# SCOTUS Case We have been waiting for?



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Personally I think that there have been many already brought up, such as "may" issue cases that should have been heard already.

The case below is clearly UnConstitutional....



> New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York Could Be Exactly the Supreme Court Case Gun Owners Have Been Waiting For





> In his opinion, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York is just such a case. Last week, the plaintiffs filed a brief in support of their petition for writ of certiorari. The complaint involves the City of New York's law that prevents gun owners from transporting licensed, locked and unloaded firearms outside the city under any circumstances. They can only use their guns within the five boroughs.





> That's right. NYC's gun owners can only use shooting ranges located within city limits. If they own a home on Long Island or in Westchester County, they can't take their guns with them to use on a weekend trip.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/12/daniel-zimmerman/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-assn-v-city-of-new-york-could-be-exactly-the-supreme-court-case-gun-owners-have-been-waiting-for/


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

How hard is it to know that is unconstitutional? Only an evil socialist or a moron would say that it is constitutional.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

it doesn't even make any logical sense - Why would there even be a law like that proposed much less passed? .... other than trying to make the few NYC gun ranges a virtual monopoly - it serves no purpose ....


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Illini Warrior said:


> it doesn't even make any logical sense - Why would there even be a law like that proposed much less passed? .... other than trying to make the few NYC gun ranges a virtual monopoly - it serves no purpose ....


Yep. It would make a "no shit Sherlock" case that the SCOTUS should take and then rule on a number of gun issues including reaffirming Heller & McDonald.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Camel923 said:


> ....... Only an evil socialist or a moron would say that it is constitutional.


You mean a politician?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Scary part is we may have lost Roberts , he has some what signaled he is moving to the left


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Scary part is we may have lost Roberts , he has some what signaled he is moving to the left


Lets hope not, as he ruled in favor of Heller and has a pro-2nd history.


----------



## Notold63 (Sep 18, 2016)

Follow the money. Who profits from this law and who got paid off to pass this stupid law?


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Laws such as this arent written for the safety of the citizens or with very much critique of the impact. They are written to entice lawsuits so lawyers can make money. Think of how much money is made when a law of this nature is questioned, then taken to court..


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Work in Government a few years....It'll make perfect sense because the idea is not to change the COnstitution right away, but rather to dilute the legalities of being able to practice that freedom that they seek to achieve.

Throw a bunch of, "Well under this law you can, but under this law you can't because it affects this article of that statute....It's usually enough to keep even the most Die hard Constitutional person tied up in legal expenses that they get bogged down in the process they must follow. WHile their opponents simply by pass the process and get Judges to block and obstruct from the bench long enough to get something into or out of the headlines.

Do not ever believe that Liberal politicians are not some of the most wiley strategists on the planet. They are.... Because they are smart enough to play to win, not just to follow the rules.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Old SF Guy said:


> Work in Government a few years....It'll make perfect sense because the idea is not to change the COnstitution right away, but rather to dilute the legalities of being able to practice that freedom that they seek to achieve............


The ink wasn't dry on that document before it started to get changed. And it's been happening for the past 229 years.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

A possible good sign that the SCOTUS make take it on for formal review.



> We May Be About to See Justice Kavanaugh's Confirmation Take Effect
> 
> A challenge to New York's very restrictive gun control law, which has been denied cert (effectively, the Court is not hearing the appeal) has been "relisted." What does that mean?
> 
> ...


Clayton Cramer.: We May Be About to See Justice Kavanaugh's Confirmation Take Effect

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/01/relist-watch-returns-2/#more-278524


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Roberts has become political and decided cases based on politics as we saw with his defense of Obamacare and can’t be trusted any longer and Kavanaugh is made of the same cloth I fear. When I read a post like this I’m reminded of when Ireland created a system for people to own handguns only to remove it a short time later. So few were registered they allowed them to be retained, but that’s another long convoluted case it just makes me think we believe there is now way the NY law stands only to find SCOTUS let’s it.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

stowlin said:


> Roberts has become political and decided cases based on politics as we saw with his defense of Obamacare and can't be trusted any longer and Kavanaugh is made of the same cloth I fear. When I read a post like this I'm reminded of when Ireland created a system for people to own handguns only to remove it a short time later. So few were registered they allowed them to be retained, but that's another long convoluted case it just makes me think we believe there is now way the NY law stands only to find SCOTUS let's it.


