Supreme Court to hear challenge to NY ordinance

[Rpg]

The Supreme Court will hear its second 2nd amendment case since Heller.

Supreme Court Will Hear Second Amendment Case - The New York Times

The NY ordinance is almost certainly toast (the Court wouldn't take the case unless it was likely to overturn the appeals court decision).

It will be interesting to see the Court's reasoning in its ultimate decision on this one: the reasoning will inform us as to the Court's direction on the 2nd.

 

[10ring]

I am happy to see the SCOTUS taking up a Second Amendment case at this time in its makeup, and am hopeful the outcome will be useful to us. Unfortunately, it is a somewhat weird case (as in so many of the gun rights issues in that part of the country). Overall, this looks like a decent case for them to review. Perhaps the biggest issue we should watch for is how the Court deals with the lower court's conclusions that strict scrutiny does not apply accept in a narrow range of restrictions on gun rights. If we could get a ruling that clarifies strict scrutiny does apply more broadly than the lower courts are saying, that could have some meaningful benefits to us all.

I am hopeful the court will soon address some lower court rulings out there that have concluded the Second Amendment applies to guns in the home but not in public.

I hope the Court does the right thing in this case.

 

[dockmurgw]

I wish the best of luck to NY. I love Justice Thomas's comments in the linked article, hopefully this is a sign that his fellow Justices are listening to him, and they will start to hear more of these cases in the future. We must take advantage of this window of opportunity we have with the SCOTUS...give to the NRA, give until it hurts, we have to stop the pattern of high school students dictating gun control laws.

 

[stansdds]

I'm sure hoping for a favorable outcome for our rights.

 

[bushmaster1313]

This case is about a uniquely restrictive New York City ordinance which prevents lawful handgun owners from taking their guns outside of New York City.

To me the real issue is whether the Supreme Court will finally consider and hold that the 2A protects the right of every citizen to bear arms outside the home for self defense without a showing of a particular individualized need. In other words, shall issue versus may issue. Unfortunately, the case from New York City is not the proper case to decide this issue.

There is a case out of New Jersey, Rogers v. Grewal, on the right to carry. Maybe the Supreme Court wants to consider that case along with the New York City case. If so, you heard it here first.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I'm gonna disagree. I see this as a potential expansion of Heller's ruling in favor of the right to bear arms in the home compared to the right to bear arms outside the home. Ginsburg's ability to participate will be important, although with Kavanaugh, there may be five solid remand votes regardless . . .

This case is about a uniquely restrictive New York City ordinance which prevents lawful handgun owners from taking their guns outside of New York City.

To me the real issue is whether the Supreme Court will finally consider and hold that the 2A protects the right of every citizen to bear arms outside the home for self defense without a showing of a particular individualized need. In other words, shall issue versus may issue. Unfortunately, the case from New York City is not the proper case to decide this issue.

 

[bushmaster1313]

^^^ Maybe the Supreme Court does want a case where it can thread the needle and rule that there is a right to self defense outside the home, but without having to decide the messy question of shall versus may issue.

In particular, New York City residents have the right to carry in places that require no permit, like Vermont. The Supreme Court could hold the New York City ordinance unconstitutional on the ground that it restricts New York City residents from exercising their right to carry for self defense — in Vermont!

 

[Muss Muggins]

The issue with the above proposal is that the subject of the action needs some standing in the matter. In other words, somebody in that situation, a homeowner in New York with property in Vermont, has to bring the cause forward. It's unlikely that the Court will do so on its own motion, even with an amicus brief . . .

 

[bushmaster1313]

Some useful links and info:
(The "Petitioners" are the pro 2A parties asking the Supreme Court to hear the Appeal and declare the New York City ordinance unconstitutional)

Petitioners' Brief Asking For Supreme Court to Hear the Appeal

The exact question presented to the Supreme Court:

Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed,
locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting
range outside city limits is consistent with the Second
Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the
constitutional right to travel.

