Argument Date Set for U.S. Supreme Court Case That Could End NYS Gun Control

[Kirk_STNY]

Snippet:

September 13, 2019 – BUFFALO, N.Y. – Following substantial weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from progressive autocrats like failed democrat presidential hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand, the much anticipated and likely landmark NYSRPA v. NYC case WILL be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, December 2, 2019.

“This case is significant to Second Amendment civil rights supporters all across New York State and beyond because it stands a good chance of establishing strict scrutiny as the required legal standard for assessing Second Amendment court cases,” 2AWNY.COM Civil Rights Advocate Steve Felano said.

Currently, intermediate scrutiny is the legal standard supporting New York State gun control imperial edicts, and so a strict scrutiny ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the NYSRPA v. NYC case would allow 2AWNY.COM to begin deconstructing the SAFE Act, the state pistol permitting regime, and a range of other draconian gun laws.

In fact, 2AWNY.COM’s case to nullify the state pistol permitting regime is currently on hold in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit – just one step below U.S. Supreme Court review. It sits there because the judges who heard the organization’s oral argument in February 2019 believe the NYSRPA case will generate a strict scrutiny ruling. This would obviously open the door for New York State’s ‘may issue’ pistol permitting scheme to be reversed on constitutional grounds.

Argument Date Set for U.S. Supreme Court Case That Could End NYS Gun Control – 2AWNY

 

[Podmonkey]

Strict Scrutiny is so obviously called for in all 2A cases. It angers me considerably that it isn't. In fact if such standards do not start being applied to constitutional rights that will be the marker that it is time for a new revolution. The status quo is unacceptable and it must be changed by any means necessary. If the government will not fulfill its obligations it must be exchanged for one that will.

 

[C3D]

There are several threads on this already. To sum up: there is a placeholder on the calendar for an argument in December, but the fate of the case was decided yesterday at conference. It may be taken off the calendar and dismissed for mootness. We are waiting for the order to see.

 

[Acer-m14]

Strict Scrutiny is so obviously called for in all 2A cases

omg you held back .. LOL ..

nothing should be applied on 2A .. bad guys .. u know lol ..

 

[Truebeliever]

Guys, stop dreaming.
The case going to the court will not be strict scrutiny. The NYC law wouldn’t meet intermediate scrutiny either. Not allowed to transport the gun out of NYC where the city’s claim of safety of NYC would be out the door anyway isn’t strict scrutiny standard. NYC should have lost on a intermediate scrutiny level in a proper ruling. The lower courts were just plain wrong on that one.

The SCOTUS isn’t going to swing for the fences. It will cement the law change into case law. It might address the permit standards and make NYS a shall issue state for possession in the home and range.

I will be pleasantly surprised if they do anything better.

 

[Podmonkey]

Guys, stop dreaming.
The case going to the court will not be strict scrutiny. The NYC law wouldn’t meet intermediate scrutiny either. Not allowed to transport the gun out of NYC where the city’s claim of safety of NYC would be out the door anyway isn’t strict scrutiny standard. NYC should have lost on a intermediate scrutiny level in a proper ruling. The lower courts were just plain wrong on that one.

The SCOTUS isn’t going to swing for the fences. It will cement the law change into case law. It might address the permit standards and make NYS a shall issue state for possession in the home and range.

I will be pleasantly surprised if they do anything better.

That state of affairs is unacceptable. The court's negligence to defend and enforce the Constitution is unacceptable. Continued tolerance of the status quo is unacceptable.

 

[Truebeliever]

That state of affairs is unacceptable. The court's negligence to defend and enforce the Constitution is unacceptable. Continued tolerance of the status quo is unacceptable.

I’m not agreeing with the state of things. I just don’t think the SCOTUS and the good judges on it are going to go swing for the fences. They need one or two justices to go with them. They aren’t going to get their vote that way.

I would be happy if they change NY to a shall issue state just for the premises permits with the ability to travel. I want more but I am realistic.

