New York has frozen over-New York's May Issue for Good Cause violates 2A

[CAJUNLAWYER]

On October 10 the Supreme Court granted the Motion of the United States to participate in the November 3 Oral Argument. The time split will be:

30 minutes Petitioner in favor of carry permits
20 minutes to New York State against carry permits
15 minutes to United States against carry permits

30 minutes in favor; 35 minutes against..........
with experience in front of as well as behind the bench, oral argument rarely changes anyone's mind. It has already been put in writing by the voluminous filings and believe it or not Judges read that stuff.

 

[fordson]

30 minutes in favor; 35 minutes against..........
with experience in front of as well as behind the bench, oral argument rarely changes anyone's mind. It has already been put in writing by the voluminous filings and believe it or not Judges read that stuff.

Hmmm……. Then that doesn’t bode well as to a favorable out come(?).

 

[GaryS]

My layman's thought is that the Justices have a pretty good idea how they will vote before oral arguments. Sometimes a persuasive argument may change a vote, but I don't think it's very often.

OTOH, reading the tea leaves, that they granted cert after avoiding the issue for about a decade may bode well for the Plaintiffs.

One the other other hand, who knows until the decision is handed down?

30 minutes in favor; 35 minutes against..........
with experience in front of as well as behind the bench, oral argument rarely changes anyone's mind. It has already been put in writing by the voluminous filings and believe it or not Judges read that stuff.

 

[Racer X]

we won't know until we know.

 

[bushmaster1313]

One the other other hand, who knows until the decision is handed down?

^^^ This is certainly correct

However, my experience is that the Supreme Court typically takes cases to tell the lower courts that they are getting something wrong.

In this case, the lower Courts are treating the Second Amendment as a second class right and requiring citizens to prove that they can be forced to show why they should be allowed to exercise that right.

I see good reason to think there could be a resounding win for the Second Amendment.

But of course, we have no way of knowing in advance of the actual decision

 

[stansdds]

30 minutes in favor; 35 minutes against..........
with experience in front of as well as behind the bench, oral argument rarely changes anyone's mind. It has already been put in writing by the voluminous filings and believe it or not Judges read that stuff.

Exactly. In a similar vein, here in Virginia, localities are now allowed to pass their own firearms laws regarding carry and permitted concealed carry. Everywhere new restrictions are proposed, there is an overwhelming turnout by pro-gun advocates, yet city councils and county boards almost always enact new restrictions. Their minds are made up and the oral arguments are a show.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

In this case, the lower Courts are treating the Second Amendment as a second class right and requiring citizens to prove that they can be forced to show why they should be allowed to exercise that right.

AN old cajun friend of mine, long passed, put this view rather succinctly when told that the local ACLU would not support him in a pro gun protest. "&^CK&%^ liberals treat the 2nd amendment like a carbuncle on the bill of rights" Always remembered that....

 

[Wyo]

30 minutes in favor; 35 minutes against..........
with experience in front of as well as behind the bench, oral argument rarely changes anyone's mind. It has already been put in writing by the voluminous filings and believe it or not Judges read that stuff.

Yes, they do. I sat on 50 or so appeals with the Wyoming Supreme Court while I was on the District Court bench (in Wyoming, we filled in for justices that were recused for one reason or another) and I always read all the briefs. Caj is correct that oral arguments don't often change anyone's mind, but they do once in a while. Most of the cases we considered did not have oral argument. Those that did were carefully considered every time.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Petitioner’s Reply in support of the right to carry is here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/196419/20211014161918629_20-843%20NYSRPA%20Reply%20Brief%20FINAL.pdf

 

[fordson]

An extremely interesting read. Thanks much.

 

[ladder13]

Petitioner’s Reply in support of the right to carry is here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/196419/20211014161918629_20-843%20NYSRPA%20Reply%20Brief%20FINAL.pdf

They blew it out of the water, imo.

 

[WR Moore]

Maybe the most interesting part of oral arguments is the questioning by the Justices. Give them a chance to explore/illuminate absurdities in the agrgument. The rather droll "question" during Heller about having the guns locked up, etc is a good example. Words to the effect that: "Let's see if I have this straight. I hear a noise that wakes me up, I turn on the night stand light, reach for the gun safe, put on my reading glasses......." the court erupted in laughter.