Amicus Brief of certain states who side with the Petitioners

Amicus Brief of certain law enforcement association who side with the Petitioners

Amicus Brief Gun Owners of America

New York City's Brief Asking Supreme Court to NOT Hear the Appeal

Petitioners' Reply Brief

New York City argued to the Supreme Court that the "core right" of the Second Amendment is the right to self defense in the home:

In evaluating petitioners' Second Amendment
claim, the Second Circuit correctly recognized that
the core right protected by the Second Amendment
is the right to possess a handgun in the home for
the purpose of self-defense. McDonald v. City of
Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010); District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008).

This is what the Supreme Court actually said in Heller:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

IMHO, perhaps the Supreme Court took the case to make clear that the right of self defense in the home is not the only right protected by the Second Amendment and that self protection in the home is not even the "core" of the Second Amendment.

For future reference, Link to entire Docket at SCOTUSblog.com

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association https://www.nysrpa.org/ is "the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York."

GO TEAM!

 

[7shooter]

This could be the best thing that has happened to us in a long time. It's probably happening now because Justice Kavanaugh has joined the court.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Opening Brief on the merits due March 8, 2019 (based on 45 days after petition to hear the case was granted on January 22, 2019)

Link to Article at NRA-ILA Here. The article confirms that the case is backed by the NRA.

A couple of caveats:

1) Nobody knows how this case will play out or why the Supreme Court agreed to hear it.

2) Beware of repeal prior to decision. The City of New York and its anti-2A attorneys know full well that if the ordinance is repealed the appeal becomes moot and the Supreme Court will not issue a decision on the merits. I suspect there is a good chance that the City of New York will repeal the ordinance to prevent a pro-2A decision.

 

[stansdds]

Didn't Washington, D.C. do a similar thing? Repeal and avoid a Supreme Court decision that would have nation wide implications.

 

[zogger]

I agree the repeal by NYC is a strong possibility but also they are pretty obstinate in NYC so they might just fight it. P;us NYC might just ignore any ruling all together.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Didn't Washington, D.C. do a similar thing? Repeal and avoid a Supreme Court decision that would have nation wide implications.

The case was Wrenn

In Wrenn, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that D.C.'s may issue on good cause carry permit law was unconstitutional.

Link to D,C. Circuit Opinion in Wrenn

The D.C. Circuit's summary of D.C.'s "good cause" law:

The challenged D.C. Code provisions direct the District's
police chief to promulgate regulations limiting licenses for the
concealed carry of handguns (the only sort of carrying the Code
allows) to those showing a "good reason to fear injury to [their]
person or property" or "any other proper reason for carrying a
pistol." Id. § 22-4506(a)-(b).1 The Code also limits what the
police chief may count as satisfying these two criteria, in the
course of promulgating regulations and issuing licenses.
To receive a license based on the first prong—a "good
reason to fear injury"—applicants must show a "special need
for self-protection distinguishable from the general community
as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks
that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life." Id.
§ 7-2509.11(1)(A). The police chief's regulations further limit
licenses granted on this basis to those who "allege, in writing,
serious threats of death or serious bodily harm, any attacks on
[their] person, or any theft of property from [their] person."
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24 § 2333.2-3.
For those seeking to establish some "other proper reason
for carrying," the D.C. Code provides that an applicant's need
to carry around cash or valuables as part of her job is sufficient.
D.C. Code § 7-2509.11(1)(B). Two regulations implementing
this criterion also specify that living or working "in a high
crime area shall not by itself establish a good reason" to carry,

D.C. Circuit's holding that self defense outside the home is within the core of the Second Amendment:

Reading the Amendment, applying Heller I's reasoning,
and crediting key early sources, we conclude: the individual
right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self defense—
even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—
falls within the core of the Second Amendment's protections.

^^^ As taught in law school and kindergarden, the technical legal term for the above is "Duh"

The D.C. Circuit's holding that the good cause may issue (i.e. no issue) law in D.C. was unconstitutional:

We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis:
At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible
citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the
home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional
limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not
bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying
absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the
Amendment's core at a minimum shields the typically situated
citizen's ability to carry common arms generally. The District's
good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that
constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That's enough to
sink this law under Heller I.

^^^ Double Duh!

D.C. chose to not appeal the Wrenn decision to the Supreme Court. It is widely thought that D.C., was under pressure from anti-2A States and groups, and chose to not appeal because the Supreme Court was likely to take the appeal, and if heard by the Supreme Court it would have likely led to Nationwide shall issue for carry permits.