 

[Podmonkey]

I’m not agreeing with the state of things. I just don’t think the SCOTUS and the good judges on it are going to go swing for the fences. They need one or two justices to go with them. They aren’t going to get their vote that way.

I would be happy if they change NY to a shall issue state just for the premises permits with the ability to travel. I want more but I am realistic.

"When you are neither right not wrong it is time to beat the drums and attack".

 

[prambo]

SCROTUM is not our friend.

 

[BDinPutnam]

"When you are neither right not wrong it is time to beat the drums and attack".

If you are in a position where you are neither right nor wrong than in my opinion the ethical thing to do is nothing provided that has less of an impact on whatever it is you are dealing with than doing something stupid and making it worse.

 

[Bob]

It might address the permit standards and make NYS a shall issue state for possession in the home and range.

And that's not even likely to happen. New York State is not a respondent (defendant) in this case, and NYS law is not at question. IF SCOTUS actually hears the case and rules favorably, it'll likely take another suit to challenge the state law that allows NYC to do their own thing. I suspect the best we can hope for is that they make NYC fall in line with the rest of NYS.

 

[Forum_Person_1234]

What the heck would happen if we made a may-issue drivers licence law or a requirement to register democratic party registrations to a registry that we then closed?

 

[Paperpunch]

There are several threads on this already. To sum up: there is a placeholder on the calendar for an argument in December, but the fate of the case was decided yesterday at conference. It may be taken off the calendar and dismissed for mootness. We are waiting for the order to see.

The word of the day.......mootness.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Strict Scrutiny is so obviously called for in all 2A cases. It angers me considerably that it isn't. In fact if such standards do not start being applied to constitutional rights that will be the marker that it is time for a new revolution. The status quo is unacceptable and it must be changed by any means necessary. If the government will not fulfill its obligations it must be exchanged for one that will.

I disagree. For a law to pass strict scrutiny, the legislation must have a compelling state interest that is done though the least restrictive means.

What that means is that Strict Scrutiny is supposed to be used whenever an unconstitutional law is about to be passed or when it is challenged. An unconstitutional law is allowed to stand if it furthers a government interest.

All these levels of scrutiny (Strict, intermediate, and rational basis) are all justifying an unconstitutional law to stand. So I’m against it’s use. There should be no justification whatsoever to pass or allow to stand a law that is unconstitutional no matter what the crisis or reason.

 

[Truebeliever]

And that's not even likely to happen. New York State is not a respondent (defendant) in this case, and NYS law is not at question. IF SCOTUS actually hears the case and rules favorably, it'll likely take another suit to challenge the state law that allows NYC to do their own thing. I suspect the best we can hope for is that they make NYC fall in line with the rest of NYS.

McDonald and Heller were involving out of state cases but has an effect ( it is supposed to) have an effect in all states. The stun gun case was in MA but effects here and might apply to more less lethal CPW cases .

And remember that it is a case about how NYC applies NYS penal law as to permits.

 

[spat]

Guys, stop dreaming.
The case going to the court will not be strict scrutiny. The NYC law wouldn’t meet intermediate scrutiny either. Not allowed to transport the gun out of NYC where the city’s claim of safety of NYC would be out the door anyway isn’t strict scrutiny standard. NYC should have lost on a intermediate scrutiny level in a proper ruling. The lower courts were just plain wrong on that one.

The SCOTUS isn’t going to swing for the fences. It will cement the law change into case law. It might address the permit standards and make NYS a shall issue state for possession in the home and range.

I will be pleasantly surprised if they do anything better.

I will be pleasantly surprised if we even get that much.

 

[Cooolone]

If you read the history here for this case, it's not so simple and the "city" has exhibited a high degree of malfeasance throughout the entirety of the case attempting to circumvent the high court from making a decision. Luckily it has backfired and the "city" by its own act(s)/actions have demonstrated a fairly cavalier thumbing it's nose at the court. If you read all that is or has been recorded about this case it doesn't look well or bode well for the "city".

