New York City Is Still Running from Supreme Court Review of Gun Laws

[livingston]

New York City Is Still Running from Supreme Court Review of Gun Laws
This past January, the Court granted review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the Supreme Court’s first Second Amendment case in nearly ten years. The case addresses NYC’s statute prohibiting the transportation of handguns outside of city limits.

In a particularly brazen move, completely ignoring the questions presented to be answered by the Supreme Court, NYC told the Supreme Court that should the Court require the city to file a brief by its current deadline, the city would refuse to actually address those questions and would only discuss why the city believes the case is moot.

On July 8, 2019, the Supreme Court did not accept the letter for filing either because the city failed to follow the appropriate procedure or because of Petitioners’ objection.
NYC hasn’t stopped running though



New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York -- An Update | National Review.

 

[ProgSpear]

Fair enough. I unilaterally decree that the Sullivan and SAFE Acts are moot as they are in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The difference between me and NYS is I am acting to uphold the Constitution.

 

[Celt]

Ill keep my fingers crossed that we get a strong ruling on this case that effects the entire country.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

I support hope...but it's been beaten up so much....I might just give up

 

[Acer-m14]

Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 ..

Murdock v. Penn 319 US 105 ..

want to rule on the 2a .. convention time to change it and remove the last few words ..

 

[Phazer]

Ill keep my fingers crossed that we get a strong ruling on this case that effects the entire country.

Could a side effect of this potential ruling be that if NYC permits are valid in NY state, then NY state permits are valid in NYC?

 

[Celt]

Could a side effect of this potential ruling be that if NYC permits are valid in NY state, then NY state permits are valid in NYC?

That would be nice but I don't expect it. In fact New York State just passed a law to assist New York City by allowing New York City permits to be valid in New York State for the purpose of Transportation only. At least that's how I understand it based on the article I read.

@Phazer , read this.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/new-york-desperately-tries-to-squirm-out-of-scotus-case/

 

[oc shooter]

hope this turns out for us

 

[Edwardteach72]

hope this turns out for us

I'm not trying to get my hopes up, but there has to be something said for SCOTUS rejecting NYs plea to stop this case (especially this last time) even if it's a small win

 

[Robin]

I can see the supreme's declaring the SAFE Act and the Sullivan Act unconstitutional, as any eighth grade U.S.History student could tell you. I can also see New York, 'ruled' by Cuomo and the citiot's, from the rotten apple telling them to pound salt, we will enforce them as written, and the majority of police doing just that, though their numbers would thin out the further from NYC and Albania on the Hudson you get.
Robin

 

[Edwardteach72]

I can see the supreme's declaring the SAFE Act and the Sullivan Act unconstitutional, as any eighth grade U.S.History student could tell you. I can also see New York, 'ruled' by Cuomo and the citiot's, from the rotten apple telling them to pound salt, we will enforce them as written, and the majority of police doing just that, though their numbers would thin out the further from NYC and Albania on the Hudson you get.
Robin

I would love that but I can see them ruling that the Sullivan act is constitutional (but we all know it isnt)

 

[spat]

I don't have any idea how SCOTUS will rule.

I know how they *should* rule, but I have no confidence in that happening.

What I do know is that NYC and FUAC appear to be afraid of what they will rule.

Let's just hope that fear is well founded.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Let's just hope that fear is well founded.

It is. Otherwise they would be confident and joyous at the opportunity to have this settled in their favor by the highest court in the land. This would be a huge win for the gun control movement.

 

[Celt]

I don't have any idea how SCOTUS will rule.

I know how they *should* rule, but I have no confidence in that happening.

What I do know is that NYC and FUAC appear to be afraid of what they will rule.

Let's just hope that fear is well founded.

I truly hope the ruling gives them a heart attack, an aneurysm, or a stroke that takes them out. Seriously! I never used to wish death on people, but after years of seeing how evil these people are I dont feel like wishing them death (of natural causes) will bring me any bad karma as they deserve it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Let’s not fool ourselves here with false hope. SCOTUS will not strike down any Sullivan Law.

