The federal courts grant government bodies the presumption they are acting in good faith, unless overwhelming evidence exists to the contrary.

We know NYC controls the NY state legislature and can change the law back at will, but that is not how the SCOTUS views the situation.

Kharn

Tennessee State Guard fits that description.  As I recall, an arfcommer posted at some point that they were given security guard assignments during the period following 9/11, and at least some were unofficially told that if they wanted to be armed during those assignments, they would have to bring their own guns.

I imagine that was in the process of being anti-Trump.  They are probably hoping this issue will cause people to oppose him, and that may happen in NY, but who there is for him anyway?

This is a fine example of the good Trump has done for 2A issues by appointing conservative judges, and chances are if he is re-elected he will get the chance to appoint more.

What he said. I was approached about joining the TN state guard shortly after 9/11. Would need to provide my own weapons. No problem. Would not be allowed to have loaded weapons or even carry live ammo.  LOL. Fuck no. They were basically looking for cheap unarmed mall cops.

So when does the actual ruling get released?

I think there is a lag time of months

Late June 2020, before the summer recess.

Kharn

The Truth About Guns view of oral argument.

Kharn

Fits the definition of the militia which is necessary to the security of a free state.

I hope you are right about another case being fast tracked. But my gut says maybe next year...

I'll wait to see actual results before breaking out the Champagne............

Well NY did change the law in response to Trumps Supreme Court taking up the case. Not a sweeping victory but Obama’s court wouldn’t have taken the case at all.

Not much of a victory at all,but yeah,it is something.

obama couldn't ban Bumpstocks either..............

We know. But it’s worth it for the eventual win that will expand the 2A to include bear outside the home for all of the USA. Sometimes you get a little bloody in the fights you end up winning.

Thank you for so magnanimously expanding something you weren’t given the power to infringe upon.

The National Guard units are often descended from militia units, but most of the similarity ends there.

State/colonial militias at the time of the Founding were based on universal obligation.  That means male fighting-age citizens were generally conscripted into it.  National Guard is all-volunteer.

State militias were State military entities entirely, subject to the State's own military articles and discipline, with a chain-of-command extending to the Governor.  In some States, local control and formation were also practiced under State sanction, to include independently-chartered militias.  All ultimately were subject to State authority.  All commissions were granted by the States.  Under the Constitution, the Federal government can require the States to lend them militia units to Federal command (with POTUS as CinC) for one of three purposes, and then only if authorized by Congress (currently, for example, Federal law does not permit Federalizing any State militia units, so POTUS can't do it).  I think under the Articles the States had leeway to refuse a request to federalize militia.  Congress can also provide uniform regulations the States must follow under the Constitution, but States implement them.  National Guard is a dual State-Federal reserve army.  It has two loyalties and is basically two entities in one.  Because of this, it can be placed into Federal service for any purpose at any time regardless of what a State wants, and the Federal primacy means it is also subject to the UCMJ instead of just State military codes.  Federal government controls selection and commissioning.

The State bore/bears primary responsibility for arming and equipping the militia, organizing them, disciplining them, commissioning and appointing officers, etc., subject (under the Constitution) to any Federal regulations (in this context, regulations are about uniformity).  The States furnished most of the arms used by militiamen.  Sometimes the Feds provided (at least loaned) some of them.  Sometimes the militiamen were required to furnish their own.  Often they were required to have suitable individual arms even if in practice they were issued arms.  Bigger weapons, like artillery, were provided by the State, although sometimes wealthy members would purchase and donate or loan such weapons to the militia.  Sometimes the Feds helped.  Sometimes issued individual arms were kept at home by militiamen, to be presented or brought out for use as required (like what the Swiss do), and sometimes they were kept in the armory (more common, IIRC).  Such armories are what the British were trying to seize, sparking off the War of Independence.  For documentation of this stuff, you can look at the reports States were required to send to the Federal government up to the Civil War showing the arms they had on-hand to arm their militias.  I believe they had to send a report annually.