 

[bushmaster1313]

On October 18 2921
Supreme Court fairly allocated argument time as follows
Petitioner 35 minutes
NY State 20 minutes
United States 15 minutes

 

[bushmaster1313]

Maybe the most interesting part of oral arguments is the questioning by the Justices. Give them a chance to explore/illuminate absurdities in the agrgument. The rather droll "question" during Heller about having the guns locked up, etc is a good example. Words to the effect that: "Let's see if I have this straight. I hear a noise that wakes me up, I turn on the night stand light, reach for the gun safe, put on my reading glasses......." the court erupted in laughter.

Transcript from Heller Argument here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2007/07-290.pdf

Above exchange about turning on the light and putting on the reading glasses starts at top of page 83 and carries on to page 84:

[page 83]
8 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So how long does it
9 take? If your interpretation is correct, how long does
it take to remove the trigger lock and make the gun
11 operable.
12 MR. DELLINGER: You -- you place a trigger
13 lock on and it has -- the version I have, a few -- you
14 can buy them at 17th Street Hardware -- has a code, like
a three-digit code. You turn to the code and you pull
16 it apart. That's all it takes. Even -- it took me 3
17 seconds.
18 JUSTICE SCALIA: You turn on, you turn on
19 the lamp next to your bed so you can -- you can turn the
knob at 3-22-95, and so somebody --
21 MR. DELLINGER: Well --
22 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it like that? Is
23 it a numerical code?
24 MR. DELLINGER: Yes, you can have one with a
25 numerical code.
[page 84]
1 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So then you turn on
2 the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses --
3 (Laughter.)

And for good measure, at page 88 Justice Scalia also plays with the government attorney:

[page 88]
7 JUSTICE SCALIA: You mean you can't have any
8 more arms than you would need to take with you to the
9 militia? You can't have a -- you can't have a -- you
know, a turkey gun and a duck gun and a 30.06 and a 270
11 and -- you know, different -- different hunting guns for
12 different --
13 MR. DELLINGER: Well --
14 JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't do that? I mean
a State could say you don't --
16 MR. DELLINGER: Of course you could do that.

 

[smoothshooter]

Not true

If Supreme Court says that New York must be Shall Issue something will change, at least in New York. Happened in D.C.

I would welcome anyone who posts here to comment on how easy it is to get a CCW Permit in DC since the SC ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I would welcome anyone who posts here to comment on how easy it is to get a CCW Permit in DC since the SC ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

This article from early 2020 says that thousands of permits were issued in DC.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/thousands-of-people-have-obtained-permits-to-carry-loaded-concealed-guns-in-public-in-dc/2020/03/13/c63415dc-6468-11ea-845d-e35b0234b136_story.html%3foutputType=amp

BTW and FYI
The decision in D.C. in favor of shall issue was by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Not the Supreme Court. It was widely reported that under pressure from anti-carry groups in New York and elsewhere, D.C. declined to appeal to the Supreme Court for fear the Supreme Court would take the case, uphold Shall Issue and set precedent across the country. IMHO, once the D.C. case was final, the Supreme Court was ready to decide shall issue for the rest of the country and that is why it decided to hear the New York State case

 

[bushmaster1313]

Oral argument in the New York carry permit case starts Wednesday November 3 at 10 AM ET

Later in the day on Wednesday the audio of the Oral argument will be available here:

Argument Audio

 

[vt_shooter]

Supreme court justices are asking great questions

"Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

"How many muggings take place in the forest?" Roberts asked.

Supreme court justices are asking great questions. Perhaps someday my Constitutional rights will be allowed to come with me when I visit NY.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

The good news there is that Roberts seems to have his head on straight for a change. He often doesn't.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Link to audio and transcript

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2021/20-843

Link to transcript
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/20-843_8n5a.pdf

This question from Justice Roberts will hopefully tell the story. He asked to the effect. “If I follow your logic then the place where it is most likely to need a permit is the place where you are least likely to get one.

Justice Roberts:

Now I would think that arises in more
5 populated areas. If you're out in the woods,
6 presumably, it's pretty unlikely that you're
7 going to run into someone who's going to rob you
8 on the street. On the other hand, there are
9 places in a -- in a densely populated city where
10 it's more likely that that's where you're going
11 to need a gun for self-defense and, you know,
12 however many policemen are assigned, that, you
13 know, there are high-crime areas.
14 And it seems to me that what you're
15 saying is that's probably the last place that
16 someone's going to get a permit to carry a gun.
17 How is that -- regardless of what we
18 think of the policy of that, how is that
19 consistent with Heller's reasoning that the
20 reason the Second Amendment applies a -- a
21 direct personal right is for self-defense?