# SCOTUS grants cert in NYSRPA v NYC (gun case) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 22, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201 "2019-01-22T15:54:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/1 "2019-01-22T15:54:11Z")
[Here is the SCOTUSblog page on the case](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/) > [@](#): > > 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 see this as a likely good thing that will probably bring a bit of sanity to New York’s crazy gun laws. > **[012219zor\_8759.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012219zor_8759.pdf)** ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/2 "2019-01-22T15:57:30Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/3 "2019-01-22T16:10:08Z")
This will hopefully be the vehicle for determining that strict scrutiny is the standard in 2nd Amendment cases. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/4 "2019-01-22T20:07:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/5 "2019-01-22T20:31:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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. You haven’t understood the case correctly. This is from the cert petition: > [@](#): > > 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 selfdefense, > or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting > range to hone its safe and effective use. > > … > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/6 "2019-01-22T20:59:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/7 "2019-01-22T21:02:21Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/8 "2019-01-22T21:23:31Z")
**Bone** , have you followed this case much? What do you think the odds are that: 1. the RKBA side is victorious 2. the result includes a broad application of “strict scrutiny” in RKBA cases? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/9 "2019-01-22T22:29:51Z")
1. High 2. Low. Super low. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/10 "2019-01-22T22:57:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/11 "2019-01-22T23:43:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think this is welcome news for the good guys. Who are they? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2019, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/12 "2019-01-23T00:00:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Who are they? People who welcome this news. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/13 "2019-01-23T13:24:30Z")
Oh. The tribe. Nothing more. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/14 "2019-04-15T18:12:39Z")
[Looks like NY is balking.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/96331/20190412152613471_nysrpa%20v%20cny%2018-180%20ltr%204%2012%2019.pdf) 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. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/15 "2019-04-16T19:00:00Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/16 "2019-04-16T19:34:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2019, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/17 "2019-04-16T22:40:41Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > 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: > [@](#): > > I write to advise the Court of a proposed rulemaking. If adopted in > accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case > moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case. For this reason, I > also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final > action on the proposed rule. > [@](#): > > Under the circumstances, then, a stay would best serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency by enabling the Court to resolve threshold questions of jurisdiction prior to full merits briefing or, at the very least, by enabling the parties to address these issues in their merits briefs. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/18 "2019-04-17T09:11:25Z")
"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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/19 "2019-04-18T19:07:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2019, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201/20 "2019-04-19T10:19:35Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-grants-cert-in-nysrpa-v-nyc-gun-case/828201.md?page=2)