SCOTUS Deferred Decision on Mootness: Forces NYC to Defend Its Past Ban on RKBA

Opinion

U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA
SCOTUS Deferred Decision on Mootness: Forces NYC to Defend Its Past Ban on RKBA

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- 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.

The Caetano decision was a unanimous decision that clarified the Second Amendment applied to all bearable arms, even if they had been invented recently.

Many have speculated that Justice Kennedy's lukewarm support for the Second Amendment was the reason for this lack of action. Neither the Originalists (Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts) or the “Living Document” group (Ginsburg, Sotomeyer, Breyer, and Kagan) knew which way Kennedy would topple, leading to a deadlock.

Justice Kennedy has retired, replaced by Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Scalia died, and was replaced by Justice Gorsuch.

The new court appears to have an Originalist majority for the first time in 70 years.

The court has agreed to hear the NYSR&P case. They have refused to drop it on grounds of mootness. The case is about the ability to take arms outside of the home, but could cover a great deal more.

Several other cases are in the wings involving magazines, semi-automatic rifles, and licensed “may issue” carry permits.

Those who wish us disarmed are not happy with this result. They thought they had solved the problem with the election of Hillary Clinton, who would appoint more “Living Document” justices, and rule the Second Amendment into oblivion.

That did not happen. We see the frustration, the angst, the anger and rage, every day, directed at President Trump.

After oral arguments are heard on 2 December 2019, it will be some time before the opinion is released. It could be as late as the first week in July, 2020.

I suspect a strong opinion, but the court is not easily predicted. Much horsetrading is involved. That is how the Heller decision contained the ambivalent language about “long standing” laws, according to deceased Justice Stevens, who detested the Second Amendment.  From the abajournal.com:

Stevens previously has called for repeal of the Second Amendment or a clarification saying it applies only to people serving in militias.

In the book, Stevens said he had hoped to persuade Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to agree with him that the amendment was intended to prevent the disarmament of state militias. He circulated his dissent emphasizing historical texts supporting his view in hopes it would prove persuasive.

His only success, he said, was in getting Kennedy to persuade Justice Antonin Scalia to include language limiting the reach of his majority decision in Heller.

With activist “living document” justices such as Stevens on the Court, it is understandable why the National Rifle Association was opposed to bringing Heller to the Court at all.

That is in the past. How much current justices will uphold the clear language of the Second Amendment, in NYSP&RA will be found when they publish the decision, several months in the future, just in time for the 2020 elections.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

25
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
7 Comment threads
18 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
American PatriotLaddyboyJimCaptainKeroseneRattlerjake Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

It STILL amazes me that these “learned people” CANNOT understand SIMPLE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!!!!
Some times I truly believe these “judges” MUST HAVE an INTERPRETER who is learned on the Constitution and have studied, WITH EXAMS.
The Federalist Papers that OUR Founders wrote give US directions on how their thoughts were on various topics of the Constitution which were put to paper so WE the FUTURE can read and LEARN and UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!

American Patriot
Member
American Patriot

That might be the problem, try rewriting it in Spanish & a lot more will understand it comprende!

CaptainKerosene
Member
CaptainKerosene

The Declaration of Independence was written almost a year and a half AFTER the Revolutionary War began at Concord Bridge. A dozen years later after the war was won they wrote a new Constitution in 1788. Patrick Henry and others OBJECTED because it did not protect the rights of the people. A Bill of Rights was demanded. A major objection was Art 1, Sct, 8 which put ALL the arms in the hands of Congress. Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power …To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may… Read more »

Jim
Member
Jim

the thing is Captain.
most people who never were taught about our Constitution THINK WE GET OUR RIGHTS FROM GOVT.
we get NONE of them from govt as you must know.
and our 2ND AMENDMENT was written for we the people TO DEFEND AGAINST A TIME WHEN OUR GOVT BECOMES TYRANNICAL.
WHICH WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IT HAS BECOME TYRANNICAL.
and we are NOT LIMITED TO MUSKETS, we can arm ourselves with EVERY WEAPON OF WAR OUR MILITARY HAS, TO DEFEND OURSELVES FROM SAID TYRANNICAL GOVT.

tomcat
Member
tomcat

The Supreme Court use to be where the most prevalent issues were decided on. I am not so sure that is the case in this day and age. Since Roberts, appointed by Bush, has taken over it has changed and not for the good of the people it is designed to serve. It is their job to uphold law, not to make laws.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@tomcat

It’s what I have been warning against since 2015. All three branches of Government are broken, but no one has wanted to look at that.

