Breaking - SCOTUS granted cert for NYSRPA vs NYC - Page 5

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Breaking - SCOTUS granted cert for NYSRPA vs NYC (Page 5 of 7)

Posted: 1/22/2019 6:15:48 PM EST

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:
I always thought it was federal law that said you can transport your firearm anywhere you are allowed to have it to anywhere else you are allowed to have it. Including through blue liberal fucktard states. I think though that this Nazi bullshit only applies to the NYC licence holders.

View Quote

Its about crossing state lines which the federal government can regulate.

Posted: 1/22/2019 6:41:22 PM EST

[#2]

a) Awesome!

b) Unfortunately, the ruling will likely be so insanely narrow it probably won't change much.

Even being arfcom's unofficial negative Nancy, I have to say it's a welcome change that they are hearing a gun case.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:09:14 PM EST

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
Can somebody give a guesstimate on how long this will take the Supreme Court to make a decision , NYC needs to be bitch slapped on this outrageous law .

View Quote

It depends on when the case is heard. If they were to somehow squeeze it in this year, we'd find out in June. If not, they'll probably argue it in October and we'll hear the result either at the end of the year or early 2020.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:09:29 PM EST

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

I have to say it's a welcome change that they are hearing a gun case.

View Quote

Hopefully just the beginning!

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:13:24 PM EST

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

a) Awesome!

b) Unfortunately, the ruling will likely be so insanely narrow it probably won't change much.

Even being arfcom's unofficial negative Nancy, I have to say it's a welcome change that they are hearing a gun case.

View Quote

The court typically isn't going to take a case just because of a bad decision, especially a case that only affects one city. They are more than likely taking this case to either 1) clear up the judicial test that's used to determine constitutionality or 2) affirm that the Second Amendment applies outside the home in some context. If they come out and say something like the 2A applies outside the home and you need to use XX test to determine if the law is constitutional or not, this could open up the flood gates for additional litigation that could overturn completely unrelated laws. In other words, this is potentially a way for the court to overturn a lot of gun regulation at once without actually weighing in on particular cases. The laws would still have to be litigated in lower courts, but if those courts are bound by a certain methodology in determining constitutionality, we might be able to score a lot.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:15:31 PM EST

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

Why is there a government meeting in public that thinks that's reasonable?

View Quote

Because it isn't dealt with the same way the founders would have dealt with such horseshit.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:16:43 PM EST

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

If that's true that's amazing. California has nothing close to that nonsense (yet).

View Quote

True. The east has a very special way of doing things, and that restrictive bullshit is just the kind of authoritarian crap that NY, NJ, MA, and CT would pull. It just feels like east coast bullshit, if that makes sense.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:19:43 PM EST

[#8]

Thankfully we have two Trump appointees on the bench.

And not two HILDABEAST picks.

let that sink in.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:20:58 PM EST

[#9]

Every little win helps...but wish we could get something more substantial...ARs being protected, MGs being protected...something big.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:22:06 PM EST

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
Would NYC actually abide a Supreme Court decision?

View Quote

Yes.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:22:17 PM EST

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
The SCOTUS will rule its unconstitutional and tell NY to overturn the law. NY will laugh in communist and tell SCOTUS to FOAD and law will stand. Then as punishment NY will pass more unconstitutional laws to punish law abiding citizens.

In the case of NJ just replace NY with NJ and it'll be the same.

View Quote

Interestingly, I just got my copy of Shooting Illustrated (Feb 2019 issue). On page 74, MA state gov't ignoring MA court rulings to give out permits is discussed.

The left shrieks and cries that DJT *might* ignore a Hawaii judge's decision and calls it a "Constitutional Crisis." And yet they are the group that routinely ignores court orders they don't like.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:24:37 PM EST

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
Carry licenses currently issued in NYS feature the following disclaimer on the back.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61196/20190122_120627_jpg-817519.JPG

So you can legally carry all over the state until you get to NYC, where your statewide approved legal licensed conduct will get you cuffed and stuffed.

View Quote

NYC might as well be its own state. Oh, wait...

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:24:44 PM EST

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

If you had a target/hunting permit on LI and got caught carrying they would take away your permit. I remember when Edelman's had a shooting range that was open 24/7. It was said if you got caught carrying you would just say I was on my way to the range. Not sure how they went over for anyone who was caught.

