Mediaboss Marketing

Monday's order is a victory -- for now -- for supporters of gun regulations who feared the justices would take an idiosyncratic state law and use it as a vehicle to expand upon a landmark opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia from 2008 that held for the first time that an individual had a right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The case marked the first major gun rights case heard by President Donald Trump's two nominees. Gorsuch joined the dissent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, said in a concurring opinion that while the court should sidestep the case at hand, he also agreed with the dissenters' concerns that lower courts have been thumbing their noses at Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd Amendment and said the court should "address that issue soon."

When the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, the law blocked individuals from removing a handgun from the address listed on the license except to travel to nearby authorized small arms ranges or shooting clubs.

New York argued the rule was not a burden on 2nd Amendment rights and that it represented a reasonable means to protect public safety.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, a gun owners group and individual plaintiffs challenged the law arguing that it was too restrictive and that a New Yorker could not transport his handgun to his "second home for the core constitutional purpose of self-defense or to an upstate county to participate in a shooting competition, or even across the bridge to a neighboring city for target practice."

Lawyers for the Trump administration sided with the challengers, arguing that "few laws in our history have restricted the right to keep and bear arms as severely as this ban does."

In a twist, after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the city allowed licensed owners to take handguns to other locations, including second homes or shooting ranges outside city limits. In addition, the State of New York amended its handgun licensing statute to require localities to allow licensed gun owners to engage in such transport.

As a result, New York argued the justices should dismiss the case.

Lawyers challenging the law countered that the only reason it was amended was supporters of gun regulations feared that the Supreme Court's new conservative majority might use the idiosyncratic law to render a broad decision cutting back on gun restrictions.

An 'epiphany of sorts,' Alito says of New York

In his dissent, Alito expressed frustration that the court had declined to decide whether the city's law violated the 2nd Amendment.

"Although the city had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the city quickly changed its ordinance," Alito wrote.

Alito stressed that even though the law had been changed, those challenging it had not been provided with all the relief they sought.

"Petitioners got most, but not all, of the prospective relief they wanted," Alito wrote, "and that means that the case is not dead." He specifically noted their claims for damages.

Alito also took special aim at a "friend of the court" brief filed by Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and others, suggesting the senators had tried to intimidate the court.

"Five United States Senators, four of whom are members of the bar of this Court, filed a brief insisting that the case be dismissed," Alito wrote.

Whitehouse had suggested that if the court did not dismiss the case, the public would believe the court was motivated by politics. "The Supreme Court is not well," Whitehouse wrote. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it to be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics."

"If a case is on our docket and we have jurisdiction," Alito retorted, "we have an obligation to decide it."

Alito said he would have found that the New York City ordinance was unconstitutional and that it burdened the right to bear arms that was recognized in the court's 2008 decision called District of Columbia v. Heller. He said there is "cause for concern" that lower courts are not abiding by that decision.

"History provides no supporter for a restriction of this type," Alito said.

The gun-control groups Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Moms Demand Action welcomed the court's decision on Monday, with Everytown President John Feinblatt saying in a statement that the court "just thwarted the gun lobby's hope for a broad ruling that could slow the gun safety movement's growing momentum."

Brady President Kris Brown said the case was "moot" in December when the court first heard arguments. "The issue at the heart of this case was already resolved and the plaintiffs had already received everything they had demanded and more. Recognizing this, the court's decision that there is no case here is common-sense," Brown said in a statement. "That the court recognizes this too merely underscores the desperation of the NRA and their allies to use this issue to advance a radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment."

The justices announced that next Friday, when they hold their regularly scheduled conference, they will discuss whether to take up other 2nd Amendment cases for next term. The conference is a private telephone call between the justices.

UPDATE: This story has been updated with additional reaction.

Visit link:
Supreme Court avoids new Second Amendment ruling, dealing blow to gun rights advocates - CNN

AR-15 rifles displayed for sale at a gun show in Oaks, Pa., in 2017 (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

The Supreme Court should and will take a Second Amendment case very soon, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) wont be happy. When Whitehouse basically threatened the Supreme Court over a recent Second Amendment case, perhaps he didnt realize that he could get what he wanted and still lose the fight. This week, although the Court dismissed as moot the case that had Whitehouse in a tizzy, the Court is reviewing a slew of Second Amendment petitions that hell like even less.

The mooted case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. NYC, was a challenge to NYCs bizarre travel restrictions for permitted gun owners and the first Second Amendment case the Court had taken in a decade. After the justices agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York state, fearing a decision that would strengthen the Second Amendment, moved quickly to change the law to keep the Court from issuing a decision. This is a form of strategic mooting, because courts generally dont hear controversies that are no longer live because there is no relief a court can give if the law has already been changed. And while strategic mooting is fairly common, its an unsavory form of gamesmanship with the Courts docket.

New York City asked that the case be removed from the docket, and Whitehouse, joined by four other senators, wrote an infamous amicus brief urging the Court to dismiss the case. Whitehouse didnt just confine his arguments to the legal question of mootness. He came within a hairs breadth of outright accusing the Courts Republican-appointed justices as being shills for the NRA and the Federalist Society. His shocking brief closed with what many interpreted as a threat to restructure the Court if the justices didnt go along with his request. The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.