Roberts voted in favor of Heller in 2008 and again in favor of McDonald in 2010 so his history would indicate that he does support the 2nd amendment. I am a bit more optimistic about Kavanaugh. And at least 4 Justices voted in favor of relisting the case mentioned, so at least Roberts and/or Kavanaugh voted positively.
The 2nd amendment needs a win prior to 2020 and Trump needs it as well.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

SCOTUS is going to hear the case with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association as petitioner. This should be a slam dunk win for NYSRPA.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012219zor_8759.pdf


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

It appears that NY City is looking to change the law to concede to the plaintiffs. Quite clearly NY City is hoping that the SCOTUS no longer hears the case as it would likely lead to another landmark pro-2nd finding and expansion of gun rights not only in NY, but likely nationwide.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/96331/20190412152613471_nysrpa%20v%20cny%2018-180%20ltr%204%2012%2019.pdf


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Im supposed to think about these folks who give away their rights...they say ok...and then submit... well I say...ok...do what you will...and when your will gets in my way...I will slay you......lets just agree to disagree and I will kill you when we cant find recourse..... wow ...its like that is it?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Good news folks. This has the makings of a win for the 2nd amendment this year. NY City tried to get the case throw out with their gesture to change and it got shot down. Good to see.



> BREAKING: SCOTUS to City of New York - NYSR&PA v NYC Goes Forward


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/04/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-scotus-to-city-of-new-york-nrsrpa-v-nyc-goes-forward/


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Amicus brief submitted to the SCOTUS for this case.....Movement is good....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99589/20190514093818327_18-280%20Amicus%20Young.pdf


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

New York State hates guns, and the people that use them; and this will not stop until fines are levied against the rule makers. And then they will stop, or be fined into the poor house.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

MisterMills357 said:


> New York State hates guns, and the people that use them; and this will not stop until fines are levied against the rule makers. And then they will stop, or be fined into the poor house.


I think its more NY City, and outer lying high rent districts, that hate guns...


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

If the SCOTUS says a second amendment right is being violated in Hawaii/New York, will Hawaii ans New York, abide by it and allow, in this case of Hawaii Mr Young ie, someone to carry outside his house?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

The SCOTUS has already agreed to hear this case, but the lefties (5 Senators) are trying to convince them not to hear the case. A good sign.



> A handful of Democratic Senators signed onto an amicus curiae brief in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, defending New York City's blatant attack on the Second Amendment. For years, those who live in NYC could transport handguns, as long as it was to a few select gun ranges in the area. If you were a gun owner in NYC and wanted to take your firearm outside of city limits to a different gun range, that wasn't allowed.





> According to the group, the Supreme Court should not take up this case because the plaintiffs - gun rights advocates - are looking to "thwart gun safety legislation" and have the desire to "expand the Second Amendment." The other argument they make: the Second Amendment and gun control is a political issue and the Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial, not a legislative body.
> 
> Translation: gun control proponents have realized this is a lost cause and, if the Supreme Court decided in the case, this could expand gun rights, not restrict them. This case could and would, more than likely, build upon both Heller and McDonald, which protects a person's right to own a firearm in their home for self-protection.


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/13/gaggle-of-dem-senators-want-scotus-to-throw-out-2a-case-for-idiotic-reasons-n2551633


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

RedLion said:


> The SCOTUS has already agreed to hear this case, but the lefties (5 Senators) are trying to convince them not to hear the case. A good sign.
> 
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/13/gaggle-of-dem-senators-want-scotus-to-throw-out-2a-case-for-idiotic-reasons-n2551633


Some serious threat if you ask me. The SCOTUS being told not to hear the case or be changed via the Senate. Wont happen, but, dag, how would the media react if the Pubs sent the SCOTUS a letter like this..


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Steve40th said:


> Some serious threat if you ask me. The SCOTUS being told not to hear the case or be changed via the Senate. Wont happen, but, dag, how would the media react if the Pubs sent the SCOTUS a letter like this..


The lefties are doing their usual. When all else fails, resort to threats and violence.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Steve40th said:


> Some serious threat if you ask me. The SCOTUS being told not to hear the case or be changed via the Senate. Wont happen, but, dag, how would the media react if the Pubs sent the SCOTUS a letter like this..


 Sounds like obstruction of justice to me.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

The SCOTUS is back in session. They are scheduled to hear oral arguments for New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York starting on December 2nd.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/06/supreme-court-cases-2019-term/


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

The OP says it’s the case we’ve been waiting for and I guess I don’t see it. If the court rules against gun owners you are as screwed as I am here in Ireland. If the court overturns the law, as it should, who will write the decision and what will it say? God forbid it’s 6-3 and Roberts the progressive lets sotomoyer write the decision.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

RedLion said:


> The SCOTUS is back in session. They are scheduled to hear oral arguments for New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York starting on December 2nd.
> 
> https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/06/supreme-court-cases-2019-term/


Has anyone told RBG she died yet? :tango_face_grin:


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

stowlin said:


> The OP says it's the case we've been waiting for and I guess I don't see it. If the court rules against gun owners you are as screwed as I am here in Ireland. If the court overturns the law, as it should, who will write the decision and what will it say? God forbid it's 6-3 and Roberts the progressive lets sotomoyer write the decision.


The court can not rule against gun owners. Why do you think that NYC already back-tracked? NYC will lose and the ruling in favor of gun owners could very well challenged "may issue" ccw law, hence the case we have been waiting for.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Prepared One said:


> Has anyone told RBG she died yet? :tango_face_grin:


The Pony Express lost the message.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

We still have John Roberts in charge in the SCOTUS. I think he is sometimes being blackmailed on his decisions. And Clarence is sick too, and for how long?


