SCOTUS NY Oral arguments.

[Justin///M]

I'm sure there's a thread about this case somewhere, but looking back 2 pages didn't see one, so I thought I would post this here. Here's the link to the oral arguments in the NY State rifle and pistol vs NYC case where the city is trying to get them to dismiss it based on "mootness."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-280_m64o.pdf




I really like the questioning starting around page 60ish, particularly the questioning about "reasonably necessary" on 64-65.., they have no fucking idea how the decide "reasonably necessary". What gives the state the right to decide what's reasonably necessary for me at all? Their whole argument appears to be "it's up to the cop!" I believe it will come down to Roberts, again, whether or not this goes forward.

[Justin///M]

Page 7-8 are really frustrating too. It demonstrates how inefficient our judicial system is. I guess no one ever claimed it was perfect. The anti's are basically saying you have to start over again with litigating the new laws, this case is moot. How frustrating.

[Justin///M]

"JUSTICE GORSUCH: -- it arise -- why
isn't the dispute still alive from the old law
if that's a form of relief they would have
sought and is still, despite the new law, being
denied them? Isn't that a classic definition of
relief that was sought but now still -- despite
herculean, late-breaking efforts to moot the
case, still alive?"

[Justin///M]

JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the
-- are people in New York less safe now as a
result of the enactment of the new city and
state laws than they were before?

MR. DEARING: We -- we -- no, I don't
think so. We made a judgment expressed by our
police commissioner that -- that it was
consistent with public safety to repeal the
prior rule and to move forward without it.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not
less safe, then what possible justification
could there have been for the old rule, which
you have abandoned?

MR. DEARING: It was a reasonable --
as we've outlined in our briefs, it was a
reasonable implementation of the -- of the state
premises license, carry license division. I
think -- and we've explained that there was --
was a verification benefit to the way that that
rule was set up. That verification benefit
perhaps has not played out as much in practice
as it had been predicted, and we believe the
police can work harder and make sure that the city stays safe.


JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the
Second Amendment permits the imposition of a
restriction that has no public safety benefit?




Haha I love Alito.

[streaker69]

Please point to where the 2nd amendment permits imposition regardless of public safety benefit.

[Justin///M]

JUSTICE GINSBURG: One -- one problem
with the prior regulation, if you wanted to have
a gun in your second home, you had to buy a
second gun. And what public safety or any other
reasonable end is served by saying you have to
have two guns instead of one and one of those
guns has to be maintained in a place that is
often unoccupied and that, therefore, more
vulnerable to theft?
MR. DEARING: I think that the -- the
question on second homes, there Petitioners have
identified a difficult application of our former
rule that wasn't really contemplated when the
rule was -- was adopted.




They're on record as to not thinking through their stupid regulations.

[eagleclaw]

I like the way NYC changed the law in question to avoid it going to the SCOTUS.

[DK23]

I like the way NYC changed the law in question to avoid it going to the SCOTUS.

And said it wasn't unconstitutional.

[Justin///M]

Unfortunately it probably worked. It's probably going to be dismissed on mootness.

[lts1ow]

Unfortunately it probably worked. It's probably going to be dismissed on mootness.

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.