SCOTUS Schedules NY State Rifle & Pistol Association Case for December 2

[Amp]

The US Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for December 2 for the much anticipated New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case. This case has the potential for setting back gun control in America by a couple of generations, bringing us closer to the original meaning of the Second Amendment.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/scotus-schedules-ny-state-rifle-pistol-association-case-for-december-2/

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190920/us-supreme-court-schedules-nra-supported-second-amendment-case-for-argument

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is really a nail biter. I'm no lawyer, but I fear the associated blather with a decision. If the court simply says the NYC law is unconstitutional and that's it, it's a mild victory but with little impact. If it says that the law is unconstitutional but produces some ambiguous blather like Heller, it will be a loss as that will be used in lower court cases. Those build precedent against gun rights. Some claim Heller was unambiguous but it was not clear and as the article points out, didn't change the behavior of the tougher states on gun laws. It certainly didn't stop the onset of AWB type laws.

I also hate to see:
– for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense.

The self-defense aspect can be used against higher cap semis in long arms and handguns. 5 is enough will convince many to say - that's all you get. Claiming Heller didn't allow AR bans - well, in practice that's not true. Maybe SCOTUS will take a case on this - who knows and who knows how Roberts will go.

I would hope that the decision if positive is expansive enough to wipe out the may issue laws.

[RoyGBiv]

I would hope that the decision if positive is expansive enough to wipe out the may issue laws.
This case is more "Heller" than "Peruta (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf)". (link opens PDF of Justice Thomas' dissent of cert. denial in Peruta :mad:)
I doubt concealed carry licensing will be impacted here, but I can hope. We need to resurrect Peruta for the current court.

[MAP]

The best outcome would be an unambiguous Strict Scrutiny standard of review for all 2A cases.

Mike

[joshs]

This case is more "Heller" than "Peruta (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf)". (link opens PDF of Justice Thomas' dissent of cert. denial in Peruta :mad:)
I doubt concealed carry licensing will be impacted here, but I can hope. We need to resurrect Peruta for the current court.

They already have a carry outside the home case pending: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

[LorenzoS]

An outcome affirming that strict scrutiny applies to the 2A would be the best outcome, as would a clarification that the individual right to bear arms applies outside the home. Both of those could mean the reversal of scores of lower court decisions deprecating the right since Heller. A decision that rejects those concepts could render the right effectively meaningless. There is a lot at stake.

[RoyGBiv]

Thanks joshs

In searching for details on the Rogers case, I cam across an few months old pondering on AmmoLand.
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/scotus-holding-new-jersey-carry-case-pending-decision/

In any event, we believe that the holding of Rogers is ultimately a serious and positive sign — a sign that the high court intends to finally and definitively address critical Second Amendment issues, including right to carry. But instead of doing it in one sweeping case, it appears that it is going to occur through several cases over a slightly longer period of time. Rogers appears to be one of those cases.

And for those not familiar with the Rogers particulars...
https://www.guns.com/news/2019/02/20/supreme-court-signals-interest-in-new-jersey-concealed-carry-challenge

Rogers, according to court documents, meets all the guidelines under New Jersey state law to obtain a permit — but cannot show evidence of a direct or specific threat to his life. In other words, even though he was threatened and robbed at gunpoint in the past and currently manages an ATM business, a job that requires him to service machines in high-crime areas, police say he does not have a justifiable need to carry a gun. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, joined with attorneys general and governors from 22 other states, are now on his side, and have filed a supporting amicus brief last month urging the high court to take up his case.

[ssb]

If memory serves, they're supposed to decide the mootness question next Tuesday, the 2nd. Regardless of the outcome, the op-ed section of your news outlet of choice ought to be "interesting" Wednesday.

My fear is that Roberts will see this as an opportunity to "preserve" the Court.

[ssb]

The Court denied NYC's suggestion of mootness. They did, however, order the parties to prepare to discuss that question at oral argument.

So, in English, the show goes on for now.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Roberts is the key vote. He goes for moot, then he can support gun control with the cover of technicalities. The next test, in the decision, as I said earlier is whether it is a limited decision or expansive. I'd bet Roberts would steer a positive decision for very limited.

Thus, if the case is supposed to a diagnostic for later expansive decision - that's unclear.

What is needed is a clear case that decisively nullifies and forbids weapons and mag bans, covering the semi auto platforms. Declaring them not dangerous and unusual and thus protected.

Then, a case that removes the existence of shall issue permitting for concealed carry and demanding timely (quick) processing of applications based only on a criminal background or mental health (adjudicated already) background. No shall issue.

Sadly, I don't see this happening in any time soon. Roberts would probably side with the Heller ambiguity and the lower court precedents that support gun control. I note that abortion and LGBTQ issues gets the court all hot and bothered to decide. Serious gun issues that enhance rights, not so much - unless, surprise the NYC case is very expansive (fat chance).

Could be wrong - the SC might declare two 10/22s in every pot.

[RoyGBiv]

What's needed is for RBG to retire gracefully so Roberts can be mooted by ACB!

[OlongJohnson]

Could be wrong - the SC might declare two 10/22s in every pot.

The Rifle On The Wall.

[Stephanie B]

It amazes me the number of people who seem to think that any Supreme Court decision settles things.

[revchuck38]

It amazes me the number of people who seem to think that any Supreme Court decision settles things.

Buncha damned lawyers, and you know how THEY are. :)