They portray every gun case as “they are suing to have guns on the streets”.
NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York & The NYPD License Division
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
I mean, the plaintiffs literally are asking to be allowed to have a gun "on the streets," as opposed to locked only in their home.
The fact that "on the streets" is a scare phrase really shows how far apart the sides are on this. Most of us who are pro-gun are not frightened of the mere existence of a gun in public, especially an unloaded/cased gun. Most anti-gun people are scared by the mere existence of the gun. To them, guns are pathogens... having a gun in any public space (regardless of condition) is equivalent to having a vial of smallpox outside of the CDC research lab. Nevermind that the smallpox virus acts all on its own, whereas guns generally require a human to interact with them in order to "transmit" harm.
The fact that "on the streets" is a scare phrase really shows how far apart the sides are on this. Most of us who are pro-gun are not frightened of the mere existence of a gun in public, especially an unloaded/cased gun. Most anti-gun people are scared by the mere existence of the gun. To them, guns are pathogens... having a gun in any public space (regardless of condition) is equivalent to having a vial of smallpox outside of the CDC research lab. Nevermind that the smallpox virus acts all on its own, whereas guns generally require a human to interact with them in order to "transmit" harm.
The plaintiffs already can already have their guns "on the streets" carried in the exact same manner on the way to the gun range. They are merely asking to take them to another location, such as a second home or an outdoor range outside the city.. The law is completely utterly unreasonable and any portrayal otherwise is dishonest. What a joke of a law.
Last edited:
I love (sarcastic) the city's defense - that they found that some people were "abusing" the previous, already-restrictive right to transport their guns to out-of-city ranges. Imagine if our other constitutional rights could be revoked just because a small number of people abused them.
"We tried having free speech, but then some people abused it by shouting insults at others. So we had to curtail it."
"We tried having freedom of religion, but some people abused it by not showing up for church services regularly, so now church attendance is mandatory. We'll post a list of acceptable churches."
"We tried letting people elect their representatives, but some of them elected people we find to be poor choices. Sadly, we can no longer risk the abuse of this right, and now the commissars will let you know who you have elected."
"We tried not searching people's homes without warrants, but it turns out that some people were abusing this right by having illegal drugs in their houses. Random house-to-house searches for contraban will now be routine."
There's no other clear, constitutional right that courts would stand to see treated a cavalierly as the RKBA.
"We tried having free speech, but then some people abused it by shouting insults at others. So we had to curtail it."
"We tried having freedom of religion, but some people abused it by not showing up for church services regularly, so now church attendance is mandatory. We'll post a list of acceptable churches."
"We tried letting people elect their representatives, but some of them elected people we find to be poor choices. Sadly, we can no longer risk the abuse of this right, and now the commissars will let you know who you have elected."
"We tried not searching people's homes without warrants, but it turns out that some people were abusing this right by having illegal drugs in their houses. Random house-to-house searches for contraban will now be routine."
There's no other clear, constitutional right that courts would stand to see treated a cavalierly as the RKBA.
Last edited:
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 380
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
I'm educating myself on this case, and on how the court system works. I've been hearing opinions that NYC allowed this case to make it to SCOTUS with the idea that they would continue with the status quo by refusing to hear the case.
Just now, I read a news articles from USA Today that says they NYC is getting pressure to change the law to keep SCOTUS from deciding on it thus setting precedence. My question is, is there a "point of no return?" That is, at what point is it too late to change the law and for the changed law to interfere with the court's ruling?
Just now, I read a news articles from USA Today that says they NYC is getting pressure to change the law to keep SCOTUS from deciding on it thus setting precedence. My question is, is there a "point of no return?" That is, at what point is it too late to change the law and for the changed law to interfere with the court's ruling?
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
The entire system is racially invidious, and by design.
I wonder what would happen if someone proposed similar restrictions on other constitutionally protected rights, such as voting or reproductive health procedures.
I wonder what would happen if someone proposed similar restrictions on other constitutionally protected rights, such as voting or reproductive health procedures.
Deanimator
Member
More like "They're suing to allow victims to defend themselves from our constituents. "
BlueHeelerFl
Member
Back when I had my NYC Target handgun permit I believe the city reserved the right to inspect how your firearms and ammo were secured (separately of course).
So getting caught with a gun in your trunk during a surprise inspection would raise some questions
This gets into the doctrine of mootness. This subject matter typically takes up a few hours of Con Law I class in law school, so distilling it to a bright-line answer isn't necessarily possible. However, here's an attempt at the basics:
- The constitution affords Article III courts (atop which sits the Supreme Court) jurisdiction over "cases and controversies" that fall into certain categories.
