KBCraig
NES Member
And in response to Lopez, Congress added a "finding" statement that guns in school zones affect interstate commerce, and re-passed it.
The FGFSZA hasn't had a serious judicial review since then.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
The FGFSZA hasn't had a serious judicial review since then.
So I took a few mins to read a detailed summary of the arguments on truthaboutguns and what's standing out to me as what is going to be determined if the case is not moot and SCOTUS makes a ruling on it.
The first one is that there is no way Roberts is going to uphold the law because there was no basis for the law to exist. Unlike Obamacare where Roberts rubbed stamped the government's authority to now tax people for NOT having something, there are so many protections against gov't making transportation of property illegal. Alito had the NYC attorney on the ropes and effectively TKO'd him when the attorney admitted that people are not less safe now that the law was repealed and that it did violate the 2nd Amendment and that the 2nd Amendment does protect the right to possess a firearm outside the home in some circumstances.
So since Roberts is not going to uphold the law, the question is how narrow of a ruling can he make it? Some are pushing for strict scrutiny, some are pushing for a "text, history, and tradition" (whatever that is) application, but I'm thinking that he'll push for it to be simply about transportation of arms, that the 2nd Amendment protects the lawful individual and legal owner and possessor of firearm(s) to transport them in an "appropriate and reasonable manner that shall not disturb the peace, nor fail to comply with other reasonable demands."
Basically it will say you can't be burdened by state and local laws from taking your gun from on place to another, but that doesn't mean you can claim that your EDC is being "transported" when it's loaded, cocked, and locked.
Whatever the outcome, it's not going to do much to help us, as is SCOTUS status quo.
The first one is that there is no way Roberts is going to uphold the law because there was no basis for the law to exist. Unlike Obamacare where Roberts rubbed stamped the government's authority to now tax people for NOT having something, there are so many protections against gov't making transportation of property illegal. Alito had the NYC attorney on the ropes and effectively TKO'd him when the attorney admitted that people are not less safe now that the law was repealed and that it did violate the 2nd Amendment and that the 2nd Amendment does protect the right to possess a firearm outside the home in some circumstances.
So since Roberts is not going to uphold the law, the question is how narrow of a ruling can he make it? Some are pushing for strict scrutiny, some are pushing for a "text, history, and tradition" (whatever that is) application, but I'm thinking that he'll push for it to be simply about transportation of arms, that the 2nd Amendment protects the lawful individual and legal owner and possessor of firearm(s) to transport them in an "appropriate and reasonable manner that shall not disturb the peace, nor fail to comply with other reasonable demands."
Basically it will say you can't be burdened by state and local laws from taking your gun from on place to another, but that doesn't mean you can claim that your EDC is being "transported" when it's loaded, cocked, and locked.
Whatever the outcome, it's not going to do much to help us, as is SCOTUS status quo.
KBCraig
NES Member
Best outcome: the court DIGs this one and picks up a case that isn't so narrow.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,488
- Likes
- 6,401
After listening to the oral arguments, my average joe takeaways...
Plaintiffs case was too small in scope, seems they could have went after the licensing also. Could have distinguished bearing arms vs carrying vs premises vs transporting.
Not an overall good 2A case.
Even if this does not go DIG, I am not optimistic about a strong 2A ruling.
Although I agree that the plaitiffs have every right to take this case to scotus from my 2A biased viewpoint; if this case adds a checkmark to scotus hearing a 2A case thus perhaps diminishing the chance of a future 2A case then this was a bad one.
I understand that the state acted as a strategy to moot the case, but the plaintiffs effectively ended up standing in front of the scotus and essentially asked for nothing that they do not already have.
Plaintiffs case was too small in scope, seems they could have went after the licensing also. Could have distinguished bearing arms vs carrying vs premises vs transporting.
Not an overall good 2A case.
Even if this does not go DIG, I am not optimistic about a strong 2A ruling.
Although I agree that the plaitiffs have every right to take this case to scotus from my 2A biased viewpoint; if this case adds a checkmark to scotus hearing a 2A case thus perhaps diminishing the chance of a future 2A case then this was a bad one.
I understand that the state acted as a strategy to moot the case, but the plaintiffs effectively ended up standing in front of the scotus and essentially asked for nothing that they do not already have.
My main concern is that SCOTUS yields a "Moot" ruling, then NYC says "Ha ha" and reinstates the ban.
KBCraig
NES Member
...which unmoots it. And that leads to decades of trying again for a good case.
That's why I hope the DIG this case and either pick a better case, or skip it for this term. Better no case than a bad case.
New York City Might Avoid Making Second Amendment History | National Review
New York saw the writing on the wall and made a strategic retreat.
www.nationalreview.com
Bearing redefind? What that...