View Quote

In Nassau County, you can carry to and from the range and you can stop for gas or food, as long as alcohol isn't served where you stop for food.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:25:21 PM EST

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

A guy at the Nassau permit office told my buddy not to think the "I belong to a 24 hr. range" story will work.

View Quote

And Freeport is a 24 hr range.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:25:39 PM EST

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Yes.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Would NYC actually abide a Supreme Court decision?

Yes.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:28:49 PM EST

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
Dems control everything, they can make whatever changes they want to 400 and will probably retaliate by basically ending carry permits for everyone

View Quote

everyone, meaning the peons.

Posted: 1/22/2019 7:29:00 PM EST

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
Just wait, you’ll be able to see it on a national level soon.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Jesus Christ. How can rights get so stripped away like this in a state.

Just wait, you’ll be able to see it on a national level soon.

Yep, all we have to do is continue trash Trump & The NRA, sit out elections, vote Dim, vote 3'rd party and all that 'tarded shit that Arfcom is all about.

Posted: 1/22/2019 8:15:34 PM EST

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Hey everyone...I know NYC's bullshit gun laws almost perfectly. Unfortunately.

This is MUCH bigger than most people think...here is why...

In NY (state and city), if you have a pistol permit, it is actually a CARRY PERMIT. Even if the county restricts it to only "allowing" target shooting/hunting...it is still legally a CARRY PERMIT. They can NOT arrest you for carrying a loaded handgun if you have a pistol permit in NY.

BUT, NYC didn't want to have any part of that...so what they do is, they issue the ONLY other kind if pistol permit in NYS law...it is called a PREMISE ONLY permit. Legally, it ONLY allows one to possess the pistol at the address listed on the permit. No target shooting, no hunting, no gun shop repair. Nothing. Nada.

But NYC figures it will only issue people this bullshit PREMISE only permit, and ILLEGALLY (against NY law), "allow" people to target shoot and hunt. NYC even got a liberal activist judge to go along with this saying it was OK. When it is not.

The reason NYC does NOT allow people to transport their PREMISE PERMIT ONLY handguns out of NYC is actually valid, because technically, a NYS trooper or town cop COULD arrest them for possessing a handgun outside of the address on their PREMISE ONLY permit. But if you stay in NYC to target shoot, no NYPD officer would arrest you. But a NYS trooper that is visiting NYC could still arrest you in NYC believe it or not!

So...what does this mean? If SCOTUS says this practice is bullshit, NYC will HAVE to once again start issuing TARGET/HUNTING pistol permits, which again, are legally FULL CARRY permits.

View Quote

Thank you. I hope NYC gets their shit pushed in over this.

Posted: 1/22/2019 8:46:17 PM EST

[#19]

Just rejoined NYSRPA. To be perfectly honest, I became discouraged and let my membership lapse several years ago.

This is absolutely huge and we should all support them. First 2A case to make it to SCOTUS in over 10 years.

Attached File

https://www.nysrpa.org/

Posted: 1/22/2019 8:48:38 PM EST

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
Just rejoined NYSRPA. To be perfectly honest, I became discouraged and let my membership lapse several years ago.

This is absolutely huge and we should all support them. First 2A case to make it to SCOTUS in over 10 years.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61196/875423_2246_jpg-818037.JPG

https://www.nysrpa.org/

View Quote

Lifer, brah.

Posted: 1/22/2019 8:54:02 PM EST

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

Lifer, brah.

View Quote

I should have done that a while ago. I may still next time around.

Posted: 1/22/2019 8:56:38 PM EST

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
I wouldn't count on that. If the Supremes rule that the law stands, California will take notice.

View Quote

if SCOTUS says NY is just then the rest doesnt matter because its time to kill EVERYTHING!!!!!

Posted: 1/22/2019 9:08:15 PM EST

[#23]

This is so far past a 2nd amendment case they need their dicks slammed in a door. But the punishment will never fit the crime in this case.

Posted: 1/22/2019 9:25:16 PM EST

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Every little win helps...but wish we could get something more substantial...ARs being protected, MGs being protected...something big.

View Quote

I don't want ARs or magazine capacities protected. I want them completely ignored. A bit of semantics, maybe, but I want the end result to be "why are we even having this discussion. Constitution. Read it."