- The courts (including the supreme court) have said that means that they don't exist to give "advisory opinions" about stuff in advance. They only rule on questions that are actually ripe. By way of analogy, if the court is the umpire, the catcher cannot turn around and ask "if the pitcher throws a slider and I catch it here, will you call it a strike?" If he does, the umpire will just say "throw it and then I'll let you know." There are exceptions to this general approach, but that's the basic idea.
- The courts, including the supreme court, have said that a "case or controversy" that disappears during the pendency of the case - really at any time prior to a ruling - renders the case "moot." If everyone agrees that the last pitch thrown was tossed after another umpire had granted a request for time, there is no longer a call to be made on the ball/strike issue.
- The Supreme Court has some exceptions for this, particularly in cases where some question is almost always going to be mooted during the course of review (consider abortion restrictions - since legal challenges that get all the way to the Supreme Court generally take far more than 9 months to get to all the way to a Supreme Court review, dismissing a challenge to an abortion restriction just because the plaintiff/woman gives birth would allow those kind of restrictions to "evade review.") But generally the issue has to be something that is going to automatically repeat and automatically keep being mooted during the pendency of the review.
- I haven't analyzed it in detail, but I tend to think a hasty repeal of the offending law would probably moot the appeal. The more interesting question is if a new, slightly-less-restrictive replacement requirement would induce the Court to tell challengers to start over (to build a record to review), or if they would instead retain jurisdiction and speak on the constitutionality of the new restiction.
- The other thing to keep in mind is that, while the Supreme Court isn't always analytically right, it's always functionally right. Because there is nowhere further to appeal. They get the last word. So if they decide to exercise jurisdiction, then they've got it. If they decide the case is now moot, it's moot. NY can cry about it, or you and I can cry about it, but, at that point, it's just salt on cheeks.
Last edited:
Gridley
Member
Appreciate your response, but this raises an additional question: if a case is rendered moot, is that tantamount to finding the defendant not guilty of the original charge? I'm sure it isn't that simple, but in general is that how it works?
I don't understand this question in the context of this case. I don't think the case at issue arises from a criminal conviction (which would not be mooted by a subsequent repeal). I think this is a on-its-face challenge to the constitutionality of the law. The petition, for instance, explains what the individual petitions are refraining from doing in order to avoid violating the allegedly-unconstitutional law. I don't think there is a criminal defendant with an "original charge" here.
If there were a criminal conviction hanging in the balance, that would be a pretty good argument that the case isn't moot!
Gridley
Member
I was asking about cases in general, not this case in particular, and that does answer my question. Thanks!
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
Again, if you went to PA to shoot a competition or whatever, HOW would they know? (I'm not advocating law-breaking, just wondering how they could even begin to enforce this?)
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
They would begin to enforce it in the same manner that they enforce drug laws or any law for that matter. If and when you're caught, the law will be enforced.
I can't tell if George thinks that most of our criminal laws are reliably enforced in the sense that most violations are detected and punished. That is certainly not the case. Outside of truly major crimes (murder), it is mostly the unlucky-or-targeted-by-LE who get caught and hammered.
That's the same with pretty much every law. A small percentage of violations are caught.
That's part of why penalties are typically so much greater than the actual cost/impact of the crime itself. If you've only got a 1% chance of getting hit with a $50 fine, most people just ignore the issue. If you've got a 1% chance of going to jail for 10 years (which will mean losing your job, likely losing your spouse, losing certain rights forever, wrecking whatever financial/retirement plans you had, subjecting you to a much higher risk of violence in prison, rendering you near-unemployable on release, etc.), then that 1% starts to seem material.
People get stopped and searched for odd reasons. (Being a member of an ethnic minority really increases those odds.) And in NYC, it's not unreasonable to suspect that the few firearms permit holders would be specifically targeted for extra scrutiny by the local LEO's.
Deanimator
Member
With any luck, DiBlasio will fight this battle as fanatically... and ineptly as Daley fought Chicago's handgun ban.
It seems like a bad tactical decision to not back off on something like this that just does not matter any in the grand scheme of gun control.
However, I am glad they made this tactical error so it can get before SCOTUS. It potentially lays open the whole regulatory scheme in NYC.
From a political perspective, it's very plausible that DiBlasio would rather have "the issue" than actually navigate to the most-legally-permissible level of gun control, at least over the short term. A strong anti-gun-control decision from the Supreme Court will be a fundraiser and electoral rallying cry for Team Blue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