----------



## riseofkingdomgems (Oct 9, 2019)

I think you talking about the politician.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

A good read on SCOTUS 2nd amendment cases including....



> All eyes have been looking towards NYSRPA v NYC a case concerning the prohibition of traveling outside of the boroughs of New York with a lawfully owned handgun. The case is scheduled for arguments on December 2nd.


https://shorenewsnetwork.com/2019/10/14/scotus-relists-nj-cheeseman-carry-case/


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Oy, vey, I'm glad I live in Wisconsin where we know what "shall not be infringed" means.

I wish someone would take a handgun case all the way to the Supreme Court based not just on the firearm, but on how the individual was denied due process. For example, we can mandate "free speech," and a guy quietly drinking coffee in front of two cops with firearm on his hip deserves the same rights in all 50 states.

The libtards want a more "communist" way of looking at the private ownership of firearms. Funny, you can get a Kalashnikov in Moscow, so an American should be able to buy a .38 SPL revolver at any K-Mart.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

The Tourist said:


> ......... K-Mart.


Are those still a thing? I thought they went the way of 8-track tapes, Edsels and Radio Shack.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Are those still a thing? I thought they went the way of 8-track tapes, Edsels and Radio Shack.


You mean "Kame apart."


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

RedLion said:


> You mean "Kame apart."


Okay, I'm just a dirty white boy but my job often has me "speaking Japanese." Then again, I have a 'yen' for that! Here's what 'Kame' is to me...

_Known in Japan as Rice Sembei, rice-based crackers are the most traditional and popular of Japanese snacks. KA-ME Rice Crackers are made from jasmine rice,&#8230;_


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

SCOTUS is to begin to hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York starting next month. We will see if this does actually expand 2nd amendment liberties as a good number of folks are expecting.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/argument-preview-justices-take-up-battle-over-new-york-city-gun-ban-and-the-scope-of-the-second-amendment/


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

So, I heard RGB was in the hospital again last week. Somebody needs to run through the hospital hallways screaming DNR! DNR! Talk about a weekend at Bernie's. :devil:


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Arguments start today.



> Dick Heller Predicts a Supreme Court Win for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/dick-heller-predicts-a-supreme-court-win-for-new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association/


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Wondering how this will end. NY tried to pull a fast one and make it mute. They knew they could just put it back like it was and again wait for another court to hear it after it works it's way through the system again. Looking like the court was not in on that plan.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

NBC trying to say that Roberts may side with the lefties and dismiss the case. This case needs to be heard to conclusion for these reasons....



> Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of three gun owners in New York and a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, argued that the case was still active because the city had not been required to say the regulation was unconstitutional.


and more importantly.....



> Since the court's landmark 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller, the lower courts have generally weighed the public interest in gun laws as part of their consideration of whether they are legal. Using that methodology, appeals courts have upheld a broad range of gun restrictions, and those laws have remained on the books as the Supreme Court refused to review them.
> 
> Conservatives, including Kavanaugh while a federal appeals court judge, have argued that such considerations are unconstitutional, and that judges should instead look to whether the law was historically seen as permissible.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Wondering how this will end. NY tried to pull a fast one and make it mute. They knew they could just put it back like it was and again wait for another court to hear it after it works it's way through the system again. Looking like the court was not in on that plan.


It has been public information (including to the SCOTUS) for a few months the NY City got rid of the law as they knew it was UnConstitutional leading up to SCOTUS hearing it.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Gottlieb is optimistic about initial arguments.



> Alan Gottlieb: 'Cautions optimism' after SCOTUS hears arguments in New York gun case





> "We're hopeful the High Court sees through New York's attempt to moot this case by changing the law," he continued. "The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it. That maneuver suggests the city knew all along its restriction would not pass constitutional muster, but only changed the law in an effort to prevent a court ruling that smacked it down.


https://www.thegunwriter.com/24916/alan-gottlieb-cautions-optimism-after-scotus-hears-arguments-in-new-york-gun-case/


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

More on the first day of arguments and the notion that Roberts would side with the lefties....Likely a lie of course.



> The Key Takeaways From The Transcripts Of SCOTUS Gun Case


https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/12/02/key-takeaways-from-transcripts-scotus-gun-case/


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RedLion said:


> It has been public information (including to the SCOTUS) for a few months the NY City got rid of the law as they knew it was UnConstitutional leading up to SCOTUS hearing it.


 Yep, and now if that ends up making the case in front of the court is ruled Moot . NY will come right back with another law and play the game through the courts again and again. No way to stop them unless the court keeps this case current and rules on it.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Yep, and now if that ends up making the case in front of the court is ruled Moot . NY will come right back with another law and play the game through the courts again and again. No way to stop them unless the court keeps this case current and rules on it.


And you just gave one of the reasons why the case was selected to be heard as indicated in my posts right above yours.


----------