But I'm an idealist.

Posted: 1/22/2019 9:30:57 PM EST

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
IBT "Roberts will fuck us" underscores/concern trolls.

Kharn

View Quote

Dude,
You don’t need an underscore to know Roberts is a weak link.

Posted: 1/22/2019 9:48:31 PM EST

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
@P400

Here is the back of mine. As you can see, every country has different "rules". Like davem4p99 said however, in the law, you either have a carry permit or you don't. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/349765/IMG_20190122_133539262_jpg-817600.JPG

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Carry licenses currently issued in NYS feature the following disclaimer on the back.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61196/20190122_120627_jpg-817519.JPG

So you can legally carry all over the state until you get to NYC, where your statewide approved legal licensed conduct will get you cuffed and stuffed.

@P400

Here is the back of mine. As you can see, every country has different "rules". Like davem4p99 said however, in the law, you either have a carry permit or you don't. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/349765/IMG_20190122_133539262_jpg-817600.JPG

@Crash1433 When I first got my license it was in a downstate county that only issued sportsman restricted, for the most part. Asking about an unrestricted license would get you either scolded or laughed at. I don't remember that wording on the back but it's been a while. Those were their rules though.

Moved to a friendlier upstate county and transfered my license. Asked the woman behind the counter if my new license would have restrictions like the one from my previous county. Her puzzled response: "Why would we put restrictions on it?"

For a bunch of counties all following the same state law, the differences between them really are amazing.

Posted: 1/22/2019 9:50:46 PM EST

[#27]

Attached File

Posted: 1/22/2019 10:18:57 PM EST

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:

@Crash1433 When I first got my license it was in a downstate county that only issued sportsman restricted, for the most part. Asking about an unrestricted license would get you either scolded or laughed at. I don't remember that wording on the back but it's been a while. Those were their rules though.

Moved to a friendlier upstate county and transfered my license. Asked the woman behind the counter if my new license would have restrictions like the one from my previous county. Her puzzled response: "Why would we put restrictions on it?"

For a bunch of counties all following the same state law, the differences between them really are amazing.

View Quote

@P400

I've been told that with the new judge in Clinton county I can write a letter and get it removed. The whole process is bullshit but hopefully this case is just the beginning.

Posted: 1/22/2019 10:55:38 PM EST

[#29]

The NRA and our own Modern Musket did this. Hopefully this will pave the way for national reciprocity.

Posted: 1/22/2019 11:56:16 PM EST

[#30]

Any potential it would impact "gun free zone" type laws? Although they are seldom enforced except with other offenses, crimes, etc., they impose unreasonable restrictions on legitimate possession.

Posted: 1/22/2019 11:58:42 PM EST

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
Wow! I didn't expect that at all. I figured for sure that SCOTUS would let NYC just keep jerking gun owners around.

View Quote

You can thank Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh for this. According to the rumors Justice Kennedy was the one who was consistently voting against hearing gun-related cases.

Kavanaugh is already on record with strong 2A decisions so he obviously was the deciding vote on this.

Posted: 1/22/2019 11:59:28 PM EST

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm surprised the USSC took a gun case...maybe ginsburg is dead.

View Quote

Kennedy is gone, and replaced by Kavanaugh.

If anyone wonders why I voted for Trump, this is it.

Posted: 1/23/2019 12:06:42 AM EST

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:

Kennedy is gone, and replaced by Kavanaugh.

If anyone wonders why I voted for Trump, this is it.

View Quote

I was voting for him to replace RBG, too.

Posted: 1/23/2019 12:34:47 AM EST

[#34]

This will be one of many dominoes to fall over the next 25 years. If Trump gets a 2nd term, the toppling of long untouched dominoes will continue, and at a faster pace, for 40 years.

Posted: 1/23/2019 3:46:46 AM EST

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:

HA, two ignorant people already. The organization filing the lawsuit is the official state level NRA affiliate organization. Your bias is obvious.

View Quote

No, I'm just going by what the NRA tried to pull in both Heller and McDonald. You do know that Heller was originally Parker, right? You know what happened to cause the change? Your beloved NRA filed to disqualify the entire group of plaintiffs, and they succeeded with four of the five so that Dick Heller was the only person remaining. They pulled similar shit in McDonald, trying to seize control of the case and wasting the Supreme Court's time with their completely worthless oral bloviating.