A militia analogous to that referred to by the 2nd Amendment would be State-controlled; would involve conscription of much or most of the male fighting-aged citizen population (at the very least, most would be subject to a lottery, even if only a portion were conscripted due to our large population size, like in Switzerland); would be subject to State and possibly also local governmental civil authority; would have actual commissioned and other officers; would be militarily organized, disciplined, and uniformed; would engage in proper military training; and would be armed not just with small arms, but also armor, artillery, aircraft, missiles, and other such weaponry.  It would be liable under limited circumstances to temporary Federal service if provided for by law.

While the majority of States still technically have militias, for the most part the militia of the Founders is no more.  Sad, because part of why it was preserved (and not done away with as some of the more centralist Founders desired) was due to its ability to serve as a political check and balance, giving the people a means to rise up militarily, and also for the States to prevent tyranny and usurpation by the Feds.

National Guard, on the other hand, is a terrible analogy for the militia.

Past performance has been....spotty.

Can someone elaborate on this point from the article?

Near the end of the argument, Justice Ginsburg (who looked very frail, but nevertheless was engaged and asked a number of probative questions in both of Monday’s arguments) asked the City’s counsel whether, because the transportation ban forbade taking a licensed gun to a second house (whether in or out of the city), that would require a license holder who wished to be armed at home to acquire two guns — one for each house — and leave one gun at an unoccupied location at all times, which she seemed to intimate would be less safe than transporting one gun between them.

To me, she plainly was teasing an argument that perhaps the NYC transportation ban could be struck based on intermediate scrutiny, perhaps to try and tempt Roberts into reversing on narrower grounds. (Query why she would do this if she thinks Roberts might squish on mootness.)

Sure.  If the petitioners’ argument is upheld in a way which incorporates intermediate scrutiny and sets the precedent that intermediate scrutiny should be applied to Second Amendment cases, it makes it much easier for federal courts to uphold basically any gun control law that its supporters say the state has a valid interest in enforcing.

The problem with this is that while the anti-gun rulings that have come out of the appellate courts since Heller have tried to talk about scrutiny and generally applied intermediate scrutiny to Second Amendment cases, Scalia was very clear in Heller that standards of scrutiny should not be applied at all to Second Amendment disputes.  He argued that courts should test based on history and tradition (have such restrictions on the RKBA been considered legitimate and been broadly applied historically?  E.g. prohibitions on the possession of arms by felons going back to the Founding era).  See Kavanaugh’s dissent from Heller II, where he calls out the majority opinion on the DC Circuit upholding DC’s AWB for applying intermediate scrutiny even though Scalia specifically said that no standard of scrutiny should be applied when evaluating the Second Amendment in the context of Heller.

Thanks, that helps.  Had I first read through all the comments below that article, I wouldn't have had to ask for clarification.

This comment below from the article sums it up nicely:

Mark H says:
December 4, 2019 at 13:41
Roberts will decide it is NOT Moot. He will then craft a 7:2 decision on narrow grounds (law fails even the lowest level of scrutiny) and will thus write the opinion himself, writing it so narrowly as to have zero precidential impact.

Because Roberts loves consensus more than he does the actual Constitution.

For any of our members near DC, please represent AR15.com at this event and provide us with a full report afterwards.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-second-amendment-at-the-supreme-court-what-to-expect-this-term-tickets-80064279415

The Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law and Duke in DC are hosting a reception and panel discussion on the Supreme Court's December 2nd oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York (NYSRPA). The case represents the first time the Supreme Court has heard arguments in a Second Amendment case in almost 10 years. NYSRPA concerns a challenge to a New York City regulation that restricted individuals who hold "premises licenses"those that allow individuals to possess a gun at homefrom bringing their firearms to shooting ranges or second homes outside the City. The City changed the regulation after the Supreme Court granted review, and New York State has also since passed legislation that allows the petitioners to bring their guns outside New York City to other shooting ranges and second homes. We will discuss what to make of the Supreme Court's questioning at oral argument and also what other Second Amendment and firearms law cases may soon be coming to the Court.
Wine, beer, and hors d'oeuvres will be served starting at 6pm. The panel discussion will begin at 6:30pm.

