Monday, 0930 Eastern.
All 10+ gun cases before the court are being considered in conference this Friday, orders will be released either Friday afternoon (potentially, if a grant) or Monday (if a grant,  or definitively if a denial), or no mention if being relisted for the next conference (a signal of further examination prior to certiorari grant ie dissent from denial).

Kharn

I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm still hopeful though.

I hope they get relisted long enough for a vacancy to open up. If that’s wrong of me to say oh well, I’ll see her down there then

Kavanaugh is a piece of shit, just like Judas Roberts.

He has proved once again that Trump's appointees are not what they pretended to be.

What if he was right? That the court needs to hear a 2A case but that NYSRPA was moot?

A little early to call him right.
Pull that card out right after he gives an opinion we can celebrate rather than right after he decides to once again do nothing.

He shouldn't have switched sides to go with the liberals.
It was somewhat expected that Judas would kill this case, BK didn't have to endorse or encourage him.
BK should have been working on Judas to settle this case once & for all instead of letting it languish.

Judges shouldn’t have sides. It was a 6-3 split decision. He was on the majority side.

I wish it had gone the other way. But even with Kav it would have been 5-4 for mootness.

Saw this on a news article,  about declining to hear this ruling.  What does that mean does NY'rs? They can't take their guns outside the city?

Total chickenshit move.   Absolute and total chickenshit.

Fuck NY.

Well the NYSRPA actually got 99% of what they asked for. What they didn’t get was a broader ruling that we all hoped would expand gun rights nationwide.

You should read Alito’s dissent

No, its fucking worse than that.  We used to all have "carry" permits with BS administrative restrictions that had no force of criminal law behind the restrictions because they were all afraid that the courts would rip them a new one for issuing us all only the permit that allows us to keep guns in the house.  Now they created a permit that allows us to keep it in the house and do a few other things to comply with this case and if we do more than that we fucking go to jail, so we're all getting that now.  Stop to take a piss on the way to the the range, you're going to fucking jail.  SCOTUS fucked us.

Wtf?..

It means NYC/NYS is free to put the same law back on the books again, & it will have to start over again with a new lawsuit - then years form now when it gets back up to SCOTUS they can temporarily repeal the law again to moot the case...

After NYC changed their law,  Clement's brief saying the case wasn't moot was on shakey ground, it could easily have gone either way. Pick a new case and move on, as Kavanaugh says.

Kharn

Always goes that way when someone has the audacity to point point out the Emperor has no clothes.

Wont matter anyway when SCOTUS throws out The Sullivan Act.

Permit to merely possess a handgun in NY is a blatant violation of Heller.

That shouldn't have mooted the case - that should have been an acknowledgment by their side that the law was unconstitutional & it should have resulted in summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
They didn't change the law when it was challenged - they waited until it was apparent that SCOTUS was going to take the case & their chances of winning were 0%.
Plaintiff's only got part of what they wanted.

SCOTUS could have put an end to this entire thing & they could have sent a message to the states that they can no longer violate civil rights...

Roe v Wade was also a "moot" case too since she wanted an abortion in 1969 but the case didn't get heard at SCOTUS until 1972 & decided until 1973.
Her activist attorney appealed to SCOTUS after she won in the lower court.

If that one could go forward, then this one certainly should have gone forward...

Miller was dead before the decision was made and didn’t even have defense counsel representation.  The court plays bogus sides of the road for its political aims.

Yeah.  No one downstate gets "full carry" but the Penal law only had "full carry" and "premises" where "premises" meant you could have it in your house and periodically bring it to the gun store and to the police department pistol office for inspection and nowhere else.

Because downstate hates freedom and there is a proper cause requirement in the law (ie. "May Issue") but didn't want to get sued perpetually because they knew people would revolt if they couldn't hunt or target shoot, they issued everyone "full carry" but said - "you can only carry this to and from the range, or in connection with hunting, otherwise we'll revoke it."  The courts allowed this for years.

In comes New York City, which hates freedom more than others and says "shit, we can't issue "full carry" let's do the reverse and issue a "premises permit" but double secret pinky swear that we won't prosecute people for going to the range/hunting, so that if they break our rules they go to jail, not just have their license revoked and guns stolen by the state.

Then NYC gets sued for that, etc. etc. and now this gets added to the premises permit law: "Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of state or local law or rule or regulation, the premises limitation set forth in any license to have and possess a pistol or revolver in the licensee's dwelling or place of business pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision two of this section shall not prevent the transport of such pistol or revolver directly to or from (i) another dwelling or place of business of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and possess such pistol or revolver, (ii) an indoor or outdoor shooting range that is authorized by law to operate as such, (iii) a shooting competition at which the licensee may possess such pistol or revolver consistent with the provisions of subdivision a of section 265.20 of this chapter or consistent with the law applicable at the place of such competition, or (iv) any other location where the licensee is lawfully authorized to have and possess such pistol or revolver; provided however, that during such transport to or from a location specified in clauses (i) through (iv) of this paragraph, the pistol or revolver shall be unloaded and carried in a locked container, and the ammunition therefor shall be carried separately;"

So now that our premises permit allows us to do alot more than just keep it in the house, every county previously giving out "full carry" with administrative restrictions that can't be prosecuted could go to this new revamped premises license.

"Capable of repetition yet evading review" is for cases involving temporary events/ conditions like pregnancy,  age restrictions, etc, where the individual's circumstances will be over before a 1-10 year court battle will conclude.