But keep licking the asshole of the organization of assholes who tried to fuck you over on that one, and on damn near every other bit of gun control that's happened in the last thirty years. I'm sure Wayne appreciates it.

Posted: 1/23/2019 4:18:31 AM EST

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
The lower court decisions were hilarious "you can practice shooting at ranges in NYC including an NYPD range" I'd love to see some dude show up at that NYPD range with his pistol from his apartment in a little locked pistol case

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
The lower court decisions were hilarious "you can practice shooting at ranges in NYC including an NYPD range" I'd love to see some dude show up at that NYPD range with his pistol from his apartment in a little locked pistol case

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1890169.html

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, J.) denied the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction, and granted the City's cross-motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the restrictions in premises licenses do not violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the fundamental right to travel, or the First Amendment. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of New York, 86 F. Supp. 3d 249, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The Plaintiffs appeal that judgment.

For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

That was on summary judgment (and how exactly does summary judgment differ from a go-through-the-full-process judgment when it's a fucking bench trial?!), so SCOTUS will just reverse and remand, probably all the way to the district court. Then some judge with NYC values will write another opinion about why NYC values are still constitutional, and it'll have to go through the entire appellate process again before anything gets done in around 2027.

@cranberry1 see above paragraph; they'll reverse and remand in 2020, trial court will have to take another swing at it and waste a year doing it until early 2022, 2cir will affirm again in 2023 or 2024, SCOTUS will rehear in 2024-ish, give a decision in 2025, and NYC will probably have to muck with changes in 2026-2027. Even if you're optimistic about the schedule you're still looking at 2025, maybe 2024 if it's on rails.

Better reelect Trump so that he can appoint two (Thomas retires, Sotomayor croaks from diabeetus) or three (Breyer gives up the ghost) more Justices (four if Ginsburg struggles on past 2020) in his second term.

Sweet Zombie Jesus, the Left would collectively shit itself if Trump put five or six Federalist Society members on the Court, leaving Kagan and Roberts to be the "swing votes" on say bankruptcy law interpretations.

Posted: 1/23/2019 4:27:53 AM EST

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
Unlikely. Thomas doesn't like the levels of scrutiny analysis in the first place. He thinks a law is either violates the Constitution or it doesn't. Whether a law violates the Constitution shouldn't depend on which right the law regulates or how important the government's interest is.

As long as we're dreaming, perhaps this is the case where the Court abandons levels of scrutiny analysis AND selective incorporation and returns to the privileges and immunities analysis Thomas has been advocating for.

View Quote

None of that is on the table in this case. The Supreme Court can't just get a wild hair up its ass and declare that because the FAA's jurisdiction does not extend to model aircraft, all amendments after 1861 are hereby void and slavery is now the law of the land again.

This is why Gura's arguments in McDonald were so important -- it was the first case in . . . crap, maybe since the 1910s . . . where P-or-I was on the table. Something the NRA butthole-cleaners were never capable of comprehending. I don't think we get another shot at it unless someone successfully brings a 3rd Amendment case for quartering soldiers in their NYC condos during the riots after Trump wins his third term.

Posted: 1/23/2019 5:46:58 AM EST

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
No, I'm just going by what the NRA tried to pull in both Heller and McDonald. You do know that Heller was originally Parker, right? You know what happened to cause the change? Your beloved NRA filed to disqualify the entire group of plaintiffs, and they succeeded with four of the five so that Dick Heller was the only person remaining. They pulled similar shit in McDonald, trying to seize control of the case and wasting the Supreme Court's time with their completely worthless oral bloviating.

But keep licking the asshole of the organization of assholes who tried to fuck you over on that one, and on damn near every other bit of gun control that's happened in the last thirty years. I'm sure Wayne appreciates it.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

HA, two ignorant people already. The organization filing the lawsuit is the official state level NRA affiliate organization. Your bias is obvious.

No, I'm just going by what the NRA tried to pull in both Heller and McDonald. You do know that Heller was originally Parker, right? You know what happened to cause the change? Your beloved NRA filed to disqualify the entire group of plaintiffs, and they succeeded with four of the five so that Dick Heller was the only person remaining. They pulled similar shit in McDonald, trying to seize control of the case and wasting the Supreme Court's time with their completely worthless oral bloviating.