Not sure how or if pulled in to this particular case, but the "militia" in the early constitutional days was wrapped up also in the idea and history of the "hue and cry" and "posses," raised by the sheriff and similar civic responsibilities.  The community was bound to respond and participate in the pursuit and apprehension of criminals.  The militia moving beyond the common criminal to the recognition that there was both a suspicion of standing armies and the threats of Indians, pirates, criminal gangs, etc., depending on the location of the communities. While these practices might have grown less common in more substantial communities, on the "frontier" or more separated smaller communities of the colonies and then states, it reflects that historically the "people" were not separate from the provision of security.  Certainly the practice lived on, citizen (as opposed to organized government elements) militias being active in the frontier and in California (and I'd expect elsewhere) even after the territory became a state, certainly up until the beginning of the Civil War.

I’ll be heading home from a work conference that day, but I may be able to make it. Sounds like it would make for some interesting discussion.

@BigStick61, thats really interesting. I knew the states used conscription and that private arms were used, but I didn't know the details. I read a small bit about the 1903 Dick Act and it drew a very defined line between two types of militia. One consisted of soldiers that were federally funded, trained, equiped, had to meet regular Army standards and were inspected by active Army, and were required to answer a presdiental call to arms for up to 9 months under certain circumstances or face courts martial. The other consisted of everyone else between 17 and 45.

In 1908, the 9 month provision was dropped and the president could now set the length of time NG units could serve under federal orders, and the ban of them serving outside the US was also dropped despite the USAG at the time saying it might be unconstitutional to do so.

In 1916, the War Dept was authorized to set NG unit strength levels, uniform requirements, required NG units to take both state and federal oaths of enlistment, and funding became part of the federal budget instead of a subsidy to the state. Also, to get around the potential constitutional issue of NG deploying overseas, guardsman were drafted into federal service.

In 1933, the USNG was created and all National Guardsmen have been members of both their State National Guard (or militia) and the National Guard of the United States since.

I pulled this off of wikipedia, so there's a lot of history that's missing.

Wrong.  As has been discussed ad nauseum, the whole Militia bit is merely one reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  To argue otherwise is a red herring.

I think at least half the time they ask that sort of question just to watch the lawyers squirm.  It's their entertainment.

Militias used as expeditionary forces rarely work out well.  That us not what they are for.  The problem wasnt the militia.   The problem was we were becoming a nation that needed a larger standing army or a reserve of such, but didn't have one.

The NG is just a reserve to the standing army, as it should be.  There still should be local militias.

I believe I read somewhere that the Justices are voting on mootness today, but no announcement on that vote will be made anytime soon.

I also read somewhere that if they do in fact plan to render this case moot, that the first clue we may get is them putting another Second Amendment case on the docket.  In other words, if they agree to hear another Second Amendment case for this current session, that it is very likely that means they voted to render this case moot.

If the above understanding is correct, is there any possibility that they could both agree to hear an additional Second Amendment case and then also bitch slap NYC in some way or another?

All those lower court rulings that NYC was victorious in leading up to this reaching the Supreme Court have to be corrected, don't they?

These three guys and all the lawyers and others involved from NYSRPA should be entitled to be reimbursed for their time and expenses shouldn't they?

If they agree to hear another case, they may hold NYSRPA v NYC and then remand it for further consideration in light of the second case.
Only the highest ruling counts, all lower rulings are as if they never happened.
The plaintiffs would be due attorneys' fees under 42 Section 1983 and 42 Section 1988 of federal law if the 2nd Circuit were reversed due to handgun transportation being a right covered by the Second Amendment.

Check here after ~4pm today to see if the SCOTUS has granted a different case. The big cases to look for are Rogers, Cheeseman, Pena, or Mance on a Miscellaneous order dated today.

Kharn

At the end the author predicts a "[c]oncurrence by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, pushing for strict scrutiny . . . ." Thomas has advocated abandoning analyzing cases with different levels of scrutiny. He says we should just read the Constitution to see whether it allows a law. The importance of the right or freedom at stake should have nothing to do with how closely we look at whether a law violates the Constitution. (He's right.) I don't see Thomas writing an opinion based on applying any particular level of scrutiny.

No word today. Maybe Monday at 0930.

If it's rendered moot, then the mass shootings will stop.
If Judas Roberts decides to go with the merits of the case, then we'll see more of the same...

