Supremes Say NYC Gun Law is Moot

[thatguyoverthere]

I know there's a lot going on in the world today, but I really expected to see this topic posted and being discussed by now. Did I miss something? Am I behind the curve (again) on the news?

I know there was some discussion that it could (probably would?) be declared moot since the law was changed, but I also thought a lot of people had serious high hopes of this case being heard and decided?

Anyway...

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to decide on the constitutionality of a controversial New York City gun law that has since changed, ruling in an unsigned opinion that the case is now "moot" because of the changes in the law.

The quote above is from the article linked below (which is actually more about Alito's dissent), but it's the first article I've run across that mentions the decision.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito- ... reme-court

[G.A. Heath]

The court decided that it was moot because NYC changed the law so that it 'fixed' the complaint, this happens all the time and is a way for NYC to avoid a major precedent that would keep them from going back to the old law. Next time a challenge like this is made, more care needs to be taken to ensure that the complaint is written to prevent this tactic as much as is possible. Now if NYC reverts to the old law, and then this suit is repeated so that NYC changes their law once again when the case hits the Supreme Court a second time the justices will most likely rule on it as being something other than moot.

Imagine you sue your city because they passed a law requiring all men to wear facial coverings, you sue because women are not required to. The city changes the law so that everyone has to wear facial coverings. The court looks at the law and says "He is suing because women are not required to cover their face, but the law now says they must so his case is moot." Now if your complaint was because you argued that it was unconstitutional to require facial coverings then your case would most likely proceed.

[dlh]

I think the "mootness" issue was simply an excuse to allow them to kick the can down the road. Too bad.

They know at some point they will have to clarify Heller (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny?)

Maybe that California case on ammo restrictions will get to the Scotus some day or another similar case.

I was very disappointed the Scotus declined to hear the AR15 cases out of Maryland and Illinois.

Our gun rights hang by a thread with Justices like Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan ready to cut that thread with some highly nuanced legal scissors.

We can only hope down the road that Justice Kavanaugh will write the legal opinion imposing the standard of strict scrutiny on cities and states that attempt to restrict our second amendment rights.

[Beiruty]

How about the ammo background check in CA, would it be lifted up to SCOTUS?

[srothstein]

They know at some point they will have to clarify Heller (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny?)

We will never be privy to the discussions among the justices and that is a good thing, but I would almost be willing to bet that this was why they ruled the case moot. There were enough justices to demand the case be heard and they declined to dismiss it as moot the first time they were asked. But I would be willing to bet that even the justices in favor of the Second Amendment did not agree on which standard they would write it as. There were some unusual alliances probably in getting the case heard because SCOTUS generally doesn't go for states changing the law just to render a case moot. I am guessing there were not enough to get a majority to say that strict scrutiny was the right way to go.

Just my unsupported opinion.

Maybe that California case on ammo restrictions will get to the Scotus some day or another similar case.

I was very disappointed the Scotus declined to hear the AR15 cases out of Maryland and Illinois.

I think that SCOTUS is probably waiting for the perfect case. They are well aware of the old saying that bad cases make for bad law and are waiting for the right case. The AR15 cases might not have been as clear cut as they wanted. Another point is that the argument should be clear. The California ammo case might be a pretty clear case they will accept. To me, it is much more clear than the AR15 cases. I would argue the taxes on it as much as the background check and limits. After all, there is established precedence that you cannot tax a right, or we would still have poll taxes.

[Grayling813]

“Shall not be infringed” seems so simple when looking at the Constitutionality of any firearm law. The controllers must have more complex minds than those who crafted the Constitution.

[srothstein]

“Shall not be infringed” seems so simple when looking at the Constitutionality of any firearm law. The controllers must have more complex minds than those who crafted the Constitution.

While I agree with you, there are logical arguments that say the "shall not be infringed" is not 100%. The one most easily jumps to mind is if it means I have to let mentally ill or mentally incompetnent have guns. That makes no sense.

Thus we get into definitions of what is an infringement.

[Grayling813]

“Shall not be infringed” seems so simple when looking at the Constitutionality of any firearm law. The controllers must have more complex minds than those who crafted the Constitution.

While I agree with you, there are logical arguments that say the "shall not be infringed" is not 100%. The one most easily jumps to mind is if it means I have to let mentally ill or mentally incompetnent have guns. That makes no sense.

Thus we get into definitions of what is an infringement.

Slippery slope when you start deciding who the Constitution applies to and to whom it does not.

[srothstein]

Slippery slope when you start deciding who the Constitution applies to and to whom it does not.

I agree. I am glad I do not have that job. I just recognize that it is not as absolute as it appears at first. The example I first thought of was people incarcerated in jails (and remember, not everyone in jail has been convicted yet)? Then I went with those committed for mental illness. That leads to the example I posed. So I am well aware of just how slippery that slope is. And I did feel that the mentally ill or incompetent was a much better question of whether it is infringed. After all, we don't let the incompetent vote or exercise other rights. We also excuse them from responsibility for criminal behavior. So, what about firearms?

All of this is to make the point that it is not quite as clear cut as you or I would like it. For the average person it is pretty clear cut, but there is some gray around the edges. And the edge cases are the real test.

