NYSRPA vs NYC WILL go to SCOTUS

BDinPutnam said:

Honestly @Blimey I'm not quite sure. The law at issue is so NYC-specific it is hard to see how it goes broad the way Heller did via McDonald.

What I would love to see though is Thomas put something into the decision which further clarifies the Court's displeasure with lower courts essentially handwaving McDonald away.

It was a great shame that the Scalia court did not take up the Lincoln Park case, which I think would have been an opportunity to point out that AR's are, like the handguns in question in Heller, very much "in common use" and therefore subject to the same rules as Heller. Given the makeup of the Court at the time I can understand why they didn't but still, disappointing and frustrating.

Just my $0.83.

Click to expand...

Imo if Thomas does this it won’t change the lower courts.

Anything short of a direct, perfect contradiction to a SCOTUS case as it pertains to guns and the lower courts will keep pretending the 2nd doesn’t apply for whatever reason.

Marine Cpl said:

Under strict scrutiny, a law interfering with a fundamental right will generally be upheld only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest. That’s why US citizens of Japanese descent were allowed to be placed in interment camps. That’s why it is used for gun laws. It’s basically a circus to allow unconstitutional acts to stand.

Click to expand...

Isn’t that the only purpose of the constitution anyway? To spell out precisely what the government can’t do? How can it then pass a law against the constitution if they new law is the only way to undermine it ?

I'm no lawyer but if FUAC feared this going to SCOTUS so much he attempted an end run and loosened NY gun laws in a feeble attempt to avoid having case brought before SCOTUS let's just say I'm fucking gitty! FUAC. See you on Dec 2nd.

nortatoga said:

Interment camps really!

And please post the case that Strict Scrutiny has been used in a 2A case!!

Click to expand...

?

You aren’t aware that interment camps were used during WW2 and you aren’t aware of our very own 2A case in in the 2nd Circuit?

Marine Cpl said:

Under strict scrutiny, a law interfering with a fundamental right will generally be upheld only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest. That’s why US citizens of Japanese descent were allowed to be placed in interment camps. That’s why it is used for gun laws. It’s basically a circus to allow unconstitutional acts to stand.

Click to expand...

But when the Safe Act was challenged, strict scrutiny was not used and it was upheld

Marine Cpl said:

?

You aren’t aware that interment camps were used during WW2 and you aren’t aware of our very own 2A case in in the 2nd Circuit?

Click to expand...

Yes I am well aware of the interment camps!

And the 2nd Circuit did not rule under Strict Scrutiny as @FrankenCub points out!!

nortatoga said:

Yes I am well aware of the interment camps!

And the 2nd Circuit did not rule under Strict Scrutiny as @FrankenCub points out!!

Click to expand...

Read it again. Both strict and intermediate are used. Utter shams.

And where does it say it was ruled under strict scrutiny?

Here's the important bits...

In sum, Chief Judge Skretny upheld as constitutional, upon intermediate scrutiny, the core provisions of New York’s SAFE Act restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines,

Click to expand...

Strict scrutiny was not applied.
You can bet if it were a 1st A trial they would use strict scrutiny in favor of the press.

nortatoga said:

And where does it say it was ruler under strict scrutiny?

Click to expand...

You are correct. It was intermediate scrutiny. Even worse.

Truebeliever said:

So shouting fire in a theater or slandering a person with false statements is okay under any circumstances then.
The problem isn’t strict scrutiny but when a lesser standard is actually applied.

Click to expand...

You should be able to shout whatever you want in a theater. What you can't do is incite a riot.

Just like the 2A says you can bear any arm you want, but you can't shoot anyone, the 1A says you can say anything you want, but you can't cause an injury when you do it.

So, yelling fire in a crowded theater should be perfectly legal, unless it results in an actual injury. In that case you are responsible for causing the injury and that's what's illegal, not the speech itself.

If the theater is on fire, you can yell fire.

spat said:

You should be able to shout whatever you want in a theater. What you can't do is incite a riot.

Just like the 2A says you can bear any arm you want, but you can't shoot anyone, the 1A says you can say anything you want, but you can't cause an injury when you do it.

So, yelling fire in a crowded theater should be perfectly legal, unless it results in an actual injury. In that case you are responsible for causing the injury and that's what's illegal, not the speech itself.

