New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

Politics Second Amendment
1

Docket for 18-280 (Supreme Court docket #18-280)

Both links above have links to all briefing in the case.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

I should note that Paul Clement is lead counsel for the Plaintiffs/Petitioners in this case.

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.

I believe there is zero doubt that the Supreme Court will strike down New York City’s draconian and ultra-retarded statute.

It will be the fine details of the Supreme Court’s opinion that will be of critical importance going forward, particularly as this is the first major gun case the Supreme Court has taken in a decade. The reason the Supreme Court has punted for the last decade may be very simple. The conservative justices were doubtful of Justice Kennedy’s commitment to the Second Amendment. With him gone and a Second Amendment supporter in place, they likely feel that now is the time to act.

I believe that the Supreme Court should make the firm statement that both the right to KEEP arms and the right to BEAR arms are core Constitutional rights. And as such, any statute that affects them MUST be considered under strict scrutiny. And the language of the Supreme Court must be clear and concise, informing the lower courts that they will not tolerate consideration of Second Amendment cases under a lower standard of scrutiny.

The Supreme Court has a chance to greatly solidify the protection of the Second Amendment, by decisively instructing the lower courts as to the required level of scrutiny.

2

This case will likely be argued on the final day of the April sitting, as it was the last case to be accepted for consideration. I fully expect it to be perhaps the final case announced at the end of the court’s term in June.

The Supreme Court has enough cases to fill up its March and April sitting calendars and any cases accepted going forward will not be argued until the October 2019 term.

3

It appears this case is getting bumped to the October 2019 term. The Supreme Court released the calendar for its April sitting today and this case was omitted, twelve other cases being heard that week.

This case is currently the only case that has been granted, but not scheduled for argument, meaning that unless the unlikely possibility of a May sitting occurs, this case will be heard during the October 2019 term October sitting. The first day of that sitting is October 7, 2019.

4

The court traditionally has been rather resistant to taking such cases so this doesn’t surprise me.

It could also be a matter of strategy waiting to see if Ginsburg is going to retire willingly or otherwise before they take-up the case.

The case itself should be nobrainer based on Heller, and MacDonald.

1 Like
5

I wonder why?

6

Because as Thomas says, it’s a disfavored right and the high court has traditionally not wanted to rock the boat letting the states violate our rights as they see fit.

Fortunately, groups like the NRA keep pushing and Scalia’s court was more than willing to step in.

Now that we have a full court again I suspect we’ll see more of these cases being taken, I hope so.