Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When will the Supreme Court hear NYSRPA v. the City of New York
Ammoland ^ | 6 February, 2019 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 02/09/2019 2:40:50 PM PST by marktwain

When will the Supreme Court hear NYSRPA v. the City of New York

In the first firearms related Second Amendment case to be heard in a decade, the Supreme Court granted a writ of Certiorari (decided to hear) the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York. This case will have major ramifications for Second Amendment jurisprudence.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280

Issue(s): 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.

When will oral arguments be heard and when will it be decided?

Reuters thinks it will be heard in October of 2019. From reuters.com:

The case will be heard and decided in the court’s next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2020.

Heritage thinks it could be in the spring or fall. From heritage.org:

Thankfully, the Supreme Court will hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, either this spring or next fall.

The Daily Caller calls it for the fall of 2019: From the dailycaller.com:

The case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, will likely be heard in the fall.

The Supreme Court Oral Argument calendar does not have it scheduled yet.


(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; newyork; secondamendment; supremecourt
Oral arguments are likely in April or October of 2019.
1 posted on 02/09/2019 2:40:51 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Preparing for next term when another conservative gets confirmed.


2 posted on 02/09/2019 2:47:25 PM PST by Biggirl ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism" - Ephesians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
Preparing for next term when another conservative gets confirmed.

That's probably right. Although, the Court might try to squeeze it in this term.

3 posted on 02/09/2019 2:49:57 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It depends on Roberts getting the o.k. from the DNC.


4 posted on 02/09/2019 2:59:25 PM PST by HighSierra5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

I don’t want this SC anywhere near the 2nd. Roberts has dropped the pretense. He’s with the Rats now.


5 posted on 02/09/2019 3:03:50 PM PST by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy
Roberts has dropped the pretense. He’s with the Rats now.

Quit the hyperbole. Roberts is not a Liberal, but is not as Conservative as any of us want. If he was "with the Rats now," then Janus v. AFSCME (forced dues to a public-employees union violate right to free speech) would have come out in favor of the unions.

6 posted on 02/09/2019 3:14:44 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Reuters thinks it will be heard in October of 2019.

That leaves time to replace Notorious RBG.

7 posted on 02/09/2019 3:16:56 PM PST by MileHi (Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

They won’t if they can avoid it.


8 posted on 02/09/2019 3:23:42 PM PST by TBP (Progressives lack compassion and tolerance. Their self-aggrandizement is all that matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I don’t even understand why this case isn’t a slam dunk. It’s like a law says you can only practice your religion at home, at church, and on the way in-between.


9 posted on 02/09/2019 4:09:22 PM PST by Rinnwald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Sorry, Roberts is enemy scum.

Watch for his twisted defense of ObamaCare when it soon comes before the court again.


10 posted on 02/09/2019 4:13:09 PM PST by A strike (I DEMAND my responsibilities!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Meanwhile the real problem is the street thug gang members and the afternoon shooting murder on the subway platform.


11 posted on 02/09/2019 4:19:15 PM PST by ronnie raygun (nic dip.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rinnwald
...I don’t even understand why this case isn’t a slam dunk. It’s like a law says you can only practice your religion at home, at church, and on the way in-between...

The thinking on the gun forums is that SCOTUS took this case to establish a new standard of review for 2A cases. Probably strict scrutiny.

Even the antis are coming to believe that this particular law is really, really, stupid. Look for NY to repeal it and try to moot the question before it is heard by the Supremes.

12 posted on 02/09/2019 5:16:24 PM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Don't hold your breath on the decision actually involving gun rights. The Supremes can avoid that by basing their ruling entirely on the NYC law being an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. It discriminates against gun ranges in New Jersey and Connecticut.

If the Supremes want to base it on gun rights too, they can. But they usually duck contentious issues to decide cases on lesser ones.

13 posted on 02/09/2019 5:53:40 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud

It is very interesting, that is certain.


14 posted on 02/09/2019 6:35:14 PM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Thud
...The Supremes can avoid that by basing their ruling entirely on the NYC law being an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. It discriminates against gun ranges in New Jersey and Connecticut...

I doubt they took this case, which only effects a very small number of people, in order to issue a limited ruling.

15 posted on 02/09/2019 6:43:08 PM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave
The Supremes often take on cases with potential significance only to decide them on trivial grounds. Usually in such instances one of the justices gets cold feet about the big stuff after thinking about it and there isn't a majority on the significant issues without him/her.

So don't hold your breath. It would be wonderful if you turn out to be right, but the odds are against it.

16 posted on 02/09/2019 10:01:33 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Thud
...So don't hold your breath...

Probably right, but hope springs eternal.

I think a lot of it depends on RBG's health. One more Justice and we have a big win.

17 posted on 02/09/2019 10:42:10 PM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson