SCOTUS NY Oral arguments.

[Justin///M]

Never know, and from what I have read there are a few other pro 2A cases waiting behind it.

Maybe this Trump train will get us something nice before running off the cliff.

My hope is the fact that they could have not heard this on mootness before yesterday but they demanded to hear it. Why would they do it? I'm just skiddish on Roberts.

[Ecclectic Collector]

Interesting. Justice Ginsburg was one of the ones who pursued a question critical of the nature of the law. Perhaps the Supreme Court will pass on ruling giving in to the mootness line of reasoning. I hope they'll see through New York's transparent effort to use the mootness arguement to put in place some other rule which violates the Second Amendment in a similar manner.

A supreme court ruling similar to Heller is needed here to quash NY city's unreasonable and arbitrary rules and the city knows they'll lose if this gets a ruling to force them to be more reasonable.

[ImminentDanger]

If the defendants can simply 'temporarily' amend the situation to make the case 'moot', then Mr Clement's point is well taken:

"if this Court starts accepting these kind of post-certiorari maneuvers, it's going to be very hard for the Court to continue"

New York is playing a cat & mouse game with gun owners and the USSC.

First they restrict gun owner's rights, which makes them spend time and money to get the case to the USSC*, then NY modifies the situation to claim the case is 'moot' in order to avoid establishing the rights of the gun owners, and once the case is dismissed, they can go right back to imposing more restrictions. When another case is taken up through the courts, the previous 'moot' condition is claimed as precedent to dismiss the succeeding case when they modify the situation again...

Cat & Mouse!


* Mr Clement:
"five years of history in this litigation"
"The way the lower courts have interpreted Heller is like text, history, and tradition is a one-way ratchet. If text, history, and tradition sort of allow this practice, then they'll uphold the law. But if text, history, and tradition are to the contrary, then the courts proceed to a watered-down form of scrutiny that's heightened in name only. And I think this Court should reaffirm that text, history, and tradition essentially is the test and can be administered in a way that provides real protection for Second Amendment rights."

Mr Wall (DepSG):
"You don't have any acknowledgment from the city that its former conduct was unconstitutional, and you have a representation that comes, as Mr. Clement said in his letter, at the 11th and a half hour."

Justice Gorsuch (to NYC defendant):
"But you're asking us to say that there is no controversy now. So I am trying to just nail down exactly what is the delta, if any, remaining in the relief that might have been sought and the relief you've provided."

Justice Alito: "it follows that the Second Amendment, under at least some circumstances, protects the possession of a handgun outside the home. Isn't that correct?"
Mr Dearing (NYC defendant attorney): "I think --I think that's a fair way to look at it, that --that -that --but --but, from our perspective,"

Mr Clement:
"we wouldn't have to rely on the city's representation about state law because we could have an injunction that enforced the Second Amendment."

"The city took it on itself in Section 7 of the new regs to tell you what they at least at that point thought was sufficiently direct, which is continuous and uninterrupted."


...

[middlefinger]

.

If you remember 5 dimm senators Threatened the Supreme Court not to take up this case

In a case where the National Rifle Association is suing the City of New York, 5 U.S. Senators decide to put their signatures to a letter to the Supreme Court telling the entire panel of judges they are not well and have become too political.


In what is know in legal terms as an Amicus brief, consisting of 25 pages, SENATORS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,MAZIE HIRONO,RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, RICHARD DURBIN, AND KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND essentially write out this diatribe.



Brief here; https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/im...s%20FINAL).pdf

So, we have a legislative branch essentially threatening the Supreme Court. Consider the implications here and read on. Maybe even take notes.

These senators state the court itself needs to heal.

In part: With bare partisan majorities, the Court has influenced sensitive areas like voting rights, partisan gerrymandering, dark money, union power, regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights and discrimination in the workplace.

Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioner’s ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court.

Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a“project”to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gun-safety regulations.

Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law, the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation

Every single time, the corporate and Republican political interests prevailed.

The pattern of outcomes is striking; and so is the frequency with which these 5-4 majorities disregarded“conservative” judicial principles like judicial restraint, originalism, stare decisis, and even federalism.

Today, fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics”(up five percent from last year);fifty-nine percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”;and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.

”Quinnipiac Poll, supranote 2. To have the public believe that the Court’s pattern of outcomes is the stuff of chance(or “the requirements of the law,”The Supreme Court is not well.

And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss. Respectfully submitted,

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

https://founderscode.com/5-senators-...supreme-court/

[middlefinger]

.

Michael Bloomberg Attacks NRA Over NYC Gun Law Challenge




AP Photo/Rick Scuteri

As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a challenge to a New York City gun law, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is out with a self-serving op/ed in which he correctly notes the stakes of the case, but spins almost every other fact to try to fit his anti-gun worldview and benefit his presidential campaign.

Bloomberg begins by calling the lawsuit both absurd and dangerous, and attacks the NRA for challenging the law limiting where New York City gun owners can transport their handguns.

The NRA, it’s worth noting, is supporting the challenge, but it was actually brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. Bloomberg, who’s now running for president, needs the NRA as his bad guy and not the state-level Second Amendment organization, so he engages in a bit of misinformation right up front.

The lawsuit is absurd, he says, because the law in question has already been changed by the city, and dangerous because of the fact that a Supreme Court decision could have an impact on other gun control laws around the country.

