"The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained"

[krispos42]

The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained

Gun control supporters are desperate — and have already taken drastic steps — to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.
By Ian Millhiser Sep 27, 2019, 7:50am EDT

Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade — and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.

The case centers on an unusual — and recently changed — New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.

Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules — all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in. Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.

The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference.

<more>

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/27/20879906/second-amendment-guns-supreme-court-new-york-moot-brett-kavanaugh-nra

The rest of the article is interesting as a legal analysis because it's possible that the Supreme Court might still hear the case. It also goes into how Drunky McRapeyFace's position on lower Federal courts influenced gun laws, as well as his current (stolen) position on SCOTUS might affect things.

[FBaggins]

1. "Desperate to make the case go away." That's about the size of it

The end result is not really in question IF they decide to rule on the case itself. The question is whether or not it's still a case.

It makes for a very interesting question... though one with substantial impact. In order to hear the case (IMHO), they will have to expand the voluntary cessation doctrine to include interested parties who are not parties to the dispute.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. So will there be a decision on the mootness of the case today? n/t

[krispos42]

3. Don't know

There is a lot going on in the news this week. It might get missed!

[Alea]

4. I hope they hear the case.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. "The court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, Oct 7."

We will have to wait for Monday.
https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/supreme-court-to-consider-key-cases/article_8e345797-44dc-503e-be86-a03ad96b5b82.html

Oct. 1 is the court’s annual meeting where the justices consider the backlog of petitions that were filed while the court was on its summer break, each of which asks the court to hear a particular case.

The justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. The court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, Oct 7.

[FBaggins]

6. "The Respondents' 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."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. As noted in post #6 "The Respondents' Suggestion of Mootness is denied"

Post #6: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172209015#post6

The issues: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/18-00280qp.pdf
18-280 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. V. CITY OF NEW YORK
DECISION BELOW: 883 F.3d 45
QUESTION PRESENTED: New York City prohibits its residents from possessing a handgun without a license, and the only license the City makes available to most residents allows its holder to possess her handgun only in her home or en route to one of seven shooting ranges within the city. The City thus bans its residents from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits-even if the handgun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition, and even if the owner seeks to transport it only to a second home for the core constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense, or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting range to hone its safe and effective use.

The City asserts that its transport ban promotes public safety by limiting the presence of handguns on city streets. But the City put forth no empirical evidence that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in a container separate from its ammunition, poses a meaningful risk to public safety. Moreover, even if there were such a risk, the City's restriction poses greater safety risks by encouraging residents who are leaving town to leave their handguns behind in vacant homes, and it serves only to increase the frequency of handgun transport within city limits by forcing many residents to use an in-city range rather than more convenient ranges elsewhere.

The question presented is: Whether the 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.

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-638
CERT. GRANTED 1/22/2019

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 2, 2019.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

[DashOneBravo]

9. Good