SCOTUS to hear NYSRPA vs NYC on Dec 2, 2019 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-18-2019, 11:41 AM
noshow noshow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 68
SCOTUS to hear NYSRPA vs NYC on Dec 2, 2019

This case has the potential to launch an attack on many state & local 2A restrictions on self defense outside the home.

Here's the case docket:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-02-2019, 06:48 PM
Plantar5 Plantar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,939
It was already reported to down play the case by saying “The law is no longer on the books.” RBG called the case “Moot”, because NYC claims they gave “everything to the plaintiffs “. ( my azz) . But Alito said it’s not moot and should be heard. Why these things take until June is beyond me...What positive ramifications are there beyond the obvious permitting NY residents to transport legally in /out of state?

Last edited by Plantar5; 12-02-2019 at 06:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2019, 09:31 PM
Jim Watson Jim Watson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Florence, Alabama, USA
Posts: 20,815
Here is the transcript of oral arguments thus far.
Read what they really said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-280_m64o.pdf
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:10 PM
PolymerMan PolymerMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plantar5 View Post
It was already reported to down play the case by saying “The law is no longer on the books.” RBG called the case “Moot”, because NYC claims they gave “everything to the plaintiffs “. ( my azz) . But Alito said it’s not moot and should be heard. Why these things take until June is beyond me...What positive ramifications are there beyond the obvious permitting NY residents to transport legally in /out of state?
Funny how the commies in NYC thought they could out maneuver the gun rights advocates. Clearly they were afraid of a SCOTUS ruling knocking down their law as unconstitutional so they retracted the law in hopes of getting it dismissed.

I suppose their secret intention was to put the law or one similar to it back on the books as soon as the dust settled. That is why it is important to have SCOTUS rule on the law, despite the fact that the legal controversy in NYC might be moot. The legal doctrine of that law is not moot, it's unconstitutional. A ruling declaring it unconstitutional will prevent other cities from enacting similar type laws.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:19 PM
Plantar5 Plantar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
Here is the transcript of oral arguments thus far.
Read what they really said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-280_m64o.pdf
Interesting that just the female justices were opining and playing ring around the mootness.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:23 PM
Plantar5 Plantar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolymerMan View Post
Funny how the commies in NYC thought they could out maneuver the gun rights advocates. Clearly they were afraid of a SCOTUS ruling knocking down their law as unconstitutional so they retracted the law in hopes of getting it dismissed.

I suppose their secret intention was to put the law or one similar to it back on the books as soon as the dust settled. That is why it is important to have SCOTUS rule on the law, despite the fact that the legal controversy in NYC might be moot. The legal doctrine of that law is not moot, it's unconstitutional. A ruling declaring it unconstitutional will prevent other cities from enacting similar type laws.
Besides a formal unconstitutional declaration, can scotus award damages or just recommend? Leaving them with having to go file a civil suit back in NYC?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:46 PM
dsk's Avatar
dsk dsk is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 68,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolymerMan View Post
Funny how the commies in NYC thought they could out maneuver the gun rights advocates. Clearly they were afraid of a SCOTUS ruling knocking down their law as unconstitutional so they retracted the law in hopes of getting it dismissed.

I suppose their secret intention was to put the law or one similar to it back on the books as soon as the dust settled. That is why it is important to have SCOTUS rule on the law, despite the fact that the legal controversy in NYC might be moot. The legal doctrine of that law is not moot, it's unconstitutional. A ruling declaring it unconstitutional will prevent other cities from enacting similar type laws.
They want to wait until the Dems win it all in 2020 and change the laws to allow packing the Supreme Court with extra judges (all liberals to be sure), then they'll put the law back in place.
__________________
Avoid the temptation to replace everything on your brand-new 1911 just to make it "better". Know what you're changing out and why. You may spend a lot of money fixing things that weren't broken to begin with. Shoot at least 500 rounds through it first, then decide what you don't like and want to improve. Regarding vintage 1911s, pre-1970 pistols are highly collectible in original, unaltered condition and should NEVER be refinished or modified as it completely ruins their monetary value.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:52 PM
cavelamb cavelamb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 3,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
Here is the transcript of oral arguments thus far.
Read what they really said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-280_m64o.pdf



"They" were right.
Squeamish people should never watch laws or sausages being made.

It's coming down to ---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the licensed people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
__________________
-
... for the ashes of his fathers
... and the temples of his gods
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:41 AM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavelamb View Post

It's coming down to ---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the licensed people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
NO, it's coming down to "People of the Govt" !! There will be no such licensing if the demoKrats take control.

Idiots all around us will let it happen too.
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:59 AM
HT77 HT77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,627
I have limited confidence in 2 or 3 of these overlords to actually do something positive in terms of restoring some measure of the 2A with a strong decision. We already know 4 of them don't even believe the 2A applies to individuals and we also know 1 of them is a squishy weasel who can't be trusted at all. I would not get my hopes up for anything positive.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:04 AM
LW McVay's Avatar
LW McVay LW McVay is offline
Adminstrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 17,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT77 View Post
I have limited confidence in 2 or 3 of these overlords to actually do something positive in terms of restoring some measure of the 2A with a strong decision. We already know 4 of them don't even believe the 2A applies to individuals and we also know 1 of them is a squishy weasel who can't be trusted at all. I would not get my hopes up for anything positive.
There it is.
__________________
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less." - Gen. Robert E. Lee
RLTW!
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:03 PM
brickeyee brickeyee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
Here is the transcript of oral arguments thus far.
Read what they really said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-280_m64o.pdf
There is nothing stopping the state from altering the law they passed that reigns in the city.

The Gun Control groups want to keep this path of attack on Second Amendment rights available.

Just like their attempts to impose excessive taxes on ammunition.

