City tells justices New York gun case is moot (UPDATED)

Cavalier Knight

Cavalier Knight

.40 S&W
Messages
106
Reaction score
90
Location
New York
[UPDATE: The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association responded to the city’s letter, calling it “both premature and procedurally improper.” On July 8, the Supreme Court’s electronic docket indicated that the letter had not been accepted for filing.]

In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to New York City’s ban on transporting guns – including those that are licensed and unloaded – anywhere outside the city limits. The case would be the first time in nearly a decade that the justices would weigh in on how far states and cities can go in restricting gun rights, but it is now unclear whether the justices Supreme Court will reach the merits of the challenge: Today the city told the Supreme Court that the case is moot – that is, no longer a live controversy – as a result of both changes to the city’s rules and new state laws.

City tells justices New York gun case is moot (UPDATED) - SCOTUSblog
 
C3D

C3D

.308 Win
Messages
4,408
Reaction score
7,857
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
I read the letters when they were briefly posted on the Supreme Court's docket. My favorite part:

. . . [A] party asserting that its own actions have mooted a case has “the ‘heavy burden of persua[ding]’ the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222 (2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)). That heavy burden should be heavier still where, as here, a defendant’s about-face is unabashedly motivated by a desire to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to review the defendant’s actions. SeeKnox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (“Such postcertiorari maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court must be viewed with a critical eye.”).
 
R

RBean

.40 S&W
Messages
208
Reaction score
674
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I'm afraid that the case might be dismissed now that the State has passed a law that a licensed pistol owner may actually transport his gun out of NYC if it is in a locked case with ammo in a separate locked case and totally useless for self defense. I don't know why they didn't put in a claim that PL 400 is unconstitutional. The state would never repeal that law. The case would stay before the Court.

That is why in the Weinstein case we alleged in addition to denial of due process (no post deprivation hearing) that PL 400 is unconstitutional. We claimed that you are entitled to a "post deprivation hearing" re pistols as well as long guns. The Court found a denial of 14th Amendment Rights to due process because no hearing was provided as to the confiscation of long guns, but does not apply to pistols because you have no right to possess a pistol even in your home, so when your pistol permit is revoked or suspended, or denied you have not been deprived of any rights because you don't have any.

So we have a clear legal issue. New York says you have no right to possess a pistol, even in your home, while the Supreme Court says you do have such a right. This issue is also in issue in Cusumano v Nassau Co and Cusumano v. Suffolk and Napolitano. Will we loose at the 2nd Cir.? Probably. Will the Supreme Court take any of these cases? It is possible. Especially if NYRPA v NYC is dismissed.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,575
Reaction score
36,385
Location
Livingston
RBean said:
I'm afraid that the case might be dismissed now that the State has passed a law that a licensed pistol owner may actually transport his gun out of NYC if it is in a locked case with ammo in a separate locked case and totally useless for self defense. I don't know why they didn't put in a claim that PL 400 is unconstitutional. The state would never repeal that law. The case would stay before the Court.

That is why in the Weinstein case we alleged in addition to denial of due process (no post deprivation hearing) that PL 400 is unconstitutional. We claimed that you are entitled to a "post deprivation hearing" re pistols as well as long guns. The Court found a denial of 14th Amendment Rights to due process because no hearing was provided as to the confiscation of long guns, but does not apply to pistols because you have no right to possess a pistol even in your home, so when your pistol permit is revoked or suspended, or denied you have not been deprived of any rights because you don't have any.

So we have a clear legal issue. New York says you have no right to possess a pistol, even in your home, while the Supreme Court says you do have such a right. This issue is also in issue in Cusumano v Nassau Co and Cusumano v. Suffolk and Napolitano. Will we loose at the 2nd Cir.? Probably. Will the Supreme Court take any of these cases? It is possible. Especially if NYRPA v NYC is dismissed.
Click to expand...

if SCOTUS drops this its going to be a free for all .. for any case heading to them and oh we changed our law .. BS
 
prambo

prambo

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,437
Reaction score
40,297
Location
P
Acer-m14 said:
if SCOTUS drops this its going to be a free for all .. for any case heading to them and oh we changed our law .. BS
Click to expand...

SCROTUM is useless. NYC (essentially The Princess and DeBolshevik) are telling SCROTUM to fuck off...and they probably will.

Hacks in black, every damn one except Thomas.
 
BDinPutnam

BDinPutnam

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,492
Reaction score
20,850
Location
Someplace else
nortatoga said:
The plaintiff would have no standing to do so.
Click to expand...

This.

In a related note, I wish the justices (all of them) would sit up and take notice the main problem with them not taking this (or other cases on the 2A out of the 2nd Circuit) is that it sets up a judicial crisis. IIRC in one if @RBean's cases the local court essentially said Heller and McDonald do not apply to NY state (no right to possess a handgun in the home, it is a licensed privilege).

If lower courts do not follow the directives of higher courts, what is the point of having a judicial system at all?

What i wish the liberals on the court would realize is that sets a precedent for EVERYTHING that comes out of the high court. Block a southern state's abortion ban? Too bad, so sad, we'll do it anyway.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,229
Reaction score
34,898
Location
Western NY
nortatoga said:
Sorry buy some of you guys really need to learn and understand how the Court System works!!
Click to expand...
I still that what a forum discussion is for? Ask questions and discuss?
I do know how the court system works. Part of it is I probably didn’t have enough background on the specific case and part of it was I wasn’t thinking. It happens.
 
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
3,718
Reaction score
7,614
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
Celt said:
I'm going to bet that the court still takes the case. At least I'm going to hold a good thought that it will.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to keep positive thoughts on SCOTUS taking the case, AND then giving us a great ruling that will put NY, NYC, the Princess, and the rest of the anti’s where they belong when it rules in favor of strict scrutiny and strikes down Sullivan and NY(UN)SAFE....

And then I look at Robert’s while remembering his other rulings, and then I think: we’re fucked!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top