Other 2A cases my ass. What's wrong with doing your job with this one?
SCOTUS rules in NYSRPA vs NYC
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
WTF is NRA Chiming in .. they didn't do fk ..
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
According to the NRA, we won
I believe Ouimet is originally from New York. He should know better than to say that.
This, as much as anything, is an admission that the NRA is completely out of touch with reality.
We did not "win".
New York did not surrender, and the Supreme Court didn't accept anything.
NYC won't pay legal fees and will, in fact, most likely file for the NRA to pay THE CITY'S legal fees for pursuing a moot case.
This case did not force the City .gov to admit anything.
And, most importantly, our Rights were never vindicated.
this whole thing has been a major nothingburger.
someone should check Mr Ouimet. I think he's drunk on the job again.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
NYC would be absolutely out of their minds to go after the plaintiffs for legal fees for a case that the defendant mooted. They would lose that almost immediately.
Absolutley 100% hope the plaintiffs take the opportunity presented here to go back to the local court and sue for damages.
I explained it in my post. It was a nothing burger.
The only positive thing here is they now acknowledge in writing that Heller and McDonald are not being applied properly by lower courts. That puts them on notice and goes further saying that they will be addressing that issue soon in upcoming cases. Cases that actually have some teeth.
This case was like a murder trial with the murder victim sitting in the front row of the courtroom chewing bubblegum.
This case was like a murder trial with the murder victim sitting in the front row of the courtroom chewing bubblegum.
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
Attachments
General Malaise
.40 S&W
What “Cases with teeth” is Kavanaugh referring to?
There's a carry case from NJ that will hopefully get certiorari really soon.
Who wasted money? The Court heard arguments for approx. 45 minutes. They were all there anyway. Many cases were heard that day. It wasn't a long drawn out court hearing like you may see in the movies. They squeezed it in during a cup of coffee. Sounds like the conservatives decided to hear the arguments as a message that they are watching. The liberal Justices did not want it heard at all. They were challenged and lost. It also allowed them go to on written record to express their official opinion which is the lower courts aren't applying the Heller and McDonald cases properly. That is huge. Lastly, it says the Court should deal with these issues in the many pending cases coming their way. Cases which we can assume have more steam behind them. This was weak as puppy piss, but was an opportunity to issue an official opinion.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
You have any idea what it costs to take a case to court in the first instance, and then all the way up the ladder to SCOTUS?
Some of the lawyers I work with are like $800+/hour. Hell after 20 years in the business *I* cost $450/hour.
It didn't cost you, me, or any other taxpayer money so who cares?
Look at that Ferrari! Do you have any idea how much that costs?! People are free to spend their money on whatever they want. It's none of our business. The argument was it was at the peril of taxpayers. It was not.
But “there are numerous cases waiting in the wings” if they have the appetite to do so, he said.
Winkler identified concealed carry permits as a likely candidate for the court’s next foray into gun rights.
Currently there are several petitions pending at the high court challenging state schemes related to carrying guns outside of the home—concealed or otherwise—including in Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts.
Several others challenge state laws banning interstate gun sales, requiring so-called microstamping,—that is, requiring a gun to “stamp” certain information on to each bullet it fires—as well as other state regulations.
Just about any Second Amendment case “would allow the Court to opine on the proper form and/or level of scrutiny,” Magarian said.
“It may only be a matter of time before the Court expands the scope of the Second Amendment and makes it harder for lawmakers to enact meaningful gun reform,” Winkler said.
news.bloomberglaw.com
Winkler identified concealed carry permits as a likely candidate for the court’s next foray into gun rights.
Currently there are several petitions pending at the high court challenging state schemes related to carrying guns outside of the home—concealed or otherwise—including in Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts.
Several others challenge state laws banning interstate gun sales, requiring so-called microstamping,—that is, requiring a gun to “stamp” certain information on to each bullet it fires—as well as other state regulations.
Just about any Second Amendment case “would allow the Court to opine on the proper form and/or level of scrutiny,” Magarian said.
“It may only be a matter of time before the Court expands the scope of the Second Amendment and makes it harder for lawmakers to enact meaningful gun reform,” Winkler said.
More Gun Cases Waiting in High Court Wings if NY Dispute Flops
The first gun rights case at the U.S. Supreme Court in a decade looks like it might get tossed on a procedural hiccup, but questions raised at argument Dec. 2 about the heightened standard of scrutiny that gun rights advocates would like to see for gun regulations preview what the court’s next...
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
I think you might look at who filed friend of the court briefs here and see just who spent money on this case.
It was filed by the NYS Rifle and Pistol Assoc. They are not publicly funded. Therefore proving my point. Their members willingly signed up and paid dues to go towards their interests. No different than a car guy buying a Ferrari. Doesn't cost me a nickel and it's none of my business what others choose to spend their money on. Furthermore, they are the ones who pushed this to SCOTUS, knowing it was puppy piss weak. If their members have a problem they need to take it top with the leadership there. Perhaps they should use their funds more wisely and be more selective of the cases they choose to escalate.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
And who else filed briefs?
Hint: they are funded by New York State. I.e. they are funded by you and me.
The state didn't file the case. You are blaming the wrong party here. Of course they responded, they had to. It's the equivalent to blaming someone accused of a crime for spending money on a defense.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
They fought it all the way up to SCOTUS even though they knew it was an unconstitutional law. Why? Because they figured they'd slam dunked it. Once cert was granted they got scared shitless and decided not to defend their shit ass rule anymore.
Blame squarely laid on NYC and NYS here and they did in fact spend a bunch of money on this case defending what they knew was indefensible.
So yeah, waste of taxpayer money.
Well that's the state. Nobody is advocating for them here or saying they are right. You have lost the point of my response on the matter. The implication was that the SCOTUS was wasting money by hearing the case.
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
Because elected officials are not personally responsible for paying the legal costs of defending in court the laws they made up. Plus, nobody loses elections because some law they wrote gets overturned in court.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Those are our only realistic choices.
1. Live with it, expect it to get worse.
2. SCOTUS provides some relief.
3. Start killing people.
Do you think there is a 4th option ?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
This from Charles FB page,
by Charles E. Nichols, Organizer
The US Supreme Court has relisted ten Second Amendment cert petitions for its private conference on Friday.
Given today's dismissal of NYSRPA v. NYC as moot, that is encouraging particularly because several of the relisted cert petitions are "carry" cases.
Young v. Hawaii filed a motion to lift the en banc stay in that appeal. If SCOTUS grants a 2A cert petition then the stay in Young v. Hawaii will undoubtedly remain or be reinstated.
by Charles E. Nichols, Organizer
The US Supreme Court has relisted ten Second Amendment cert petitions for its private conference on Friday.
Given today's dismissal of NYSRPA v. NYC as moot, that is encouraging particularly because several of the relisted cert petitions are "carry" cases.
Young v. Hawaii filed a motion to lift the en banc stay in that appeal. If SCOTUS grants a 2A cert petition then the stay in Young v. Hawaii will undoubtedly remain or be reinstated.
From Mother Jones of all place's!
www.motherjones.com
The Supreme Court's punt on a Second Amendment case is a short-term victory for gun control groups
“Brett Kavanaugh just officially put everyone on notice that no gun safety measures are safe now that he is on the Supreme Court."
www.motherjones.com