On Monday, the justices, by a 6-3 vote, dismissed the case as moot. The same day, they added ten held-over Second Amendment petitions to the Courts calendar. These are petitions that were being held pending the Courts decision in the New York case. The justices will discuss these petitions Friday, with decisions likely to be released on Monday.

Five of the petitions challenge various states good reason restrictions on the right to carry a weapon outside the home. Eight states issue carry permits provided that the applicant meets certain objective criteria (e.g. a criminal background check) as well as the vague subjective criterion that the applicant demonstrates a justified need to carry a firearm, often determined by a local sheriff. This has long been thought unconstitutional, and with good reason: No other constitutional right can be conditioned on the subjective determination of a local official. I wouldnt want a Sheriff Sheldon Whitehouse determining whether I can carry a gun.

Another petition challenges Californias microstamping requirement, which requires new pistols to stamp the casing with an identifiable mark for better tracking. Problem is, no gun manufacturer has figured out how to do this. Its akin to a law saying people have a right to free speech only if theyve turned lead into gold.

There are also a couple of petitions challenging so-called assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine restrictions, and a petition challenging the federal ban on interstate firearm sales, which for some reason irrationally applies to handguns but not rifles.

The Court needs to take a Second Amendment case soon, whether its one of these cases or another. In the ten years since the Court took a Second Amendment case, the lower courts have floundered to figure out what the decisions in Heller and McDonald mean. The Ninth Circuit has made a habit out of rubber-stamping almost any restriction on firearms. For example, the court upheld Californias ten-day waiting period law as it applied to those who passed the background check in fewer than ten days and were already owners of a firearm or even had a concealed carry permit.

The Seventh Circuit, on the other hand, struck down Chicagos ban on shooting ranges in the city correctly reasoning that if the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow guns for self-defense, then that entails the ability to practice with the gun. In response to the Seventh Circuits decision, the city created an elaborate set of regulations for shooting ranges that left only 2.2 percent of the city even theoretically available for shooting ranges. The Seventh Circuit struck those down too.

Theres a wide variance between the circuits where seemingly any gun law is okay and those, like the Seventh, that take the Second Amendment seriously. One of the Courts most important jobs is to rectify that variance. Theyll soon take a case to do that, and Senator Whitehouse will again be unhappy.

Read this article:
The Second Amendment Will Soon Be Back at the Supreme Court - National Review

To the editor:

I think most people would hope and expect our government officials to put aside their political agendas in these difficult times and concentrate on defeating the COVID-19 crisis. Apparently that is not the case and I am not referring to the idiots in Washington. Our own Massachusetts attorney general recently misused her position of political power to accuse the Second Amendment community of being a threat to "police officers, first responders, and domestic violence victims." These false and derogatory accusations regarding lawful firearm owning residents should require an apology. Apparently our Attorney General feels she is above the law and our governor is unwilling to correct her.

The Baker administration has further utilized the crisis to discriminate against our Constitutional Second Amendment rights. In mid-March, the administration announced an emergency loan program for small businesses. The program is being run through the Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation (MGCC). Only five types of businesses were declared ineligible for Massachusetts emergency small business loans and firearm retailers are one of them! This is pure discrimination against family owned firearm retailers who have bills to pay and families to raise. These businesses pay local property taxes and employ local citizens. I am sure the goal of this discrimination is the hope that these businesses will promptly go out of business.

Thousands of law-abiding firearm owners are facing the expiration of their FID and LTC licenses. New applications and renewal requests are being denied due to social distancing requirements and other priorities of the police. The Baker administration has no plans in place to extend these permits as they have for numerous other licenses. Imagine the public outrage if you could not register a new vehicle, renew a vehicle registration or renew a business license. Apparently the governor wants to discriminate against our Second Amendment rights and create a whole new group of unlicensed firearm owners.

Please call Gov. Baker's office at 617-725-4005 and give him this simple and straight forward statement: "Continue the fight against COVID-19, but end this vendetta against the Second Amendment Civil Rights community!" In addition, do not forget who violated our Second Amendment rights when it comes time to vote!

Richard Ladd,

Pittsfield

Advertisements

If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

See original here:
Letter: 2nd Amendment rights violated by state - Berkshire Eagle

Chief Justice Roberts has drawn a sharp rebuke for condoning the Supreme Court majoritys April 27 decision refusing to take up a Second Amendment case. But the critique of the decision as politically motivated is deeply misguided and potentially harmful to the perceived legitimacy of the federal bench and the rule of law itself. The decision was not an enormous abdication of judicial prerogative, as some have irresponsibly claimed but, rather, a routine and proper refusal to take up an issue that had been rendered moot.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York, the Court in a per curiam opinion (meaning there is no attributed author) effectively dismissed a case challenging a New York City handgun law, which had prevented handgun owners from carrying firearms to second homes or shooting ranges outside of the city. Recall that in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court in 2008 recognized a Second Amendment right to own a handgun in the home for self-defense. The question raised in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case was whether that right extended to the transport of firearms outside of the home.

