• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

New York City Tries End Run On Supreme Court

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
The Supreme Court took on the case of New York City outlawing citizens from taking guns outside of the city such as for hunting or target shooting. I think everyone knows their law will be overturned so they are changing the law in an attempt to prevent a SCOTUS review and a new precedence set. They knew all along it was not a Constitutional law and they passed it anyway. It shows their contempt for the rule of law.

NEW YORK CITY CHANGES FIREARMS TRANSPORT POLICY BEFORE SCOTUS REVIEW
11:15 PM 04/12/2019 | GUN LAWS & LEGISLATION
Kerry Picket | Reporter
67
New York City decided to change a portion of its gun laws related to the transport of firearms just a few months after the Supreme Court decided to review a lawsuit scrutinizing the city’s gun control laws.

Licensed gun owners in New York City will soon be able to legally transport their firearm to a second home, business or any other place gun possession is permitted as a result of a rules change the NYPD announced Friday, The New York Daily News reported.

The changes are expected to go into place following a 30-day public comment period starting next week. Currently, permitted gun owners in New York City can only carry their guns to approved firing ranges or areas where hunting is allowed. The city’s firearm policy change is expected to affect 16,000 licensed gun owners and only residents who live within the city limits.

The firearm must be unloaded when being transported and the ammunition is required to be carried separately. Those mandates will not change.

Second-Amendment.jpg

Gun rights activists celebrate the news from US Supreme Court June 26, 2008 that Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, ending a ban on owning handguns in Washington, DC in its first ruling on gun rights in 70 years. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN / Getty Images

“This change applies only to legal gun owners who have already gone through a strenuous background verification process,” Police Commissioner James O’Neill said. “The NYPD’s focus will always be on criminals who wield illegal guns, and those who would use guns to cause violence on our streets. Reasonably accommodating the interests of licensed gun owners in transporting their firearms to a legal shooting range or second home strikes a responsible balance between individual interests and public safety.”

The rule change comes amid an NRA-ILA backed lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et al. against the City of New York related to the city’s gun transport laws that the Supreme Court decided to review last January. (RELATED: Supreme Court To Review New York City Gun Control Law)

Despite the planned rule change before the case is argued, the NRA called the city’s effort a desperate attempt to get the case dismissed by the high court.

“The City of New York clearly knows that its current restrictions on the carrying and transportation of lawfully owned firearms are unconstitutional and will fail under any standard of constitutional review, as the NRA has been saying for years,” the NRA said in a statement.

“Today, it asked the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and allow the City to slow walk a narrow expansion of its current policy through a lengthy bureaucratic process — the result of which, even if adopted, would still unduly infringe upon the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment,” it added, before continuing:

That is not how things work in the Supreme Court; the Court does not put its review on hold while the government embarks on a journey that at best might fix only a limited part of the constitutional defect. This is nothing more than a naked attempt by New York City to resist Supreme Court review of policies that even New York must recognize as inconsistent with the holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The City of New York did not respect its citizens’ Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court granted review in this case and it will not respect them going forward. We are confident that the Court will reject New York’s desperate attempt to avoid review of its blatantly unconstitutional laws.

The state of New York lost in court over its ban on stun guns and tasers last month when a federal judge ruled that the state’s prohibition of the devices by “all citizens for all purposes, even for self-defense in one’s own home, must be declared unconstitutional.”
 
NY changed the rules ahead of SCOTUS hearing hoping that the case would be dropped.

It should not be dropped and SCOTUS should rule anyway because it was still a violation.

While it should surprise no one here that I am not a big fan of the nra, I will give them props for keeping on this.
 
Update...The NY case is still on as a stay was denied. As noted below though, NY City will likely dump the law completely and try for a dismissal. Anti gunners that thought it was funny to harass law abiding gun owners are now panicking that this may actually be ruled on and will like go badly against them.

As you probably know, the Supreme Court agreed to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. City of New York earlier this year. That case has the potential to be a landmark decision for gun rights on the order of (or possibly exceeding) Heller and McDonald.

Those who read the legal tea leaves on the anti-gun side have recognized the potential for the case to re-write (read: strike down) gun control laws across the country and it has them in a quiet state of panic. So much so, in fact, that the city of New York put the wheels in motion to change the law that’s at issue in the case.


This was an undisguised, cynical attempt to short-circuit a potential (likely?) adverse ruling by rendering the case moot. Attorneys for the city filed a motion with the court to postponethe proceedings in the case while the city tries to smother it in its sleep.

The good news is, no matter what the city does, there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine available to the Justices that allow them to hear the case even if the underlying law has changed. And such brazen attempts to sidestep a ruling the respondent wants to avoid tends to anger the nine robed ones.

Today, the Court denied the city’s motion for a stay. As attorney LKB tells us,

The motion they filed was exceptionally weak sauce.In theory, if New York City actually eliminates the regulation/ordinance at issue, then they could move to have the writ dismissed as moot.(That will probably be their next move.). The Court will likely deny that motion, and indicate that mootness will be addressed by the opinion.
 
