Link to another aspect (?) of the caseWe 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.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdfBefore:GINSBURG, HENDERSON and KAVANAUGH,Circuit Judges.
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.
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.SLATE was referencing that BS John Hopkins Opinion paper that has been debunked.
Only to the notation that Kavanaugh was one of the 3 on the original appellate review of Heller.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.
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.
. . .
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)
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,
Capable of repetition yet evading review. That seems familiar. HHMMM.It's unlikely the case will be dismissed as moot before they have to file that brief, though.
My thoughts. And see below.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.
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.