Point is you can't have your cake and eat it too! NYC "defacto" infringement upon its resident citizens Rights to exercise their 2A freedoms is about to be overturned! The "city" enjoyed their bullshit laws trampling what is "normal" activity of what gun owners do, nothing extraordinary, just hey, let's go to "Blue Mountain" range for the day... Or the likes, etc.

You can be sure NYC, the Mayor, NYPD did not want this and tried every angle to prevent it. Apparently the SCOTUS has seen through the smoke screen and made the right decision. They are all shitting themselves for sure now because if the court felt their actions remedied the causation of the case, they would have ruled their was no standing in it. The they have it on their docket means they feel their "is" reason to examine the merits. I don't see this working out in "NYC" favor at all. An yeah, maybe the degree to which they rule may give the city wiggle room, but in any event it will be a chip in their armor. More cases will come, wait for it... Because you know the "city" like many municipalities, seem to do whatever they want regardless! They've ignored previous rulings and guidance, so let them eat their cake now!

 

[livingston]

Guys, stop dreaming.
The case going to the court will not be strict scrutiny. The NYC law wouldn’t meet intermediate scrutiny either. Not allowed to transport the gun out of NYC where the city’s claim of safety of NYC would be out the door anyway isn’t strict scrutiny standard. NYC should have lost on a intermediate scrutiny level in a proper ruling. The lower courts were just plain wrong on that one.

The SCOTUS isn’t going to swing for the fences. It will cement the law change into case law. It might address the permit standards and make NYS a shall issue state for possession in the home and range.

I will be pleasantly surprised if they do anything better.

A bit like them changing one line of computer code for the whole Apollo moon mission ... One fights to get a gun case to SCOTUS .. along with the time , money ... And everything that's involved ... and gun owners will get thrown a bone and we can wait for the next 10 years to get another gun case heard. ... IF ever again.

 

[GOYABEAN]

A bit like them changing one line of computer code for the whole Apollo moon mission ... One fights to get a gun case to SCOTUS .. along with the time , money ... And everything that's involved ... and gun owners will get thrown a bone and we can wait for the next 10 years to get another gun case heard. ... IF ever again.

 

[Edwardteach72]

I’m not agreeing with the state of things. I just don’t think the SCOTUS and the good judges on it are going to go swing for the fences. They need one or two justices to go with them. They aren’t going to get their vote that way.

I would be happy if they change NY to a shall issue state just for the premises permits with the ability to travel. I want more but I am realistic.

The issue is thinking that a state needs to be shall issue for a premise hahahhaha

 

[Edwardteach72]

What the heck would happen if we made a may-issue drivers licence law or a requirement to register democratic party registrations to a registry that we then closed?

I mean it kind is a may issue for drivers licenses. But then again driving on public roads is a privilege not a right so invalid argument

 

[spat]

I mean it kind is a may issue for drivers licenses. But then again driving on public roads is a privilege not a right so invalid argument

Drivers license are shall issue. If some DMV employee tried to deny you one because you "lacked good cause" or "didn't demonstrate good moral character" the lawyers would be lined up around the block to take that on contingency.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Drivers license are shall issue. If some DMV employee tried to deny you one because you "lacked good cause" or "didn't demonstrate good moral character" the lawyers would be lined up around the block to take that on contingency.

Oh so you dont have to pass a written test and a driving test? And you might want to read the print at the DMV they can revoke your license at any time or deny a renewal


(Oh and don't think just because a state is shall issue they cant deny someone their license based on "moral character")

 

[spat]

Oh so you dont have to pass a written test and a driving test? And you might want to read the print at the DMV they can revoke your license at any time or deny a renewal


(Oh and don't think just because a state is shall issue they cant deny someone their license based on "moral character")

Shall issue just means that they have to give a license to everyone who meets objective criteria. It doesn't mean that everyone gets them.

Many shall issue states require people to pass written tests or take classes to get their pistol permits.

You are right, that "moral character" can be a criteria and still have a shall issue license, but it must be objective, not "if it pleases milord may I please carry a handgun". A state could say that anyone with parking tickets can't get a permit and they would still be shall issue.

Shall issue is still BS, it's just less BS than may issue.