Article NYSRPA on SCOTUS Blog -- discusses NYC seeking mootness
Here's a link to the other side of the point on Mootness
It is Moot
Here's a link to the other side of the point on Mootness
It is Moot
Last edited:
-
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
MaverickNH
NES Member
When courts don’t do what we want we call it Judicial Activism. When NYC continues to ignore Heller, McDonald and harasses gun owners at each and every opportunity, until sued into compliance, we call it Legislative Recidivism. In this case Voluntary Cessation does not moot the underlying offense.
The CT solicitor general Clare Kindall wrote a disgusting commentary on their amicus brief today. Paraphrased:
What other Constitution-enumerated natural human rights must you ask permission for, then hope they'll allow it outside the home, too? Who on earth says, "I only want rights in my house, so don't tread on me by expanding my rights to the public as well."? What a joke.
Clare Kindall said:
What other Constitution-enumerated natural human rights must you ask permission for, then hope they'll allow it outside the home, too? Who on earth says, "I only want rights in my house, so don't tread on me by expanding my rights to the public as well."? What a joke.
MaverickNH
NES Member
The Solicitor General of CT is an assh*le. Nothing short of a total firearms ban appears to be afoul of Heller and McDonald in her opinion. “Because the Second Amendment protects homes and businesses and does not require all handgun licenses to be carry-in-public licenses, the court should uphold the 2nd Circuit’s decision and find that the former New York City requirement for its premises handgun licenses did not violate the Constitution.” So *transportation* of an unloaded, locked firearm becomes carry-in-public? “That f’er cut me off! I’m going to pull over, unlock my pistol and unlock my ammo, load my gun, and catch up to that f’er and shoot them” is the scenario she and NY claim.
She knows that she, in her S.G. role, cannot harass criminals (who don’t give a sh*t what she says) so she harasses law-abiding, honest gun owners. Addressing *actual* criminal firearms use insults a protected class of minorities (young black males) that Bloomberg apologized to for wrongly profiling for Stop-and-Frisk searches.
She knows that she, in her S.G. role, cannot harass criminals (who don’t give a sh*t what she says) so she harasses law-abiding, honest gun owners. Addressing *actual* criminal firearms use insults a protected class of minorities (young black males) that Bloomberg apologized to for wrongly profiling for Stop-and-Frisk searches.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
Symposium: Disrupting the consensus on Second Amendment doctrine would be a mistake - SCOTUSblog
Joseph Blocher is Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law at Duke Law School, where he co-directs the Center for Firearms Law. Eric Ruben is Assistant Professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center Fellow. Along with Darrell A.H. Miller of Duke Law School, they filed an amicus brief i
www.scotusblog.com
This one is comical.
Basicly says that Heller has been ignored and abused for so long that its a consensus and ignoring it is settled law.
June4th
NES Member
We can legally tar&feather him as long as we can find a dozen or so people to form a consensus that she deserves it. Let’s go!Symposium: Disrupting the consensus on Second Amendment doctrine would be a mistake - SCOTUSblog
Joseph Blocher is Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law at Duke Law School, where he co-directs the Center for Firearms Law. Eric Ruben is Assistant Professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center Fellow. Along with Darrell A.H. Miller of Duke Law School, they filed an amicus brief i
This one is comical.
Basicly says that Heller has been ignored and abused for so long that its a consensus and ignoring it is settled law.
Last edited:
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,798
- Likes
- 36,274
The CT solicitor general Clare Kindall wrote a disgusting commentary on their amicus brief today. Paraphrased:
What other Constitution-enumerated natural human rights must you ask permission for, then hope they'll allow it outside the home, too? Who on earth says, "I only want rights in my house, so don't tread on me by expanding my rights to the public as well."? What a joke.
I think she's 100% correct. It shouldn't be a right outside the home. Let's follow back to the Bible as well as our guide. In many places, both old and New Testament, it states that wimmens should STFU outside the home. So, Claire, how'bout'it? 1A is only for your home - especially if you are penile-deficient.
That's an incorrect generalization of the Bible, a cheap straw man against Christians, completely unrelated to any argument Kindall made, and only alienating to some who are otherwise in agreement with your pro-2A stance. Please keep the religious debates where they belong.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,798
- Likes
- 36,274
LOL. Well someone needs their cranberry juice this morning. ROFL!!!!
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
Dadstoys
NES Member
The right to keep and BARE arms darling.
Maybe English isn't her first language.
Maybe English isn't her first language.
BigGreen2000
NES Member
Is mootness now the final word on this case? So how many more 2A cases have to be sent up the chain of command before something changes?
No, this case has a hearing for arguments scheduled for December 2nd. What comes out that, who knows.
Latest filings:
The first is our side, the 2nd is NYC's weasel letter.
Latest filings:
The first is our side, the 2nd is NYC's weasel letter.
Last edited:
KBCraig
NES Member
Quoted for irony.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,236
- Likes
- 27,581
Well, I guess we know where he stands on the open vs concealed debate
Who is this about?
Dadstoys
NES Member
Did I need to put in a sarcasm tag ?