The lower courts upheld the law. But while the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint. The Court thus found the case moot.

In arguing against mootness, the petitioners claimed that it is still conceivable under the new law that they may not be allowed to stop for coffee, gas, food, or restroom breaks on the way to their second homes or shooting ranges outside of the city. The City responded that those routine stops are entirely permissible under the new rule.

If it turns out that the City nonetheless decides to enforce the rule for routine stops in the future, the petitioners could file a new case. But for now, that scenario is entirely hypothetical. There is no concrete injury for the Supreme Court to remedy based on the allegations of the original complaint, which challenged a now-defunct law.

The Supreme Court reviews cases just like courts of appeals. The job of any court on appeal is to review what a lower court did with the precise issue before it. In this case, that issue had totally changed. Whatever the lower court had said about the ordinance which was no longer in effect by virtue of amendments to the law became beside the point. The case clearly needed to be reframed at the lower court level, if at all, under the revised ordinance. Although there are exceptions to the so-called mootness doctrine, appellate courts routinely step away from cases when the underlying problem that was complained about has changed. The case gets remanded for further proceedings.

Mootness serves a very important function in our system of separated government. It keeps courts out of the business of lawmaking, which belongs to the elected branches. Article III of the U.S. Constitution confines federal courts to resolving cases and controversies that is, live disputes between the parties before it. It is the job of the legislature, by contrast, to identify hypothetical scenarios that need fixing and to pass prospective laws attempting to address those scenarios. Judges decide disputes that arose in the past and affect only the parties before the lawsuit not the public in general.

In his dissent, Justice Alito takes pains to outline numerous hypotheticals to make his point that the case is not moot. But Justice Alitos exercise only underscores what mootness is all about: Federal courts are not in the business of resolving hypotheticals. In this case, the actual dispute ended when New York changed the law which is presumably a good result for the plaintiffs leaving nothing for the courts to do.

To attack Chief Justice Roberts for joining his colleagues in refusing to craft prospective limits on New York gun laws from the bench in the absence of a live dispute is wrong as a matter of bedrock constitutional law. It also does gratuitous damage to the publics perception of the court system. With few exceptions, judges work every day to resolve cases based on facts and law and not on politics and its important to underscore this reality so that the public can have confidence in our system of laws.

The majority reached the proper result in this case. It would be highly unusual for an appeals court to move forward with a case where the underlying pleadings do not accurately reflect the current facts and state of affairs.

Kimberly Wehle is a visiting professor of Law at American Universitys Washington College of Law, and a member of an advisory consulting group on judicial independence sponsored by the Rendell Center for Civics & Civic Engagement and the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. She is the author of the book, How to Read the Constitutionand Why. Follow her on twitter @kim_wehle

Read the rest here:
Mootness is not about politics | TheHill - The Hill

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as moot (a.k.a. legally pointless our words, not the Courts) a case filed by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

The group argued that a New York City gun rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, per the Courts summary, and that the city rule therefore violated the Second Amendment. In the midst of the litigation, New York State and New York City both amended their gun licensing laws, in essence giving in to the core of the groups demands.Hence the mootness of the case.

[P]etitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint, the Court ruled in a terse two-page per curiam unsigned order of the Court (citations omitted):

Our ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss. However, in instances where the mootness is attributable to a change in the legal framework governing the case, and where the plaintiff may have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably not asserted previously, our practice is to vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings in which the parties may, if necessary, amend their pleadings or develop the record more fully.

Its easy to unravel who is on what side of the argument, however, because three justices dissented.Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas all wanted to keep the case alive because the group tried to pile other claims into the original claim. For instance, it is up for debate whether the amended laws prevent stops for, e.g., food and bathroom breaks between home and another destination. The gun owner group also sought to insert a damages claim into the original case. The majority noted that the case would need to be relitigated from the ground up, but the dissenters said, This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners Second Amendment right, and we should so hold.

The majority, we know, must have been John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan.

Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the majority on procedural grounds while extolling the need for additional Second Amendment litigation.

I agree with the per curiam opinions resolution of the procedural issues before us namely, that petitioners claim for injunctive relief against New York Citys old rule is moot and that petitioners new claims should be addressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand, Kavanaugh wrote in a short concurrence.

Kavanaugh went further, however.

I also agree with J[ustice] A[lito]s general analysis of Heller and McDonald, Kavanaugh wrote. And I share [his] concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Kavanaugh was referencing District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that functioning guns could be kept inside the homes of people who were not members of a militia, and McDonald v. Chicago, which held that the Second Amendment applied to the states.

Alito said the dismissal of the New York case as moot permits [the Courts] docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced. He went on to issue a de facto litigation of the case in a 31-page dissent.

[T]he lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed, Alito said, bemoaning the chance to issue another decision against a state or local government which attempted to restrict firearms rights.

Then, Alito chided the litigation:

[T]he Citys travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type. The Citys public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the Citys public safety concerns evaporated.

[Image via Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images]

Originally posted here:
Justice Kavanaugh Is Eager to Address Rollback of Second Amendment Rights in Upcoming Cases - Law & Crime