Posted on 10/11/2019 4:39:39 AM PDT by marktwain
The Supreme Court has deferred making a decision on the issue of mootness in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City yesterday morning, 7 October, 2019. The Court will hear oral arguments on 2 December, 2019, eight weeks from now. From supremecourt.gov:
The Respondent's Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.
The NYSR&P case is the first major Second Amendment case the Court has agreed to hear in nine years. There have been a couple of cases around the edges, and Caetano was significant. But there has not been a case to rein in the flood of lower court rulings that, in effect, made the Second Amendment into a second class right.
Those rulings, in effect, hold there is no right to commercial or private sale of arms; that common rifles can be banned; that magazines can be banned, that accessories can be banned, and the types of firearms can be banned to a designated number of models.
Four justices on the court have been unhappy with the results, notably Clarence Thomas, Antony Scalia before he died, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. It is not clear where Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito stand.
Four justices; Ginsburg, Sotomeyer, Breyer, and Kagan, have been hostile to the Second Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Replace any one of the Gang of Four and our constitutional rights will not depend on the whims of John Roberts. Replace two of them and our rights will be secure for decades and decades to come.
It doesn’t matter which ones. They vote as a uniform block on practically every issue.
Would someone please explain muteness? Thank you.
Mootness is a condition where a legal case is no longer valid, because the underlying reasons for the case have been resolved, or changed to where they no longer apply.
It means the inability to speak.
"Mootness," on the other hand, means that circumstances have changed and the case is no longer relevant, so no decision needs to be made.
LOL! Thread winner!
This may be one of the most ludicrous things I have read in a long time. If the case is moot, then why are they even talking about it, much less hearing arguments? Must be one of those lawyer pastimes that I will never understand.
That right there is an pretty amazing statement. I don't mean that I am surprised. But for Supreme Court justices to be hostile to the Constitution is an indication that we have a serious problem.
IIRC - NYC is being sued over laws infringing on 2A rights and this case has gone to the USSC. When the case made it to the high court the city changed the law attempting to make the case “moot”. The high court has said no to that attempt.
The rule is derived from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which defines “the judicial power” as extending to “cases” and “controversies.” The Supreme Court has long interpreted this language to mean that federal courts have jurisdiction to decide only those cases in which the parties have concrete interests that will be resolved by a judicial decision. Those tangible interests must be present at every stage of the lawsuit, the court has said, from initial filing to final decision.
Attorneys for Petitioners
Paul D. Clement
Counsel of Record Kirkland & Ellis LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
paul.clement@kirkland.com (202) 389-5000
Party name: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al.
____________________________________
Attorneys for Respondents Richard Paul Dearing
Counsel of Record New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
rdearing@law.nyc.gov 2123562500
Party name: City of New York, et al.
Because the issue may still arise.
The state of New York realized there’s a good chance they could lose so they’d rather punt the law and hope for a more leftwing court later down the road that’ll allow their bans.
What this does is risk them losing to a degree the hurdle to get their policy through will be even higher. This is a good thing.
It’s like having a thief promising to give back whatever you caught them stealing as long as you don’t call the cops because if you call the cops, it’ll be discovered they have done other crimes.
More Supreme Court justices than not have been hostile to the Constitution for the last 70 years.
Most of them have been philosophical Progressives. Progressivism, by its nature and philisopical roots, is hostile to the Constitution.
One of the roots of Progressivism is the Constitution is outdated; it should be ignored and/or worked around.
Yes. That is one of the exceptions to "mootness".
There are a couple of others.
Voluntary Cessation is one that has been argued in this case. That is, the party stops the action to avoid the consequences of the case, but can start up again after the case is over.
Maybe this and any important ruling will be deferred until later because RBG is actually incapacitated but the Club hides this and expects and expects a change in the executive branch soon if plans go well (this time). This includes Roberts.
From Scotusblog. You'll find a lot of additional info at the link.
Issue: Whether New York 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.