Instead it devolves into a “Republican Fieldmice vs Democrat Hagfish” football game. The minute you try to force anyone to look at the problems on their own team that person gets shouted down. Nobody wants to accept the hard truth, they are all looking for the easiest way to make it look like they won so they can chest thump.

tomcat
Member
tomcat

@ Rev. I do agree with you on this matter, all of DC is trying to rule us. They forgot they are our employees. Yes, I am in the column of voting for Trump, unless some super candidate comes along. We are not in agreement on that front but I feel it is much more important to keep the democrat idiots, any of them, from taking over because there would never be a conservative president again. The only thing a democrat would bring is a civil war and we would be against the “just doing my job” police and military.… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Tomcat “Yes, I am in the column of voting for Trump, unless some super candidate comes along. ” Tomcat, you say that as if you expect me to attack you over that. I have never, and will never attack someone for making a choice to vote their own conscience. I fully support such action. Rather I attack the hypocrites who try to control others trying to do the same. I don’t care if it is a liberal saying you are a racist for refusing to vote for their candidate, or someone on the Right saying someone is automatically a socialist… Read more »

tomcat
Member
tomcat

@ Rev. We can agree to disagree. Your last sentence causes me a lot of pause because it is possible we are at that point or beyond it.
Later!

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Tomcat

On that I agree with you, for both statements. If it is any consolation to you, my rifle bears this inscription. “I will not go silently into the night, I will not go down without a fight.”

Best wishes and take care brother. Till next time.

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

We will NOT have a civil war. I say that because the conservative side insists on taking the non-combatant side, to such a point that we have gone too far to fix the damage. Trump really hasn’t fixed anything in government, because HE can’t, all he has done and can do is to change a few things to allow for an improved economy and hold back the inevitable. It would take decades to reverse what the government has done to destroy this nation. When Trump leaves office, hopefully not until (Jan 2025), we will see a leftist take the reins… Read more »

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@TC; One slight correction to your good comment. looking at your last sentence. I would state it this way:
“It IS the job of the Supreme Court to make sure the intended new law MET THE EVALUATION and AGREEMENT or ALIGNMENT WITH the Constitution. Their JOB IS NOT to make laws!”
They only give an OPINION on a new “law” then send it back to Congress, where any corrections are to be made – – BEFORE the President sees it.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Hey, Dean….if Roberts is such an “originalist”, why does he stab the American People and the United States in the back so often by siding with the anti-American activists, RGB, Kagan and Sotomeyer?

Tionico
Member
Tionico

John Roberts is NOT an originalist. He is a survivalist. From what I saw in a few of his rulings, SOMEONE has their claws into him and has been manipulating him for some time. Major case in point: his illegal determination that OhBUmmerTax did not hold a “fine” over Americans who refused to participate in the shell game/ponzi scheme called the ACA, but it was a “tax”.. which it could NOT have been because ALL tax bills MUST originate ONLY in the House of Representatives, and OhBummerTax rose out of the cesspool in the Senate. But no one had the… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Tionico
Exactly the reason I cautioned you last year not to put your faith in the courts, as Thomas Jefferson once warned that judges are still men, with all of their inadequacies and failings.

Good argument in what you said, but most people weren’t willing to look at that back then, and most don’t want to follow the Constitution now when it means their side can’t attack the other the way they want to.

Raconteur
Member
Raconteur

If SCOTUS rules this moot, there is nothing that keeps NYC from reinstating the same BS law and will only encourage other governments to do the same. It is time for the court to slap down the lower courts and bring the 2nd Amendment up to full status as an inalienable right.

Ryben Flynn
Member
Ryben Flynn

Beat me to it.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

It is far past time for the American People to stand up for their Rights.
I won’t hold my breath.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@tetejaun

Funny, but many of those that do stand up for them end up getting shouted down as “Cowards” for doing something you hate, like refusing to vote for candidates that are willing to infringe the second amendment.

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@TR; IF you are running for an office and behave as Francis of these other Communist, demanding I hand over my LEGALLY purchased ITEMS – – I will NOT vote for a TRAITOR that is against OUR Constitution.

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

Actually that’s not true. The reason that it would be ruled “moot” is because the “law” in this case has already been changed to a much lesser infringement, and the current law is NOT what is being contested in this case. What would have to happen is for the same “injured” party/parties to start over and refile on the current law. This is one of the reasons that our court system is so F’ed up. They will only hear what is in the original complaint and not allow any additions or changes to match those of the state. So in… Read more »

joefoam
Member
joefoam

Decades have to pass before the SCOTUS will even hear a case. That is disgusting

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

Ginsburg cannot be “saved”! God/Jesus told us that there are those people who are not redeemable! http://www.preachersnotes.com/Edgar%20Dye/PEOPLE%20WHO%20CANNOT%20BE%20SAVED.pdf

Will
Member
Will

JOIN GOA ! The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington !

joefoam
Member
joefoam

Already have, along with NAGR, FPC and SAF. would suggest all gun rights proponents do so as well.