Supreme Court Denies Motion to Declare New York State Rifle & Pistol Case Moot…For Now

[livingston]

Supreme Court Denies Motion to Declare New York State Rifle & Pistol Case Moot…For Now
Oct 07, 2019
Last week, the Supreme Court held their “long conference” meeting at the beginning of their new term. One of the matters under consideration was the city’s mootness claim. This morning the Court announced that they’ve denied the city’s motion for now (bottom of page 10 here [PDF]).

But the question hasn’t been decided yet. They’ve decided to carry the question over. The Court will listen to both sides as to the merits of the city’s mootness claim, as well as those in the underlying case, on December 2 when the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...ew-york-state-rifle-pistol-case-moot-for-now/

 

[BDinPutnam]

Good.

 

[kev74]

I hope we get something good out of this.

 

[Elwood]

I hope we get something good out of this.

Knowing New York it’ll be herpes and a perforated colon

 

[Acer-m14]

i want video with sound of the oral arguments ... we need to know who is going down on who .. i hope FUAC gets Ruth .. LMAO ..


The Court will listen to both sides as to the merits of the city’s mootness claim, as well as those in the underlying case

are they actually listening .. like having both parties there talking .. ?

or

just reading the papers of the case to each other ?? ..

the mootness claim should be dealt with jail time .. IMHO

 

[Mosinitis]

They will drag this moot case forever to give an illusion the court is doing something for the 2a. In the end both sides will claim a victory and it will not change a damn thing.

 

[Saltwater60]

I don’t really understand what a victory other than strict scrutiny ruling for the 2a would do for us.

 

[Mosinitis]

When SCOTUS upheld Obamacare, republican side claimed a victory because SCOTUS called it a tax. This is how we win.

 

[nortatoga]

When SCOTUS upheld Obamacare, republican side claimed a victory because SCOTUS called it a tax. This is how we win.

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

This doesn't sound like the Republicans claimed a victory because SCOTUS called it a tax.

House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision may slow momentum for that move. "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

 

[Mosinitis]

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

This doesn't sound like the Republicans claimed a victory because SCOTUS called it a tax.

House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision may slow momentum for that move. "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

Fair enough. They claimed a partial victory, because SCOTUS called it a tax.

 

[@thewheels]

They will drag this moot case forever to give an illusion the court is doing something for the 2a. In the end both sides will claim a victory and it will not change a damn thing.

And we'll all be able to enjoy

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I predict that after they hear it, they will issue a 4-5 decision next June declaring the case moot, with that traitorous POS Roberts siding with the libs. At least then, Roberts will be completely outed. They will delay it as long as humanly possible.

 

[Edwardteach72]

They will drag this moot case forever to give an illusion the court is doing something for the 2a. In the end both sides will claim a victory and it will not change a damn thing.

Uh the case is being heard December 3rd

 

[BDinPutnam]

I don’t really understand what a victory other than strict scrutiny ruling for the 2a would do for us.

And this is why we lose the long game, every single time.

They have been chipping away at the 2A for more than a century.

Time to chip back.

You think this (or any) one case would undo all that?

 

[Mosinitis]

Uh the case is being heard December 3rd

According to the above article:

"This morning the Court announced that they’ve denied the city’s motion for now (bottom of page 10 here [PDF]).

But the question hasn’t been decided yet. They’ve decided to carry the question over. The Court will listen to both sides as to the merits of the city’s mootness claim, as well as those in the underlying case, on December 2 when the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments."

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I predict that after they hear it, they will issue a 4-5 decision next June declaring the case moot, with that traitorous POS Roberts siding with the libs. At least then, Roberts will be completely outed. They will delay it as long as humanly possible.

Meh...I don't know about that. Why waste the time and money hearing the case if NYC's mootness argument is strong? They've already seen in writing what NYC has to say and are proceeding with the case. Maybe they denied the motion because they just don't like being told what to do, or maybe they denied it because they feel the case still has standing regardless of NYC changing the law because it touches on things that could affect the entire country. Maybe they've been around the block and know that NYC could easily just change the law back or create a new law that would effectively negate the recent change if the court doesn't hear the case and make a ruling.
We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Saltwater60]

And this is why we lose the long game, every single time.

They have been chipping away at the 2A for more than a century.

Time to chip back.

You think this (or any) one case would undo all that?

My question was what will this case do for us since NYC has already said what the lawsuit is about we will allow citizens to do. What more is there to gain unless we get strict scrutiny?
Maybe I’m missing something?
If I am please tell me what I’m missing.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Meh...I don't know about that. Why waste the time and money hearing the case if NYC's mootness argument is strong? They've already seen in writing what NYC has to say and are proceeding with the case. Maybe they denied the motion because they just don't like being told what to do, or maybe they denied it because they feel the case still has standing regardless of NYC changing the law because it touches on things that could affect the entire country. Maybe they've been around the block and know that NYC could easily just change the law back or create a new law that would effectively negate the recent change if the court doesn't hear the case and make a ruling.
We'll just have to wait and see.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely want to see SCOTUS cram it up NY state and NYC's ass. Give us a ruling that requires strict scrutiny that we can use to strike down all of the BS infringing laws in NY and everywhere else. The time is long overdue to kill off Sullivan. And NY(UN)SAFE. I would absolutely love to see NY forced to go to Shall Issue, - and I want to see our NY permits valid throughout the state, including NYC, - and without "administrative restrictions". And to see SCOTUS rule that AK's and AR's, and standard capacity magazines are all legal under the 2nd. And to remove suppressors from the restrictions currently in place.

On the flip side, my fear is that we are not there yet. We need Ginsburg and others on the left to go tits up first. I think that now that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are there, that they, along with Alito and Thomas have finally forced SCOTUS to take a 2A case (the first in like the last 10 years) when there were plenty that deserved to have been heard, and that Roberts treachery will now be fully exposed. Roberts screwed us over with Obamacare, as well as the citizenship question on the census. But this case is going to force him out into the open.

 

[BDinPutnam]

My question was what will this case do for us since NYC has already said what the lawsuit is about we will allow citizens to do. What more is there to gain unless we get strict scrutiny?
Maybe I’m missing something?
If I am please tell me what I’m missing.

As a start, I am hoping for language that says "thou shalt ignore Heller and McDonald no more, lower courts."

 

[Shadow2]

NYC can moot deez nutz.

NYC changing the law is like a murderous husband doing everything he can to help the police find his wife's killer.