[jrm]

That list of amici is who filed at the cert stage. I expect many more organizations will file at the merits stage. And some of the states might change, because their AGs changed in the mid-term elections.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

That list of amici is who filed at the cert stage. I expect many more organizations will file at the merits stage. And some of the states might change, because their AGs changed in the mid-term elections.

Hinting at any certain organizations important to those reading here?

 

[jrm]

Not really. I don't know that any organizations you describe would have any more to say than all the others that probably will jump in. I just imagine the list will get larger.

 

[tmoore912]

The Atlantic -
Supersizing the Second Amendment
The Supreme Court just took a case that could lead to yet more guns on the streets.

JAN 23, 2019 Garrett Epps
Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore

"It appears the votes are now there to supersize the Second Amendment's protection for guns," Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, told me.

He was referring to the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to grant review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York."

"The lower courts have been split on those issues, but the Supreme Court remained obdurately silent-until Tuesday.

Almost of necessity, the result is likely to give lower courts what they have lacked-a constitutional test that can be applied to a wide variety of handgun restrictions. And as Winkler suggested, the new conservative majority seems likely to create a test that will invalidate many local laws-and may in fact shred the entire fabric of state and local gun regulation."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ny-rifle-pistol-association-v-city-ny/581017/

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The Rifle & Pistol case begins, then, with four virtually certain votes against the New York law-the two newcomers, Thomas, and Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts voted for the gun owners in Heller and McDonald. He may have been trying to keep the Court out of the Second Amendment area for institutional reasons since then, but that's not likely to make him go back on his earlier votes when the time comes to throw down.

Same link as previous post; it's worth reading in its entirety.

 

[gunsmoker]

It doesn't look like an important case in and of itself.
If these licensed pistol owners in NY win, and "IF" their win is based on the 2nd Amd., it only proves that there is a constitutional right to transport a licensed and registered handgun, UNLOADED and LOCKED UP, between one's home and some gov't approved shooting range or gun club in a different city or county than where your license was issued.

Read what question of law SCOTUS granted cert on.

Anything the Justices may write in their future opinion that goes beyond what is necessary to resolve that narrow question is "dicta." Dicta in a court's opinion may or may not be followed by other courts, or even a future iteration of SCOTUS. It's not controlling.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/18-00280qp.pdf

 

[gunsmoker]

But, it WOULD BE a step, a building block, a foundation from which to grow a body of constitutional caselaw putting some real respect and power into the 2A.

 

[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

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

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

I bet both nuts, my c*** and prostate that this won't happen. If it does, I'll be the happiest eunuch around.

 

[Clark]

I bet both nuts, my c*** and prostate that this won't happen. If it does, I'll be the happiest eunuch around.

Then I hope you'll have a snippity-doo-dah kind of a day one day.

 

[Nemo]

YO Moe, start honing up a good blade.

Nemo

 

[gunsmoker]

He'll be the kind of eunuch that Gregory Hines portrayed in Mel Brooks' History of The World Part 1.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

It doesn't look like an important case in and of itself.
If these licensed pistol owners in NY win, and "IF" their win is based on the 2nd Amd., it only proves that there is a constitutional right to transport a licensed and registered handgun, UNLOADED and LOCKED UP, between one's home and some gov't approved shooting range or gun club in a different city or county than where your license was issued.

Read what question of law SCOTUS granted cert on.

Anything the Justices may write in their future opinion that goes beyond what is necessary to resolve that narrow question is "dicta." Dicta in a court's opinion may or may not be followed by other courts, or even a future iteration of SCOTUS. It's not controlling.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/18-00280qp.pdf

The constitutional right to travel is a big, big deal, and that is one of the questions presented.

Yes, they are doing it in baby steps, but I remember the same criticism of Heller. Presenting it in baby steps is why the court took the case.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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

Is there a likely scenario where the Supreme Court yet again adopts no standard of review? Perhaps they hold that there is some right outside the home to transport a locked, unloaded firearm, consistent with the right to travel, the (dormant) Commerce Clause, and the Second Amendment, but that New York's ban on all travel outside the city needs no standard of review, because it is a complete and utter ban, and thus unconstitutional no matter what standard is used?

They need not address transporting such weapons inside the city, because that is permitted.

 

[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.

. . .

 

[moe mensale]

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

I predict that the court's conservative majority will use this case to expand gun rights.

There will be no expansion of gun rights. Our gun rights are fully explained in the 2nd Amendment. What there will be is a reduction of government infringements against those rights.

 

[moe mensale]

YO Moe, start honing up a good blade.

Nemo

I have a few sharp blades but that's not my bag. Maybe Rabbi Tuckman is available.

 

[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)