 

[Well Armed]

The case was Wrenn

In Wrenn, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that D.C.'s may issue on good cause carry permit law was unconstitutional.

Link to D,C. Circuit Opinion in Wrenn

The D.C. Circuit's summary of D.C.'s "good cause" law:



D.C. Circuit's holding that self defense outside the home is within the core of the Second Amendment:



^^^ As taught in law school and kindergarden, the technical legal term for the above is "Duh"

The D.C. Circuit's holding that the good cause may issue (i.e. no issue) law in D.C. was unconstitutional:



^^^ Double Duh!

D.C. chose to not appeal the Wrenn decision to the Supreme Court. It is widely thought that D.C., was under pressure from anti-2A States and groups, and chose to not appeal because the Supreme Court was likely to take the appeal, and if heard by the Supreme Court it would have likely led to Nationwide shall issue for carry permits.

Didn't matter one way or another. The fees, premits, and cost of training every two years either prices out and/or deters most from prosuing a DC permit. Oh, and lets not forget all the plethora of places and situations were you are prohibited from carrying a firearm under DC law even with a permit... a

I live in VA, and go to DC regularly. I was excited when the news came out that DC was issing permits. That eccitement quickly disappeared once I started learn about all the red tape and barriers... It just wasn't worthit... Registration, training, and a whole bunch of time and a lot of money only to be allowed to basically carry a gun aruound your neighborhood... If you carry anywhere else, the odds are great you'll be in violation of the law for carrying in a prohibited place...

 

[bushmaster1313]

Update:
The Supreme Court granted an extension of the briefing schedule as follows:

Petitioners Brief (and joint appendix): May 7, 2019
Respondents Brief: August 5, 2019

(Under Supreme Court Rules, Petitioner's Reply Brief may be filed within 30 days after the Response)

 

[Climber]

What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear? What part of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution is not clear? It is said that there are over 20,000 laws on the books throughout the several states that violate 2A guarantees.

At the risk of getting this thread locked down and myself banned please allow me to make the following comparisons. Please Mr. Moderator bear with me and hear me out:

1. Prior to 1972 abortion was legal in some states and illegal in others. The landmark Roe v. Wade supreme court decision wiped out almost all state laws that prohibited or restricted the procedure. Practically overnight the procedure was legal in all of the states, striking down any and all state laws to the contrary.....See supremacy clause, U.S. Constitution, art.6, para.2

2. In spite of the supreme court decision Brown vs. Topeka School Board of Education 1954 that struck down the "separate but equal" clause from Plessey vs. Ferguson 1896 decision there were many states, especially in the South that kept many of the Jim Crow laws on the books. I witnessed with my own eyes as late as '63-'64 of Blacks having to ride at the back of the bus, being bodily ejected from downtown Atlanta lunch counters and other such atrocities. It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to straighten this out. It was about '65 or '66 when restaurant owner Lester Maddox decided to put the new federal law to the test. He went as far as refusing service to Blacks and sometimes this was done at gunpoint so, it was not too hard to see where this needed to go.....The federal court by court order shut him down and his successful business went out of business. He was left to selling pick handles and axe handles from his former business location. He used to parade back and forth in front of his former restaurant with axe handle in hand, protesting the federal court order. This was quite a sight for a young man of 15, such as myself at the time. See supremacy clause, U.S. Constitution, art.6, para.2

3. Until recently the subject of gay marriage came before the supreme court. The practice was outlawed or not allowed in most states. Through a supreme court ruling the practice became legal almost overnight. See supremacy clause, U.S. Constitution, art.6, para.2

I realize that these are elephant in the room HOT button issues and I am in no way trying to raise any arguments as to persuade anyone to take one side or the other. I am attempting to point out that the supreme court can set things in a different direction in spite of what the several states have to say about it by using its Constitutional authority to strike down every anti 2A law on the books and changing things almost overnight. They certainly have the chance to set things right per the Constitution because it has been done before, more than once.

If and when SCOTUS moves in the right direction on this matter and if someone or some group of lawmakers decide to have their own "Lester Maddox" moment the feds can deal with them. This is what needs to happen but IMO there will be icebergs in hell first.