Good.

I hope the SCOTUS slaps the law down right in the face of all of those that voted to do enact it.

I know it's probably immoral to wish bad things on people, but sometimes I fail miserably at that.
 
NY City has modified the law in question in hopes of preventing a SCOTUS ruling. No word yet if SCOTUS will hear the case anyway or drop it. It gets more bizarre though. Some democrat senators must realize that NYC pushed an un-Constitutional law to far and sent a threatening letter to the Supreme Court by way of a brief against them hearing the case.

My gut feeling is that SCOTUS will drop the case. Roberts is a wuss and will cave under leftist pressure (remember the Obamacare ruling?)

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was "motivated by politics" more than by the law.

Dramatic changes to the Supreme Court have been proposed by several Democrats vying for their party's 2020 presidential nomination, with "court-packing" being a common -- though highly controversial -- suggestion. Increasing the number of justices on the court would allow the president to shift the balance on the bench by loading up justices of his or her preference.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to "depoliticize" the court. He's admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply "adding more justices onto the court who agree with you" would be a bad idea.

Yet other candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden have come out againstcourt-packing, as has Bernie Sanders, though the Vermont senator has suggested rotating judges to other courts.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also spoken out against court-packing, telling NPR in July, "Nine seems to be a good number."
 
NY City has modified the law in question in hopes of preventing a SCOTUS ruling. No word yet if SCOTUS will hear the case anyway or drop it. It gets more bizarre though. Some democrat senators must realize that NYC pushed an un-Constitutional law to far and sent a threatening letter to the Supreme Court by way of a brief against them hearing the case.

My gut feeling is that SCOTUS will drop the case. Roberts is a wuss and will cave under leftist pressure (remember the Obamacare ruling?)

They were gonna punt either way.
 
Every day the left's quest for a complete takeover of this country becomes more evident.

Now they are threatening the supreme court in no uncertain terms. Hopefully this time the court stands their ground, no pun intended.
 
Good.

I hope the SCOTUS slaps the law down right in the face of all of those that voted to do enact it.

I know it's probably immoral to wish bad things on people, but sometimes I fail miserably at that.

It is not immoral to wish Justice for the evil and stupid.

But you have to also wish that, having received justice, they will henceforth be happier and better people.
 
Every day the left's quest for a complete takeover of this country becomes more evident.

Now they are threatening the supreme court in no uncertain terms. Hopefully this time the court stands their ground, no pun intended.

It is not just self-evident but they have literally announced it. They want to make America socialist and they want to control the socialist society.

The house can't do anything, legally, to the Supreme Court. They could issue a condemnation letter or some other toothless Act.

But to change the organization or operation or composition of the Supreme Court of the United States would require a constitutional amendment.

They don't have the majority to push one through.
 
They were gonna punt either way.
How did you see them punting it since they voted on and agreed to hear the case? The only thing I can think of is that most lawyers probably saw NYC changing the law before the hearing. I can see them folding now but I'm hoping they hear it since the democrats threatened them over it. They will look and be weaker than ever if they fold now and that's saying a lot.
 
How did you see them punting it since they voted on and agreed to hear the case? The only thing I can think of is that most lawyers probably saw NYC changing the law before the hearing. I can see them folding now but I'm hoping they hear it since the democrats threatened them over it. They will look and be weaker than ever if they fold now and that's saying a lot.

I don’t believe they agreed to hear the case. Just agreed to consider hearing the case. In that position they need 4 justices to agree to hear oral arguments. Most gun cases get this far and then are punted before oral arguments. Let’s see how it pans out.
 
I don’t believe they agreed to hear the case. Just agreed to consider hearing the case. In that position they need 4 justices to agree to hear oral arguments. Most gun cases get this far and then are punted before oral arguments. Let’s see how it pans out.
I double checked and in late January of this year they had the vote and agreed to actually hear the case. I'll post a link later when I'm not using my phone. They may still punt it now that NYC changed the law. It was widely expected to expand the earlier rulings out of the home. Time will tell. The anti gunners are doing everything possible to keep it from being heard. Sadly it could also lose. I could see Roberts voting with the leftists again. Losing would be ruinous to our rights.

Edit: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/22/6874...-nearly-a-decade-possibly-with-big-consequenc
 
Last edited:
It looks like we wait until October. According to the Washington Post, SCOTUS has told both side to continue to file briefs and they will decide when they return to DC after summer break if they will hear the case or not. The NYC brief includes instances where Roberts has dropped other cases when circumstances have changed. On the other hand, SCOTUS has still taken cases when it was clear one party changed their position because they knew they would lose.
 
It looks like we wait until October. According to the Washington Post, SCOTUS has told both side to continue to file briefs and they will decide when they return to DC after summer break if they will hear the case or not.

If there's a chance they will not hear the case it seems like it's still in the 4 judge ruling to hear the case phase. Which is where most second amendment cases go to die. Like the Peruta case challenging the CA CCW law.
 
Back
Top