They will use any method they can dream up to curtail the Second Amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:36 PM
USMM guy USMM guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rural VA
Posts: 20,473
This is entirely correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brickeyee View Post
There is nothing stopping the state from altering the law they passed that reigns in the city.

The Gun Control groups want to keep this path of attack on Second Amendment rights available.

Just like their attempts to impose excessive taxes on ammunition.

They will use any method they can dream up to curtail the Second Amendment.
Nor is there any law or other mechanism in place to prevent a sitting president from stacking the supreme court with more judges. Pocahattie has stated her intention to do just that along with doing away with the electoral college and the US Senate.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:53 PM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMM guy View Post
Nor is there any law or other mechanism in place to prevent a sitting president from stacking the supreme court with more judges. Pocahattie has stated her intention to do just that along with doing away with the electoral college and the US Senate.
Well, POTUS had this good chance during 2017-2018 years when all 3 were ran by the GOP! But ooops, f'd up that chance by waiting too long.

POTUS Trump is good, just not 100% savvy enough to make these type of maneuvers when he has/had the chance!
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:56 PM
combat auto combat auto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,032
With the speculation above that not much more will come from this for 2A even if the SC ruled, it might be better if SC declares this case moot (if) the NYC plaintiff's did get what they want from the change of NYC law (I am not cognizant of all the details), and (if) the SC moves right onto the NJ-Carry case which has been in their "queue" since last January or so...Without a 2A home-run likely with the NYC case, rather than wait many month's for a ruling, lets get on to the NJ case which is much more significant and in the hopes of a 2020 ruling. Otherwise NJ will have no chance till at least 2021 (for a ruling).
__________________
"To be born free is an accident. To live free is a responsibility. To die free is an obligation."-General Halley, USMC
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." –Ulysses
Ekeibolon - Jeff Cooper

Last edited by combat auto; 12-03-2019 at 02:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:58 PM
PolymerMan PolymerMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMM guy View Post
Nor is there any law or other mechanism in place to prevent a sitting president from stacking the supreme court with more judges. Pocahattie has stated her intention to do just that along with doing away with the electoral college and the US Senate.
The case will be heard in June. Maybe by then, that old hag, RBG, will go on her long deserved retirement.

The balance will then be 3 to 5, libs to conservative if the seat isn't filled by then.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:59 PM
1911_Kid 1911_Kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 6,464
Here, have a laugh.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211116834
__________________
Citizens for 2A
"We choose truth over facts" - Joe Biden (Iowa Aug 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:59 PM
brickeyee brickeyee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,954
FDR wanted to pack the SCOTUS after it declared many of his orignal 'New Deal' programs unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:43 PM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 33
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_Kid View Post
Well, POTUS had this good chance during 2017-2018 years when all 3 were ran by the GOP! But ooops, f'd up that chance by waiting too long.

POTUS Trump is good, just not 100% savvy enough to make these type of maneuvers when he has/had the chance!
They didn't f up anything. They never wanted to do any of the things they said they would. It was all about keeping their cushy jobs, they never meant any of it. That's why the Dems took the house back, and the republicans earned it. They got what they deserved. The Paul Ryan's are no better than the liberals.

Actually. He did keep some stupid gun bills from even coming to the floor. Remember that? When the Democrats were parked on the house floor whining and he shut off the lights and locked the bathrooms and all that? So I guess he's a little better than the libs.....but only slightly.
__________________
Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:55 PM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 33
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_Kid View Post

Quote:
.
I am POed as hell that a minority in the Senate--a body already so un-democratic that half the members can be elected by about 8% of the population*--can stymie anything the majority wants done
Yeah, we know you are. You're also "POed" that a simple majority can't pick the president. Boohoo. That's exactly why they were put there. To "stymie anything the majority wants done."

The house and the Senate are filled the way they are for a very important reason. Get over it snowflakes.
__________________
Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:07 PM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 33
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_Kid View Post
Quote:
. Republicans have established that the rules no longer mean anything, no reason not to change them to undo the damage Trump is doing.
Have these people been watching the same game we all have for the last ten plus years? They are so delusional it's scary

It just goes to show ya, they are as entrenched as we are. There won't be any coming together anytime soon. That's for sure.
__________________
Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:32 PM
L84CABO L84CABO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Orcas Island, WA & San Diego
Posts: 3,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesaun View Post
Have these people been watching the same game we all have for the last ten plus years?
No! They...and particularly the DU folks...live in a leftist bubble. They listen to leftist media, socialize with leftist friends, and suckle at the tetes of their leftist overlord masters.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:05 AM
INV136 INV136 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 994
OK, so this is the end of day 2, and based on the previous posts for today, it appears that nothing happened in the Supreme Court today, regarding this case?? I've been busy and missed most of today's news. Are they at least finished with oral arguments regarding this case and waiting to deliberate before having their vote?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:36 AM
johnireland johnireland is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolymerMan View Post
The case will be heard in June. Maybe by then, that old hag, RBG, will go on her long deserved retirement.

The balance will then be 3 to 5, libs to conservative if the seat isn't filled by then.
You can't trust John Roberts, he screwed conservatives with Obama care. I can see him voting with the liberals just to play it safe with a 4-4 decision. We need Trump to replace RBG as soon as she flat lines.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:39 AM
Plantar5 Plantar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnireland View Post
You can't trust John Roberts, he screwed conservatives with Obama care. I can see him voting with the liberals just to play it safe with a 4-4 decision. We need Trump to replace RBG as soon as she flat lines.
I couldn’t agree more on Roberts. Thats why Kavanaugh and Gorduch need to step up besides the other more conservatives in the court. Its a shame the case seems so narrow. For the life of me, i dont get what takes 6 months to decide this case. RBG aint goin anywhere, btw.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved