[Nemo]

in a gun case, from NYC dealing with guns.

I caught that much from a news report just as I turned the tv on.

I can find nothing googling stuff in the past half hour.

Release the hounds!

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

Been searching for half hour or so prior to above, but FOUND IT!

Nemo

Source Cite
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/18

Internal link from Above
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012219zor_8759.pdf
Page 3

CERTIORARI GRANTED
18-280
NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

Link to case being heard.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1716013.html

Paragraph summarizing holding of CA 2 from cite directly above.

We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York's law regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite scrutiny. One further specific provision-Connecticut's prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615-unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, and REVERSE in part its holding with respect to the Remington. With respect to the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness holdings, and we otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and invalidated the load limit.

Link to another aspect (?) of the case

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/sup...gun-rights-case-on-transporting-handguns.html

 

[Nemo]

IIRC, Kavanaugh dissented in a case from the DC CoA that basically banned semi-auto rifles. He argued they should be available and were one in common use. Feinstein made some arguments on that during his confirmation hearing.

It really could be a big one.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

A link from the Slate article cited above. Note the Judges hearing it.

Nemo

Before:GINSBURG, HENDERSON and KAVANAUGH,Circuit Judges.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

I was unaware Kavanaugh heard Heller.

 

[Nemo]

Last paragraph from the Slate article cited above.

Say it is so Brett, say it is!

Nemo

Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. Lower courts, now packed with pro-gun Trump nominees, will swiftly tear down restrictions on concealed and open carry. A central premise of Heller and McDonald-that the Second Amendment protects handguns "in the home"-will be cast aside. New York State Rifle will be the first shot in a coming constitutional revolution.

 

[Nemo]

SLATE was referencing that BS John Hopkins Opinion paper that has been debunked.

We know. Slate is a ultra left wing radical Trump is the devil incarnate magazine that if you do not bow to their beliefs you are mentally defective and should be denied your excessive use of oxygen.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

Nemo, that second circuit case you linked above - it has nothing at all to do with this, does it? I spent all yesterday evening thinking that the S.Ct was taking up an "assault weapon ban" Second Amendment case.

Only to the notation that Kavanaugh was one of the 3 on the original appellate review of Heller.

I had never made or realized that connection.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

The most powerful and compelling decision they can make on this is the standard of review. Presumably they will go with the Strict Scrutiny level.

Many courts have tried to put 2A on a mid level review. The simple change would bring many many anti-gun laws crashing down.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

YO Moe, start honing up a good blade.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

That could occur. But even permitting your scenario I suggest a standard of review would be necessary for issuance of a permit and denial of that permit. A permit is required now and would be for outside the home carry. I am not familiar with NYC statutes but I am confident they have some type of standard for issuance of that permit.

Outside the home carry for other than to and from the range would in effect be expanding Heller. Permits are required in the case now for ownership and to/from range carry and I submit standards of issuance/denial/limits on/of carry permits would be/are now necessary.

Heller says home defense/self protection is constitutionally protected and this (imho) would expand that self defense right to outside the home. That would demand no locked up, unloaded requirement.

I submit if they decide that way, Constitutional Carry or a shall issue system could easily become nationwide. I think it could permit state requirements of open or concealed carry but little more.

It would also result in a myriad of litigation as to limits on the carry places, what could revoke firearm ownership and carry rights and restoration of rights.

Let us say a prayer that RBG retires and ACB get nominated and confirmed over the before 1 Oct 19. And the rest of the vacant federal bench seats be filled soon. Very soon.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

New York Daily News.

Nemo

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion...wn-new-york-citys-gun-law-20190123-story.html

Why the Supreme Court will almost surely strike down New York City's gun law

By Robert Spitzer
Jan 24, 2019 | 9:59 AM

Any attempt to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case is, at least, a risky business. But I will offer a prediction for the outcome of the case recently accepted for review by the high court, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. City of New York. It will strike the law down, to give gun rights groups a small but meaningful victory they desperately crave.

In this case, a gun group is challenging a New York City rule that says city resident "premises" pistol permit holders (that is, the license allows for handgun possession at home, but not to carry, for which a separate "carry" permit is needed) cannot transport their guns for target shooting practice outside of the city, which has a total of seven target ranges. So a handgun owner is not allowed to transport the gun to a target range in Long Island, say, or New Jersey.

. . .

 

[Nemo]

There was someone around here who made blades as a profession. Who was that?

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

Another view on the pending case and outcome.

Nemo

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sec...supreme-court-decides-to-hear-a-critical-case

Second Amendment
Published 3 hours ago
Second Amendment supporters rejoice as Supreme Court decides to hear a critical case
By Frank Miniter | Fox News

At the SHOT Show in Las Vegas this past week - an annual trade show put on by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) - the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to finally hear another Second Amendment case is the second thing everyone is talking about - the first being the coolest and smartest new gun designs being unveiled.

Everyone except Larry Keane that is. He's the senior vice president and general counsel for the NSSF, and for him, the court's decision is first and foremost on his mind. "With the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, this case could be decisive," says Keane.

. . .

The Second Amendment protects a right to "bear arms," as in to carry them. Our Second Amendment rights don't end at our front doors. The Heller and McDonald decisions upheld this basic right. Now it's up to the Supreme Court to insist that law-abiding citizens get to utilize it.

(bold in article added)

 

[Nemo]

I knew the author of the article cited above was about looney very soon after I started reading it.

Radical. Need I say more?

Nemo

To begin with, this will be the first time the Court seriously considers the Second Amendment since it adopted a radical view of gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller,

 

[Nemo]

Look at the result and subsequent filings in the Palmer v DC case a couple years back. The one that made DC shall issue rather than may issue.

CA, MA, and the rest of the may issue states with DC decided to let it die there and DC take the hit rather than take it to SCOTUS and all the may issue states get spanked into shall issue states.

Nemo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia

 

[Nemo]

Looks like NYC is hauling out to avoid getting busted in a case that could (unlikely) but could make regular carry (open or concealed, decided by state) nationwide.

Then we would be fighting the idea of $500 permits and $1000 classes and insurance and lots of requirements like that.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

It's unlikely the case will be dismissed as moot before they have to file that brief, though.

Capable of repetition yet evading review. That seems familiar. HHMMM.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

Like the comments in the Roe v Wade case. Capable of repetition yet evading review.

Nemo

 

[Nemo]

Someone here raised capable of repetition yet evading review. I don't really see how that applies. I won't go into it here, but that's really for a different set of facts than what we have here.

My thoughts. And see below.

Nemo

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket... NYSRPA suggestion of mootness opposition.pdf

p. 23

While the City blithely insists that "t does not matter that this Court's grant of certiorari contributed to NYPD's decision to amend its rules," SM.13-14, this Court has in fact cautioned that "postcertiorari maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court must be viewed with a critical eye." Knox, 567 U.S. at 307. And rightly so, both because a court with discretionary jurisdiction cannot be indifferent to efforts to frustrate its review, and because the motivations behind actions designed to moot a case speak directly to whether effectual relief could be granted and unconstitutional conduct could recur. When the party asserting mootness is engaged in an unabashed effort to preclude this Court from issuing a binding decision that would declare its longstanding practices unconstitutional and compel it to change its ways going forward, it should be plain that injunctive relief remains available, effectual, and necessary. That is precisely the case here.

 

[Nemo]

Ill put a nickel it is not dismissed as moot and continues through the argument/decision process.

Nemo