I think that was one of the major arguments by petitioners against SCOTUS mooting the case, wasn't it? The specter of the law possibly changing again in the future?
The plaintiff wanted at minimum an injunction preventing NYS and NYC from doing so.
June4th
NES Member
If the only penalty for stealing is returning the loot, then there will be a lot of stealing. If the only consequence of stealing people’s rights by bad laws is to retreat when challenged, there will be many laws stealing people’s rights.
I guess that explains all the rights stealing going on.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
Monday morning quarterbacking aside, I think this was a great case to go to SCOTUS, simply because it was such an egregious violation of the 2A.
The fact that it may or may not be mooted after SCOTUS granted Cert does not take that away.
If anything, NYCs/New York states actions prove how good a case it was.
If SCOTUS lets the Government get away with these shenanigans, they are setting a very dangerous precedent.
The fact that it may or may not be mooted after SCOTUS granted Cert does not take that away.
If anything, NYCs/New York states actions prove how good a case it was.
If SCOTUS lets the Government get away with these shenanigans, they are setting a very dangerous precedent.
While I agree with everything you said, I do not think all the justices do. After listening to the oral arguments, some of the justices seemed to think that the government and lower courts did their jobs. They did agree that the city overreached, but they also felt like the state did its job by correcting the overreach. Some justices seemed ok with the overreach itself so long as it was corrected or at least attempted to be corrected.
I guess the problem is that, like a percentage of society is ok wih government overreach, so is a percentage of the justices, which is a shame. There need not be such a division over the 2A. Scotus has had the ability to end all the debate for quite some time but chose not to. The rpkba on merit alone is pretty hard to distort even for a progressive liberal as is "shall not be infringed" We do not have much debate over free speech because over time enough rulings have been made to give us the framework and scope of the liberty. They have failed with the 2A and this case will not be helpful one way or another no matter the outcome.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
I agree completely that SCOTUS has failed with the 2A., but if this case isnt helpful, none of the other 2A cases will be helpfull either.
And to be clear, the Government shenanigans that would set a very dangerous precedent arent the 2A violations, its mooting the case after SCOTUS granted Cert.
So, is this thing over and done with now?
Unless you saw something new I don't think they have made a decision yet. It could be moot, it could get a full decision that we will get next year sometime.
That’s because that’s not how it works. You don’t get a case to the SCOTUS being broad. You don’t get a case anywhere at lower levels that way with either. You get it there being a specific narrowly defined and pointed argument. That’s just how it works. It would be nice to included every argument you want, but the reality is it does not work that way.
What is? If you are hoping for some magic unicorn case that challenges the very notion of gun control itself, or some other broad sweeping case, it’s not going to happen. You may want it to, I certainly would love it to, but that’s pure fantasy. It won’t happen.
Heller and McDonald are as strong as you are going to get. And look how well that’s worked.
I get narrow cases, but this case is a set up for failure because the plaintiffs are arguing for unloaded transport out of NY City. A true carry case would be better.
No kidding, that could be better. Again, that’s not how this works. You and I not liking that is irrelevant.
And we should be blaming the morons in NY for bringing this case. Bad cases make bad case law.
That’s such a cliché and foolish thing. It’s bad because it’s not broad enough for your liking? Ok. Bad news for you chief. There will never be a good case for you.
It’s a bad case because it deals with unloaded cased carry which Seems to be an issue n. Few cesspools like NY and NJ pbut in America that’s a non issue. Loaded concealed carry, outside the home out of one state of residence is an issue that affects for more people in America.
This is a good case, because it will (hopefully) extend the "core" of the Second Amendment beyond the threshold of your front door. If you read any recent decisions by the lower courts, they claim that the core only covers possession of a handgun in the home for self defense. The courts have held that, in Mass, a LTC is not protected by the Second Amendment because it is the least restrictive license that will allow one to possess a handgun in the home for self defense. (They conventionally ignore the law that says an FID card does not allow possession of a handgun anywhere but on a licensed gun range).
If this is decided in favor of NYSPRA, then they can't use the argument that an LTC is not protected by the 2A, since there is no other Mass license that permits possession of a pistol, rifle, or shotgun outside the home.
If this is decided in favor of NYSPRA, then they can't use the argument that an LTC is not protected by the 2A, since there is no other Mass license that permits possession of a pistol, rifle, or shotgun outside the home.
Which case would be better to finish first, this New York case , or the Morin vs. Northborough case? How similar are they? Do they set up/stack up to assist one another?
Looks like Morin is already awaiting judgement, so probably nothing unless the court decides against Morin, and SCOTUS uses this case to push the "Core" of the right outside the home somehow. In that case maybe they can use it to help with whatever appeal they have available.
But in the growing number of Constitutional carry states no license whatsoever is required. and in most states no license is required to possess a gun. As I said, this case offers little to those who actually live in America.
