Here is the SCOTUSblog page on the case
I see this as a likely good thing that will probably bring a bit of sanity to New York’s crazy gun laws.
How could such a law have existed in the first place? It would be like an anti-marijuana state prohibiting someone from taking marijuana out of the state. Sure, they can ban someone bringing it in but how to ban taking it out?
This will hopefully be the vehicle for determining that strict scrutiny is the standard in 2nd Amendment cases.
If I understand the case correctly, it is not a ban on taking the pistol out of New York City, it is the transport within the City, while not going directly to a gun range within the City, that is against the law.
I think NYC’s only argument for this prohibition is enforceability. Right now, if they stop you and you have a gun (unloaded and cased of course) and you say that you are going to Acme Target Range, then they can see where you live, see where Acme Target Range is and decide if you are telling the truth. Without the law, you can say that you are going pretty much anywhere in the world, so they will not have that law enforcement tool.
The problem with that argument is that it sounds like the rational basis test. And if owning a gun (along with being proficient in its use to target practice) is a constitutional right, then you cannot have the same standard for that law as you do every other law in the penal code.
You haven’t understood the case correctly. This is from the cert petition:
I stand corrected. So, after having reviewed, the Plaintiffs are asking for the ability to transport their registered pistols to any place outside New York State and to any target shooting facility or other dwelling house inside New York State?
What if they ask to transport it to West Virginia, let’s say, so they can carry it for personal protection where such carry is legal? Could the City still prohibit that even after a win in this case?
How can they get to West Virginia if they can’t leave the city? I suppose if the city shares a border with WV that’d be possible, but unless that is true it would be prohibited.
Bone, have you followed this case much? What do you think the odds are that:
-
the RKBA side is victorious
-
the result includes a broad application of “strict scrutiny” in RKBA cases?
- High
- Low. Super low.
I think this is welcome news for the good guys. Perulta last year was a much cleaner case to resolve these issues, but I hope it means that Kavanaugh is more aggressive than Kennedy in protecting the RKBA.
Who are they?
People who welcome this news.
Oh. The tribe. Nothing more. Gotcha.
Looks like NY is balking. They are seeking to moot the case, and I suspect it’s out of a desire to not want to create precedent.
I would hope SCOTUS would still hear the case, but I would think they would probably punt at this point.
How should “Another premises of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to
have and possess a handgun” be interpreted in the proposed rule change?
Does it mean that the licensee would have to own/rent the location they’re traveling to?
Seems like someone else will just come in and say “I have a license and I want to transport my gun safely to my friend’s house (out of the city), or for a road trip (through states that allow me to do so)”, right?
A request to moot a case because the city proposes to take some future action should be met with a denial. Come back and make that request after the change is made. It is premature at this point.
I’d agree if that is what the request said. It’s a request for a stay, though. From Bone’s cite:
"If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case
moot " is a long way from “a recently enacted change in rule has rendered this case moot.”
The key is the critical step has not yet taken place and until it has the court should not, IMHO, grant a stay.
The City’s argument is that they intend to enact a rule in mid-May that may go into effect no later than mid-June. Were this a different constitutional right at state a demand for immediate relief being met with a “never-you-mind, we only intend to keep violating your rights for a couple more months” would be totally unacceptable.
What would stop a state from playing this game forever? Forget guns as an issue, say it was a free speech issue. The state has a law that says no speech denying the divinity of Christ. People are being denied permits and removed from public property for giving this speech.
After the Supreme Court grants cert, the state repeals the law, says it is now moot and the case is dismissed. The law is then re-enacted. Rinse and repeat.
Being a certified gun grabber, NYC is treading on thin ice.
If you allow people to own guns, they have to be able to transport them. You can demand they be transported in a safe manner, you can even demand that they proactively inform the police that they are effecting transport on X dates, you can’t prevent them from transporting guns to other legal places they may use them.