With five older sisters in the house you can learn to like cranberry juice.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
NSFW a couple of them type words.
“bear” not “bare”
Dadstoys
NES Member
Yes I know lol.
Starts tomorrow. Interested to see what happens.
www.google.com
SCOTUS Is Hearing Its First Big Gun Case in 9 Years. Here's How It Might Play Out.
On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on a major gun rights case for the first time in almost a decade. The case was brought in 2013 by the New York Pistol and Rifle Association, an advocacy group located outside of Albany, against New York City. The association argues that a New...
www.google.com
All on Yahoo when first logging in:
news.yahoo.com
news.yahoo.com
news.yahoo.com
U.S. Supreme Court weighs challenge to New York gun transport limits
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first major gun rights case in nearly a decade on Monday in a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association over a now-amended New York City handgun regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns outside the city. The nine...
Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions
The nation's highest court may be on the verge of expanding gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade. What's surprising is how it got there.
Why the National Sheriffs' Association wants the Supreme Court to strike down NYC's gun transportation rules
Sheriff Greg Champagne, past president of the National Sheriffs' Association, explains.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
The way the Antis are loosing their minds over this, it makes me think it might really be something big, like Heller Big.
Supreme Court: Gun Laws Save Lives Rally
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543
Rally with a coalition of gun violence prevention groups in front of the Supreme Court of the United States in support of gun safety. Oral arguments will be heard on the morning of December 2nd in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. The NRA wants the Supreme Court to roll back progress made at the ballot box and in state legislatures. Join us and stand up against the NRA's extreme approach that threatens our constitutional rights, our lives, and public safety!
Supreme Court: Gun Laws Save Lives Rally
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543
| When: | Monday, December 2, 9:00 AM |
|---|
Nice for them to be afraid for once about rights being restored and protected instead of being smug about stomping all over and taking away said rights.
No more may issue and affirming a right to bear outside the home would be great.
No more may issue and affirming a right to bear outside the home would be great.
The law at issue is small potatoes. Even a lot of antis think that the NYC law is unduly onerous, and doesn't serve a legitimate public safety interest. They think that anyone who can jump through the hoops required to get a NYC premises handgun permit isn't going to pose a public safety issue by transporting it, unloaded, in a locked container to some other location.
What the Antis are afraid of is that SCOTUS will say that "strict scrutiny" is to be applied to regulations that impact Second Amendment rights. "Strict scrutiny", as many will know, means that the law has to achieve a legitimate public-policy interest and has to use the least restrictive means possible to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny is most commonly applied in cases where a law disparately affects a suspect class on the basis of something like race, religion, or national origin, but there's also precedent for applying it where a law affects a fundamental right. And Heller and McDonald have established the RTKBA as such.
What many courts have instead been applying to gun cases post-Heller has been some form of "intermediate scrutiny" where they perform a balancing test of "how much does this really infringe on someone's rights versus how much does this reduce gun violence." Some other lower courts have applied strict scrutiny. The level of scrutiny to be applied is one of the things that SCOTUS needs to sort out.
If it turns out that SCOTUS says that strict scrutiny is to be applied, it provides excellent grounds for throwing out a lot of the more restrictive firearms laws around the country. Feature-based assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, and burdensome processes to obtain a license to possess a firearm in one's own home may all fall. So may "non-issue" and "whimsical issue" policies for licenses to carry a firearm, if someone successfully brings a Peruta type case to court that says that the "and bear" part of 2A is essentially meaningless without the ability to carry outside the home. All of *that* is what has the antis' underwear in a twist.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions
The nation's highest court may be on the verge of expanding gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade. What's surprising is how it got there.
www.usatoday.com
Desperately biased but interesting to see the panic in all the gun-grabbers quotes - and a token quote from Gottlieb, just to show the author is writing a balanced article,
Reference therein to Duke Firearms Law Center and a book entitled The Positive Second Amendment published over a year ago with only a single Amazon review Amazon product ASIN 1316611280View: https://www.amazon.com/Positive-Second-Amendment-Regulation-Cambridge/dp/1316611280It must be deep scholarly stuff nobody can figure out how to use...
The authors here discussing their work. Definitely a flavor of doubt based on their rejection of self-defense as the “animating” theory of the 2nd Amendment, with safety, autonomy and anti-tyranny their preferred theories. All three of which can more readily be dismissed than self-defense. I’ll admit I chuckled at their point on tyranny - what kinds of guns would you need to address tyranny? Dangerous and unusual ones. And where would you take them? Government buildings. All excepted in Heller...
They also note that most gun owners never have to use a gun in self-defense - they think most intra-personal gun use is by criminals. There they are quite wrong - *use* of a gun in self-defense does not require firing of a weapon. That’s the part they all miss - guns have a cost AND a benefit.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GFLlypBfA_4
Last edited:
Best case they demand strict scrutiny. Even then the lower courts ignore them and its business as usual.
Dadstoys
NES Member
Hope they are puckering.
This is what happens when you over reach.
Paying attention Maura ?
This is what happens when you over reach.
Paying attention Maura ?