At issue is a New York City regulation that is no longer on the books. The regulation (enacted by the Police Department before I served as mayor) restricted gun owners from transporting their guns to shooting ranges outside the city.

It imposed an unnecessary restriction on gun owners’ ability to visit ranges — and it was rightly rescinded. In fact, the state adopted a law prohibiting any locality from adopting a similar rule. And that should’ve closed the case. But the NRA wouldn’t take “yes” for an answer.

Although the case is clearly moot, lawyers for the NRA will try to convince the Supreme Court on Monday that it should proceed. Why? It’s simple: They hope the court will use it as an opening to wipe out basic gun safety laws around the country.

Bloomberg engages in even more revisionist history here, all in an attempt to demonstrate his supposed reasonableness. If he really believed that the law in question imposed an unnecessary restriction on gun owners’ ability to visit ranges, why didn’t he do anything about the law when he was mayor?

He had three terms to rescind the rule if he really thought it was unfair, but Bloomberg kept the law on the books and made it his mission to crack down even harder on legal gun owners in the city.

The truth is, Bloomberg and every other gun control advocate had no problem with the New York City law until the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge to it.

That’s when the city changed the regulations in an attempt to moot the case.

It wasn’t done because politicians suddenly realized this regulation infringed on the rights of gun owners. It was done in a transparent attempt to avoid court scrutiny and allow the Supreme Court to weigh in once more in support of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That’s what’s really bugging Bloomberg.

As it turns out, the Supreme Court will consider the mootness issue during the oral arguments, but plaintiffs attorney Paul Clement has a two-pronged argument for why the Court should continue to hear the case.

First, he notes that the city’s changes don’t address all of the issues raised by the lawsuit, but even if they did, he argues, the city could simply revert back to its old policy once the Court dismissed the challenge.

The city hasn’t acted in good faith in changing the law, so why should we believe it would act in good faith once the law was no longer threatened?

Michael Bloomberg does his best to paint a scary future for the country if the Court proceeds with the case.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the NRA will undoubtedly argue that state regulations requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm are unconstitutional.

While all 50 states allow concealed carry, many have carefully considered laws designed to protect the public and ensure an argument at the mall or movie theater doesn’t turn into a shootout.

In Illinois, for instance, local police may object to the issuance of a permit if they know the applicant is a danger to themselves or others.

And permit applicants must be 21 years of age or older, possess a valid firearm owner’s identification, take a course involving gun range instruction and pass a marksmanship test.

Here Bloomberg trots out the prospect of future gun cases in order to scare the suburban soccer moms of America.

It may be that one day the NRA would try to bring such a case to the Supreme Court, but before we ever get to that point we’re more likely to see the Supreme Court take up a case dealing with “good cause” requirements for concealed carry licenses, like the ones in New York City and a handful of states.

The Court already has several challenges to “good cause” requirements that it’s been holding over in conference, and even if the Court were to dismiss the New York City case, as Bloomberg wants, the Court could just as easily grant cert to another Second Amendment case.

Bloomberg’s also exaggerating the ability to obtain a concealed carry license in these states.

It’s not that the states have laws “designed to protect the public”, it’s that they have laws preventing the average citizen from exercising their constitutional rights.

Of course now that Bloomberg’s running for president, his op/ed finishes with a pitch to voters.

As president, I will appoint judges who understand that the Second Amendment allows for common sense limits on gun ownership.

I’ve spent 15 years working to build a national coalition that is capable of taking on the NRA and winning — and I’m glad to say that we now have the NRA on the ropes.

That may be one reason why the NRA is hoping the court will save it.

As much as Bloomberg wants to make this about him and the NRA, it’s not.


It’s about a New York City gun law that he now says was unnecessary but kept in place for three full terms, and the opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide some much needed guidance to lower courts about the proper standard of review when considering challenges to gun control laws.

The NRA and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association aren’t looking for the Supreme Court to save their organizations, but to protect the Second Amendment from politicians like him.

https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/1...7Qae3EcF2H_9b8

[PhillyT]

Don't trust Justice Roberts here.

[middlefinger]

.

NYT Begs SCOTUS: Throw out Case Instead of Ruling Against Gun Control


The New York Times editorial board is asking the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to toss out a challenge against New York City gun control rather than rule against the controls at the center of the challenge.

Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS was hearing a challenge to the NYC gun control on Monday, December 1, 2019. The gun control prohibited licensed firearm owners from transporting their firearms to all but seven city-approved gun ranges.

On December 2, 2019, the NYT editorial board begged SCOTUS to discard the case, pointing to the fact that NYC repealed their gun control when it became evident that SCOTUS would take the case.

The editorial board contends “sanity and common sense” now compel the dismissal of the case altogether.

At the same time, they argue that the DC. v. Heller (2008) decision allowed room for municipal gun controls.

They say, “Lower courts have read the Heller opinion as permitting all manner of gun-control measures, including bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.”


The editorial board’s argument ignores the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decision, which struck down a city-wide gun ban on the basis that Second Amendment rights are incorporated. Such incorporation prohibits city and state governments from infringing on gun rights just as it prohibits the federal government from infringing as well.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...t-gun-control/

[GOYABEAN]

https://n.pr/37WWvm9

[t1066]

https://n.pr/37WWvm9

That is NPR and Nina Totenberg. She is wishing and hoping.

[Pilot321]

Don't trust Justice Roberts here.

That's my greatest fear with any case.