY state
Liberals get what wasn't even imaginable few decades ago. Conservatives can't even get the rights they already had restored. That's a victory for idiots and partisan fanatics. Fuck that.
 
pramaglia

pramaglia

.357 mag
Messages
606
Reaction score
2,334
Location
NY
I hope the SCOTUS not only hears this case and rules against NY City, I hope they also rule against the Safe Act.
 
Celt

Celt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,150
Reaction score
18,409
Location
Westchester
pramaglia said:
I hope the SCOTUS not only hears this case and rules against NY City, I hope they also rule against the Safe Act.
Click to expand...
I hope the scotus rules that strict scrutiny must be applied to all Second Amendment cases. That opens the door to address any cases where a lesser level of scrutiny has been used, like the unSafe Act for instance.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
Yea I believe NY did the law change and wrote SCOTUS saying hey look no need to hear this case cause look we changed our law, and SCOTUS said nah fuck yall we are still hearing this case....

All if this scrambling from NYC and everything they seem to be saying trying to keep it out of the court shows even the state knows it will lose.

This is pretty similar to how Washington D.C. became a shall issue vs may issue. And when the courts ruled they had to issue carry licenses they decided NOT to try and get SCOTUS to take the case fearing they would lose setting precedent through out the country for shall issue vs may
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
Honestly this is an extremely small victory and when (if) SCOTUS rules anything in our favor from this case it will be a small victory but a victory none the less to build on
 
B

Bob

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
4,826
Location
Livingston
Celt said:
Waiting with bated breath for them to refile.
Click to expand...

Not an option.
Once the lower court has ruled (or declined to hear a case) there is a 90-day window in which to petition SCOTUS to take the case. Withdrawing or discontinuing a case doesn't pause or restart the clock. The ship has sailed. In order for the SAFE Act to go in front of SCOTUS now, it has to be a new case.
 
Celt

Celt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,150
Reaction score
18,409
Location
Westchester
Bob said:
Not an option.
Once the lower court has ruled (or declined to hear a case) there is a 90-day window in which to petition SCOTUS to take the case. Withdrawing or discontinuing a case doesn't pause or restart the clock. The ship has sailed. In order for the SAFE Act to go in front of SCOTUS now, it has to be a new case.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the insight. That explains even further why the Marine who was arrested under Safe Act charges is now going to have those charges dismissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top