But keep licking the asshole of the organization of assholes who tried to fuck you over on that one, and on damn near every other bit of gun control that's happened in the last thirty years. I'm sure Wayne appreciates it.

Oral bloviating? Vs Gura being asked if he was bucking for a law professorship by reviving the privileges and immunities doctrine and receiving only support from Thomas, and the NRA's due process approach being supported by the other four justices in the plurality?

Kharn

Posted: 1/23/2019 10:16:02 AM EST

[#39]

Guys...not allowing NYC handgun owners to leave the city to target shoot, hunt or travel legally is one of the major ways the NYPD likes to control gun owners.

If they can't arrest you for legally travelling with your handgun, they lose A TON of power and control...which literally makes their skin crawl.

I've seen them lose their minds first hand when I fought them and won regarding getting various "assault weapons" legalized in NYC. They were not happy that I was correct and they were wrong...and that was just me correctly reading their bullshit laws.

This is an outright bitch slap of their "authority."

Fuck the NYPD licensing division. Bunch of anti gun assholes.

Posted: 1/23/2019 10:16:15 AM EST

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
Oral bloviating? Vs Gura being asked if he was bucking for a law professorship by reviving the privileges and immunities doctrine and receiving only support from Thomas, and the NRA's due process approach being supported by the other four justices in the plurality?

View Quote

Gura covered that in his brief. It was a slam-dunk anyway and there was zero reason to waste time on it during the oral arguments.

This was the equivalent of the NRA demanding equal time, standing up and singing "The Star Spangled Banner", and then claiming that their rendition of the anthem was so inspiring that it was the only reason we won.

Posted: 1/23/2019 10:31:59 AM EST

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
No, I'm just going by what the NRA tried to pull in both Heller and McDonald. You do know that Heller was originally Parker, right? You know what happened to cause the change? Your beloved NRA filed to disqualify the entire group of plaintiffs, and they succeeded with four of the five so that Dick Heller was the only person remaining. They pulled similar shit in McDonald, trying to seize control of the case and wasting the Supreme Court's time with their completely worthless oral bloviating.

But keep licking the asshole of the organization of assholes who tried to fuck you over on that one, and on damn near every other bit of gun control that's happened in the last thirty years. I'm sure Wayne appreciates it.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

HA, two ignorant people already. The organization filing the lawsuit is the official state level NRA affiliate organization. Your bias is obvious.

No, I'm just going by what the NRA tried to pull in both Heller and McDonald. You do know that Heller was originally Parker, right? You know what happened to cause the change? Your beloved NRA filed to disqualify the entire group of plaintiffs, and they succeeded with four of the five so that Dick Heller was the only person remaining. They pulled similar shit in McDonald, trying to seize control of the case and wasting the Supreme Court's time with their completely worthless oral bloviating.

But keep licking the asshole of the organization of assholes who tried to fuck you over on that one, and on damn near every other bit of gun control that's happened in the last thirty years. I'm sure Wayne appreciates it.

The NRA’s 2nd amendment case was Seegars v. Ashcroft. It was tossed on standing issues, just like the other plaintiffs in the Heller case. Show me the brief were the NRA raised that issue in Heller.
While you're searching, maybe you'll want to start with the brief they did file with SCOTUS in Heller.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCuNRACivilRightsDefFnd.pdf

Posted: 1/23/2019 10:36:42 AM EST

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:

Which is bullshit to begin with. If doing something is NOT illegal (carrying with a target/hunting/sportsman license)...then there should be NO penalty for doing so. How can they take away your pistol permit for a legal activity (carrying concealed)?

View Quote

Administrative law. As noted it is not a criminal offense but since you violated the administration they pull your permit and you then have to dispose of your handguns otherwise you will be charged with a criminal offense. Been going on in New York since 1911. They have the system well worked out now.