I heard Bork was bad on guns.

43 was actually pretty good on the 2nd. He let the AWB lapse, passed tort protection for firearms, and he was the one pushing CCW in parks.

Also, his administration made BLM follow one set of rules allowing AWs on BLM land. Under Clinton, it varied by BLM office, so in CA if you had a registered AW you may or may not be able to shoot it on BLM land depending. Note that we have lots of BLM land here, much of it desert.

During western expansion, militias were still in use and typically way better than the army.

In the 1870s the army went a decade without a budget for marksmanship training. Recruits were typically German and Irish immigrants who lacked experience with horses, firearms, Indians, or the West itself. They were poorly trained, poorly motivated, and armed with single shot rifles (when the spencers were retired).

Militias in west were made up of men of the west, ranchers and cowboys, who knew the land, the natives, horses, and hunted. They typically had Winchester repeaters.

The deal with militias is that they tend to be a mixed bag. By the time of the Civil War Eastern militias were mostly country club type affairs, since they had little immediate purpose. Western militias on the frontier were a very different matter, but they look more like a posse than what we typically think of as a militia. The militias were not organized on a high level, and since they were very different from place to place organizing them would be very difficult. But as a local defense instrument they were usually the best thing.

I believe it was the militia from Montana who could have stopped the Nez Pierce at a pass when the army was chasing those Indians. The Indians sent a scout ahead to tell the militia they wanted peace with the people there (they typically traveled there so the white ranchers in the area had been on friendly terms with the tribe). The militia let them pass, and took pity on the Indians, many of who were women, children and the old. This points to another aspect of the militia, in that it would act independently, which was not what the army wanted. Although in that case, the militia made the better decision.

43 also said that he would sign a new AWB if it reached his desk - something that he should have said was DOA...

Yet in fact he had the renewal die.

Had he said what you wanted we likely would have had President Gore. But we had Bush, and the AWB went away.

Well said, it was the Texas Militias some later becoming the Texas Rangers that had success fighting the Comanche.  The Regular Army did a horrible job at fighting the Comanche and it was the local settlers that learned how to fight on horseback like the Comanche did.

Was it ‘Trumps’ Supreme Court that sent Remington packing.. does the cuckmaster get credit for that one?

I read a statement from attorney and CRPA president Chuck Michel that he posted on FB where he said he predicts Roberts will side with the libs and say moot.  This is based, Michel says, on Roberts' ambiguous and vague statements he made  the other day.  He didn't state exactly which statements he was referring to so I can't quote here.  Sorry.

who knows, perhaps they moot NYSRPA and then just rule strict scrutiny for Pena based on the filings....one could hope

Started another thread on the topic, but got very little traction. So, being that it also involves the SC and gun rights, I’ll just drop the short version of it in here.

A while back I saw a video (guntuber name omitted) that indicated there was still an active effort to litigate the bump stock ban. I forgot about it until a few days ago and decided to check on the status. Turns out, it still appears to be active.

Guedes v. BATFE

The Court was petitioned in late August. A handful of Amicus briefs in support were filed in October. Government response in opposition was just filed earlier this week.

Who knows if anything will come of it. Or if the Court will even elect to hear the case. It’s clear that the government was way out of line in their decision. Frankly, it should be an easy win if the SC were to hear the case. Especially given the composition of the current justices. But I also could see Roberts somehow finding a reason to bone us again.

If it were to actually make it before the Court. And actually be decided in our favor. It would be a massive win. And would set an incredibly important precedent for defeating the inevitable leftist attempts to severely curtail our rights in the very near future.

I'm not sure if it was this thread or another that posted the hour-long audio of the argument of NYSRPA v. City of NY, but I just stumped upon this version from Reddit -



I already listened to the whole thing yesterday, but neat to see the "toon" version. Makes it easier to follow along who is talking. Though they animated RBG upright.

The attorney arguing for the Plantiffs (Clement) did a hell of a job.. did some research and he is very experienced in arguing in front of the USSC. The guy representing NYC was all "umm, uhh, well, ahhh". Basically saying anything he could to say "oh yeah, totally moot, we won't hassle them, no way".