Click to expand...

I sorta like the tenant do no harm to others...

So does yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire does harm to other? Maybe. Maybe not What about the guy who just wants to enjoy the movie with his family being disrupted by some random person calling out about some emergency when none exists? Hard call. Some will say deal with it. Others will say put the numbskull in his place. Unfortunately we seem to be in an entitlement state where there is no shred of common courtesy afforded to anybody any longer. You pay upwards of $10 a ticket for the "privilege" of seeing the latest drivel Hollywood has to offer. At least allow the lemmings have it in peace.

I guess we'll see if SCOTUS feels the case is moot or if the original complaint was bigger then restricting transport.

Does anyone know what changes where made to NY law to try to moot the case?

Edwardteach72 said:

If they felt the case was moot they would not be hearing the case, they would have dismissed it one of the 2 or 3 times New York state asked them to after changing the law

Click to expand...

Let's hope so. Of course there's always the possibility the opposite is true..

looks like SCOTUS is still leaving the door open until Oct.

I'm not getting my hopes up but i hope it cracks shit wide open.

Edwardteach72 said:

If they felt the case was moot they would not be hearing the case, they would have dismissed it one of the 2 or 3 times New York state asked them to after changing the law

Click to expand...

Edwardteach72 said:

No not reallly. The law was changed and instantly MY asked the court to drop the case because it was moot (their words) the court said no we are going to move forward..

A bit later NY again petitioned the court hey we changed our law so the whole case is moot can you drop it.

Again court said nope..


And here we are with a date on hearing the case

Click to expand...

Yeah like I said let's hope so...

cgrutt said:

I sorta like the tenant do no harm to others...

So does yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire does harm to other? Maybe. Maybe not What about the guy who just wants to enjoy the movie with his family being disrupted by some random person calling out about some emergency when none exists? Hard call. Some will say deal with it. Others will say put the numbskull in his place. Unfortunately we seem to be in an entitlement state where there is no shred of common courtesy afforded to anybody any longer. You pay upwards of $10 a ticket for the "privilege" of seeing the latest drivel Hollywood has to offer. At least allow the lemmings have it in peace.

Click to expand...

The guy yelling about a nonexistant fire in the theater should be handled the same way the nutjob yelling at the top of his lungs that the world will end in 11 years from global warming.

I.e. the Theater owners should throw him him out. If he won't leave, then he's trespassing and the cops are empowered to do whatever is necessary to remove him, and he can be prosecuted for that.

If theater owners won't do anything about it, then find another theater.

Edwardteach72 said:

But but but something something walmart but open carry but but but anti but

Click to expand...

Hey, if my local gun shop has the right to kick out anyone with a "Beto 2020" shirt on (and they should, 1A is for government, not for citizens) , then Walmart can kick out anyone with a MAGA hat (or a gun they don't like).

Unfortunately the left is much better organized and they have the MSM supporting them, so they can bully corporations into supporting their positions. What we need is for companies to be as scared of banning open carry as they are of selling confederate flags.

spat said:

The guy yelling about a nonexistant fire in the theater should be handled the same way the nutjob yelling at the top of his lungs that the world will end in 11 years from global warming.

I.e. the Theater owners should throw him him out. If he won't leave, then he's trespassing and the cops are empowered to do whatever is necessary to remove him, and he can be prosecuted for that.

If theater owners won't do anything about it, then find another theater.

Click to expand...

Yeah operative word being should those were the days!!!

Sorry I've become somewhat jaded lol...

spat said:

You should be able to shout whatever you want in a theater. What you can't do is incite a riot.

Just like the 2A says you can bear any arm you want, but you can't shoot anyone, the 1A says you can say anything you want, but you can't cause an injury when you do it.

So, yelling fire in a crowded theater should be perfectly legal, unless it results in an actual injury. In that case you are responsible for causing the injury and that's what's illegal, not the speech itself.

Click to expand...

Yes. To a point. It’s not to the point of injury but the reckless endangerment. And you can do so. But the phrase is a famous one about you can’t incite a riot or cause a false public alarm.

But the main point is that such restrictions are held to strict scrutiny where the second Admendment has not been yet.

Freedom of the press is subject to strict scrutiny restrictions hence why Trump couldn’t keep Acosta from the White House. But they can keep him out of restricted areas etc .