[The Annoyed Man]

“Shall not be infringed” seems so simple when looking at the Constitutionality of any firearm law. The controllers must have more complex minds than those who crafted the Constitution.

While I agree with you, there are logical arguments that say the "shall not be infringed" is not 100%. The one most easily jumps to mind is if it means I have to let mentally ill or mentally incompetnent have guns. That makes no sense.

Thus we get into definitions of what is an infringement.

Slippery slope when you start deciding who the Constitution applies to and to whom it does not.

Yes, and no.

Yes, it’s a slippery slope because, even if the restriction makes perfect sense to everyone, it still sets a precedent which can be cited down the road to support further restrictions.

No, it’s not a slippery slope because there is simply no rational argument for allowing a dangerously out-of-control paranoid schizophrenic or a serial recidivist rapist to be in possession of a firearm.

.....UNLESS.....society ALSO wants to remove ALL legal barriers to the use of deadly force in self defense. Simply remove ALL references to use of deadly force in self defense from the law, so that it is ALWAYS lawful, and not hedged in by narrowly tailored circumstances, which only serve to fetishize guns and to discourage people from wanting to own and carry them. Make "he needed killin'" completely lawful, and NOW we can allow a dangerously out-of-control paranoid schizophrenic or a serial recidivist rapist to be in possession of a firearm, and let nature take its course.

If you go to prison on a felony weed possession for sale, or a tax evasion charge, then when you get out, you should have all of your rights automatically restored. Period. If you go to prison for a felony assault or similar charge, and you keep your nose clean for a specified period of time after release, you should have your rights restored automatically—barring some very good NEW reasons not to. If you go to prison for murdering someone in a drug deal or armed bank robbery or something like that.....I’m sorry....I don’t want you to ever own a gun again. If that makes your life harder and exposed to more danger of what others might do to you, too darn bad. You should have thought of that before becoming a murderer.

The flip side of this, which so far never happens, is that if you are falsely imprisoned because of prosecutorial misconduct....particularly for withholding exculpatory evidence which is later discovered and wins your release, the prosecutor(s) involved should be sentenced to exactly the same amount of time you had to serve, without possibility of early release.....in addition to any monetary compensation you are awarded for the false imprisonment.

I believe very strongly that a measure like this is necessary, for TWO reasons:

1. It’s not enough for a gov’t to pay restitution. The money won’t give you back the years that gov’t took from you under false pretenses. And the gov’t isn’t really paying that restitution.... the taxpayers are. And as long as it is the taxpayers who have to bear the financial burden of a prosecutor's deliberate misconduct, then prosecutorial misconduct should be called what it is: felonious behavior, and dealt with accordingly.

2. So long as the very worst that a prosecutor can suffer for misconduct is a threat of termination and/or disbarment, the amount of skin they have in the game isn’t even remotely close to the skin they peel off the body of a person falsely imprisoned because of that misconduct. And it goes without saying that if the felony conviction which resulted in your rights being stripped away was the result of prosecutorial misconduct, then not only should your rights be automatically restored, but the guilty prosecutor should have his rights permanently stripped once he is released from prison.

Make imprisonment a credible threat for prosecutorial misconduct, and maybe that misconduct will cease. ALL a prosecutor has to do to stay out of trouble is to not bury evidence. It’s that simple. If that evidence is inconvenient to your case, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A CASE!!!! PERIOD. That cuts both ways by the way, for both the defense, AND for the prosecution.

Sorry I got sidetracked, but as a minarchist, I think that most people have peculiar ideas about justice and rights.

[Grayling813]

In reply to both srothstein and TAM:
Yes, dangerously mentally ill people shouldn’t have access to firearms. Used to they didn’t because we kept them locked up in mental institutions to protect both them and society.
The bleeding hearts insisted we empty the mental institutions and now use crazy people running around as a justification to infringe upon normal people.

[equin]

They know at some point they will have to clarify Heller (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny?)

We will never be privy to the discussions among the justices and that is a good thing, but I would almost be willing to bet that this was why they ruled the case moot. There were enough justices to demand the case be heard and they declined to dismiss it as moot the first time they were asked. But I would be willing to bet that even the justices in favor of the Second Amendment did not agree on which standard they would write it as. There were some unusual alliances probably in getting the case heard because SCOTUS generally doesn't go for states changing the law just to render a case moot. I am guessing there were not enough to get a majority to say that strict scrutiny was the right way to go.

Just my unsupported opinion.

Maybe that California case on ammo restrictions will get to the Scotus some day or another similar case.

I was very disappointed the Scotus declined to hear the AR15 cases out of Maryland and Illinois.

I think that SCOTUS is probably waiting for the perfect case. They are well aware of the old saying that bad cases make for bad law and are waiting for the right case. The AR15 cases might not have been as clear cut as they wanted. Another point is that the argument should be clear. The California ammo case might be a pretty clear case they will accept. To me, it is much more clear than the AR15 cases. I would argue the taxes on it as much as the background check and limits. After all, there is established precedence that you cannot tax a right, or we would still have poll taxes.

Good post! I think your comments are very well thought out. I just want to add I think it’s interesting that Kavanaugh appears to have been the deciding vote to dismiss the case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_ba7d.pdf