 

[livingston]

Let’s not fool ourselves here with false hope. SCOTUS will not strike down any Sullivan Law.

They will rule on the narrowest of narrow

 

[Airborneguy]

The Sullivan Law is not a part of this case.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

The Sullivan Law is not a part of this case.

The hope is that the court will come down on lower courts' interest balancing approach to the 2A and tell them that strict scrutiny must be applied to all 2A cases. This would surely set the stage for challenges to the sullivan act and the safe act.

 

[timboy]

My breath,I will not be holding it.

 

[Celt]

The hope is that the court will come down on lower courts' interest balancing approach to the 2A and tell them that strict scrutiny must be applied to all 2A cases. This would surely set the stage for challenges to the sullivan act and the safe act.

That is the Hope. Strict scrutiny must be applied to all Second Amendment cases.

 

[Jmac00]

New Yorkistan and NY shitty are all above the law. By TELLING the SCOTUS what they will and will not do is the ultimate in arrogance.

All backed by Gov. Scumbag Cumhole

 

[spat]

New Yorkistan and NY shitty are all above the law. By TELLING the SCOTUS what they will and will not do is the ultimate in arrogance.

All backed by Gov. Scumbag Cumhole

Let's hope their arrogance pisses off the justices enough for them to realize that what NY and NYC are really thumbing their noses at is the constitution.

 

[Calculon]

Judges are less concerned about anyone thumbing their nose at the Constitution than then they are of advancing their personal progressive agenda.

 

[Celt]

New Yorkistan and NY shitty are all above the law. By TELLING the SCOTUS what they will and will not do is the ultimate in arrogance.

All backed by Gov. Scumbag Cumhole

Seriously, it is Extreme arrogance to openly state that they will not discuss the merits of the case and they will only argue that the case is now mooted.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Unfortunately, hope is a wish, and not a strategy. My biggest fear is that Roberts will completely sell us out, and even if he does not, there is also a possibility of Kavanaugh, or maybe even Gorsuch selling us out in order to save the big shitty, aka NYC from having to deal with a bunch of armed citizens.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Unfortunately, hope is a wish, and not a strategy. My biggest fear is that Roberts will completely sell us out, and even if he does not, there is also a possibility of Kavanaugh, or maybe even Gorsuch selling us out in order to save the big shitty, aka NYC from having to deal with a bunch of armed citizens.

While I dont trust those two I dont see them completely ruling in favor of NY. They may not say strict scrutiny but I believe they will side closer to the 2A

 

[VietnamEraVet]

While I dont trust those two I dont see them completely ruling in favor of NY. They may not say strict scrutiny but I believe they will side closer to the 2A

The problem is, that anything less than requiring all firearm laws to pass strict scrutiny leaves us right where we are today, - in a mushy quagmire.

 

[Edwardteach72]

The problem is, that anything less than requiring all firearm laws to pass strict scrutiny leaves us right where we are today, - in a mushy quagmire.

Oh I completely agree. But sadly Kavanaugh had even mentioned that he agreed with the Heller decision on "dangerous and unusual" weapons

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Oh I completely agree. But sadly Kavanaugh had even mentioned that he agreed with the Heller decision on "dangerous and unusual" weapons

Well, he said that during his confirmation hearing am I right? If so, take that for what it's worth. Posed with a question like that, at a very public and contentious nomination hearing, he had to sound reasonable and considering that wasn't an actual case before him, the whole "dangerous and unusual" phrase really means nothing. That was just a ploy by the left to get him on record as saying that, because they see AR15s as "dangerous and unusual", which we all know is not the truth. It's not as if he specifically mentioned AR15s. Infact his opinion on AWB's in actual case law, is on our side.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Meanwhile, NJ just won their case on 10 round magazines. So that stays in effect.

Also to piggyback on @ArmedCorgi's post- I was under the impression Kavanuagh wrote the DISSENT in the original lower court ruling that lead to Heller II.