Truebeliever said:

Yes. To a point. It’s not to the point of injury but the reckless endangerment. And you can do so. But the phrase is a famous one about you can’t incite a riot or cause a false public alarm.

But the main point is that such restrictions are held to strict scrutiny where the second Admendment has not been yet.

Freedom of the press is subject to strict scrutiny restrictions hence why Trump couldn’t keep Acosta from the White House. But they can keep him out of restricted areas etc .

Click to expand...

@Marine Cpl 's point is that for fundamental rights like speech or RKBA, even strict scrutiny is not enough. The standard there should be that *there is no government interest* compelling enough to override the right.

Some rights should be absolute. The ones that are we should call fundamental rights.

For instance, 4th amendment right is to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If the 1A or 2A was meant to mean protect from "unreasonable" restrictions it would have said so. They were meant to protect from *any* infringement, no matter how reasonable it may seem.

And as far as "reckless" speech, sorry, I'm not willing to cede the definition of "reckless" to any government agent. It holds all the same dangers as allowing them to outlaw "hate" speech. It's real simple, *all* speech should be allowed right up to the point that it actually causes an actual injury. And even at that point, you should be prosecuted for having caused the injury only, not the speech. So some guy gets his leg broken in the stampede for the exit in the hypothetical theater, you can be prosecuted for being responsible for breaking his leg, but not the speech itself.

Truebeliever said:

Freedom of the press is subject to strict scrutiny restrictions hence why Trump couldn’t keep Acosta from the White House. But they can keep him out of restricted areas etc .

Click to expand...

I dont know whether to or .

It's late I'm going with

So apparently a new form of linguistics analysis can shed light on what right we do and don't have.

Strict scrutiny means there was no other reasonable way other than the government’s actions.

Can the government require a parade permit against the freedom to assemble? Yes. As to account for public safety and prevent a clash of different protestors therefore helping protect the right of assembly/protest from counter protest.

Do they have to grant that permit. In general , yes. That’s where the strict scrutiny would come into play. If you requested a parade permit for the same place and time as another, the government would be permitted to change the hour of your permit to allow for the first permit if the protest couldn’t be done at the same place and time. The burden would be on the government that there was no other reasonable way.

If strict scrutiny was truly applied, most firearm restrictions would hold up. The courts , even pro heller, seem to be using an intermediate scrutiny standard.

Truebeliever said:

Strict scrutiny means there was no other reasonable way other than the government’s actions.

Can the government require a parade permit against the freedom to assemble? Yes. As to account for public safety and prevent a clash of different protestors therefore helping protect the right of assembly/protest from counter protest.

Do they have to grant that permit. In general , yes. That’s where the strict scrutiny would come into play. If you requested a parade permit for the same place and time as another, the government would be permitted to change the hour of your permit to allow for the first permit if the protest couldn’t be done at the same place and time. The burden would be on the government that there was no other reasonable way.

If strict scrutiny was truly applied, most firearm restrictions would hold up. The courts , even pro heller, seem to be using an intermediate scrutiny standard.

Click to expand...

The government has the right to require the parade permit *on public property* and within reason, because part of it's legitimate purpose is to manage public resources as you have said. The same reason is why the FCC and the FAA are legal and appropriate uses of government power (in some cases, they both overstep their bounds sometimes).

However, the government has *no* right whatsoever to impose any restrictions on gatherings of people on private property. Doesn't matter how dire their predictions of calamity are.

If you want to have 1000 people over and have them throw a party on a bridge over a large chasm that will only support 500 people, the only legitimate role the government has in that is to issue warnings to people that it's a bad idea to go, and to arrest people *after* someone (or everyone) gets hurt.

There used to be a legal doctrine to that effect called "prior restraint", it has fallen on the same sort of hard times that the 2A has recently.

Basically, until a crime is imminent (as in 100% certain to occur unless they intervene), the government agents should be required to just standby and watch.

Yep, a lot of "avoidable" tragedies will happen. No, that's not too high a price to pay.

Millions of Americans have sacrificed their lives over the last couple hundred years so that we could enjoy the freedoms we have (or had in many cases). Sacrificing those freedoms to save a couple more people is not only an insult to those heroes, it is the very antithesis of the values that this country was founded on.