Posted: 1/23/2019 10:52:17 AM EST

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
The NRA’s 2nd amendment case was Seegars v. Ashcroft. It was tossed on standing issues, just like the other plaintiffs in the Heller case. Show me the brief were the NRA raised that issue in Heller.
While you're searching, maybe you'll want to start with the brief they did file with SCOTUS in Heller.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCuNRACivilRightsDefFnd.pdf

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
The NRA’s 2nd amendment case was Seegars v. Ashcroft. It was tossed on standing issues, just like the other plaintiffs in the Heller case. Show me the brief were the NRA raised that issue in Heller.
While you're searching, maybe you'll want to start with the brief they did file with SCOTUS in Heller.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCuNRACivilRightsDefFnd.pdf

You claim to be a lawyer and you don't understand what the NRA did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Non-party involvement
National Rifle Association (NRA)

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[56] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[57] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[58] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[7]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.[7]

The NRA was the group that raised the lack-of-standing issue in an attempt to get the case thrown out.

If you're an attorney, I'm sure you have access to PACER and can look up the files.

Posted: 1/23/2019 11:04:08 AM EST

[#44]

Not to be a dick but......does anyone know the Grim Reaper's email address?

I want to bake him a cake or something, maybe some yummy chocolate chip cookies. Please please please GR please come visit RBG soon.

Posted: 1/23/2019 11:25:03 AM EST

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
I feel this is going to go 7-2. Clearly not just a 2nd Amendment violation.

View Quote

This. I know we have four hard-left justices, but there is no way to consider existing court precedent and side with NYC on this. Even if you believe that mag limits, AWBs, and other extreme gun control measures are consititutional, not being able to take your lawfully owned property with you if you move out of the city is totally ridiculous. I'm thinking we will get some defectors on this.

Posted: 1/23/2019 11:26:43 AM EST

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
Just saw that, can’t wait to see NYC get their dicks slapped by the Supreme Court.

View Quote

What makes you think that will happen?

Success depends upon Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch voting correctly. I think Alito, Kav, Gorsuch, and Thomas can be relied on.

It's Roberts that could screw us.

Posted: 1/23/2019 11:26:46 AM EST

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:
You claim to be a lawyer and you don't understand what the NRA did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The NRA was the group that raised the lack-of-standing issue in an attempt to get the case thrown out.

If you're an attorney, I'm sure you have access to PACER and can look up the files.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NRA’s 2nd amendment case was Seegars v. Ashcroft. It was tossed on standing issues, just like the other plaintiffs in the Heller case. Show me the brief were the NRA raised that issue in Heller.
While you're searching, maybe you'll want to start with the brief they did file with SCOTUS in Heller.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCuNRACivilRightsDefFnd.pdf

You claim to be a lawyer and you don't understand what the NRA did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Non-party involvement
National Rifle Association (NRA)

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[56] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[57] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[58] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[7]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.[7]

The NRA was the group that raised the lack-of-standing issue in an attempt to get the case thrown out.

If you're an attorney, I'm sure you have access to PACER and can look up the files.

I am an attorney. I don't pay for PACER -- haven't used it in years. I'm certainly not going to dig through briefs to prove your point.
Yes, I know about the acrimony between Gura and the NRA. I'm not defending the NRA or their litigation tactics.
I'm asking you to show me the brief where the NRA raised a standing issue with the Heller plaintiffs as you alleged in your earlier post.

Edit: Oh, and from your Wiki link: "The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment."

Posted: 1/23/2019 11:35:29 AM EST

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thankfully we have two Trump appointees on the bench.

And not two HILDABEAST picks.

let that sink in.

View Quote

I think this is where it all comes down to. If Trumps judges can make a win for 2A rights, than we can possibly release that breath we've been holding.

Posted: 1/23/2019 11:41:42 AM EST

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:

No, I'm just going by what the NRA tried to pull in both Heller and McDonald. You do know that Heller was originally Parker, right? You know what happened to cause the change? Your beloved NRA filed to disqualify the entire group of plaintiffs, and they succeeded with four of the five so that Dick Heller was the only person remaining. They pulled similar shit in McDonald, trying to seize control of the case and wasting the Supreme Court's time with their completely worthless oral bloviating.

But keep licking the asshole of the organization of assholes who tried to fuck you over on that one, and on damn near every other bit of gun control that's happened in the last thirty years. I'm sure Wayne appreciates it.

View Quote

NRA held he line with lobbying from the '70s through early 2000s. Their approach wasn't through the courts, since for a long time their was no success to be had there. It isn't surprising they were slow to catch on in the legal arena.