Read the court's opinions, the per curiam is citing Scalia's prior ruling that NYSRPA gets a chance to develop the case against the framework of the new law and damages for the old law. Kavanaugh and Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch both cite Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II where he said DC's AWB failed the text, history, and tradition test laid out in Heller I, and agree NYC's law fails that test as well.

"Text, history, and tradition" back to the passage of the 2nd and 14th amendments is a very bad position for the antis to try to defend, when every man was able to to armed at will until the 1960s for most locations in the US (1900s in NYC).

Kharn

I'm discussing the many decades prior to the anti-gun hysteria of the 1960s, not the recent 33 years of shall-issue CCW making progress.
CA allowed open carry until 1967, and the Black Panthers brought their toys to the state capitol to show they weren't pleased with the bill banning the practice.


Screw'em if they want people carrying M4s and underfolders everywhere. I bet it will be like Ohio when the state supreme court said OC was protected, and people responded with OC walks everywhere, they very quickly switched to allowing CC.

Kharn

And they god damned should have.

And the tradition in the South was those permission slips were not a burden for white people to acquire, while denying the right to blacks.

Kharn

This is "capable of repetition yet evading review" - the city (or any city) is capable of putting this law right back on the books & making a plaintiff go through another lengthy legal battle to get back to SCOTUS.

The city chose not to settle in the initial filing, they chose to drag it out through multiple courts & up to SCOTUS.
They only took the law off the books when it became apparent that they were going to lose, now they're just waiting to do it again.

This should have been settled by the lazy bastards at SCOTUS now.

The per curiam is two pages long.

Read it.

There are three points to it:
1. NY changed the law and NYC conceded on traveling, giving NYSRPA exactly what they wanted so the current appeal cannot go forward.
2. If the new situation still infringes on NYSRPA's rights, they can use Lewis v Continental Bank Corp (a Scalia opinion, writing for a unanimous court, which includes several citations and discussion of "capable of repetition, yet evading review" to the parties' conduct) to change their attack against the new law and have it considered by the Court of Appeals.
3. NYSRPA may be able to add a claim for monetary damages for NYC's prior conduct, a matter for the Court of Appeals (or they may kick it down to the district court) to decide.
Both points 2 and 3 may come back to the Supreme Court on appeal.

For point 2, if further development of the record is required regarding the new law, it goes down to the district court. If not, it can remain at the Court of Appeals and be resolved on briefs de novo. Either way, NYSRPA is now at the back of the line in regards to time to resolve.

Instead, expect the SC to grant a new case on 4 May, or 11 May if they relist again to do their now-customary review.

Kharn

Just finished reading through this; a few observations from my totally non-bar approved, zero days of law school mind:

1. I can see how this would be moot if the rule was changed prior to cert being granted; it seems very suspect that the court would let this slide after cert being granted. I can see now why people get pissy with Roberts.
2. Seems like Kav might be aiming for that swing vote spot in the long run, and wants to get his opinions in the record for being a stickler for process.
3. I think there’s a read on this that will point to Kav voting to moot this to win favor with Roberts to smack a more substantial pro-2A decision on something that can still be just a small shift, but which will be less blatantly ignored by lower courts. Interstate handgun sales was probably where Roberts was headed, so they could do different levels of scrutiny for federal and state laws but Kav joined the concurrence to make it so that it is a decision on scrutiny as it relates to carry, touching at the core of the “bear” part of the RTKABA. Cali Roster might be there in the wings as a chance to spank states and courts which pull bullshit moves once level of scrutiny is decided.
4. I learned a bunch of things that might be useful in my own legal battles of the future, so I got that going for me, which is nice.

In case anyone is interested, here’s a list of some of the 2A cases being considered for the next conference:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

Scroll down to “Petitions We’re Watching For The Next Conference “ .   There appears to be some interesting ones in there.

"Judas" , funny but sad at the same time. The stupid robe w/ the stripes is comical to me as well. YMMV...

Ayup. And a NC supermajority R legislature & R governor shot down a bill TWICE that would have enacted constitutional carry as well as ended the Jim Crow Pistol purchase program. Statist cucks

Here is the list:https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/after-ruling-in-new-york-gun-rights-case-more-second-amendment-cases-set-for-friday-conference/

Edit, didn't see it above. Woops.

Yup, up here all we could do was open carry.

The one thing I will be forever grateful for with Reagan was allowing ammo purchases through the mail.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember that but it WAS a game changer.

Prediction: You have to have a marching permit to have a march, and have to have a business licence to open a bookstore, and have to have a construction permit to build a church, and have to have a bar licence to practice law to defend someone, and crime is bad mmmkay, so may issue permits to carry are totally cool. 5-4

I hope an enumerated right is afforded a higher standard of scrutiny than that would allow.

That sounds like intermediate scrutiny.  

I'm hoping for a strict scrutiny ruling and that would allow very few obstacles to exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

And here's why it should have been heard/decided - the city claimed for 7 years that it was constitutional, then made a slight modification to avoid a decision - that slight modification did not give petitioners 100% of what they asked for.

https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/the-supreme-court-punts-easy-second-amendment-case

A-freaking-men!

Doesn't look like any of the pending 2A cases had any mention in today's orders.

That sounds optimistic to me, which is a real shame since that would be a dramatic loss for many of us.