Not quite the carry case we've been looking for but I'm sure we'll get some good precident out of it.  Probably change Hawaii's place to keep law.


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

At issue is a challenge to a provision of a New York City gun law that regulates where a licensed handgun owners can take their firearm. The law blocks licensed individuals from removing a handgun from the address listed on the license except to travel to nearby authorized small arms range/shooting clubs.

Not likely to be argued until at least October and a decision rendered in spring 2020.

zippz, I know it will depend on 1. winning the case, and 2. the narrowness or breadth of the decision, but please give us some specific examples of how you see it possibly effecting Hawaii law.

Here's the link to the case:  https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

It appears NYC has an even stricter version of Place to Keep where they cannot take the gun out of the city or to a second home.  A win in the case could remove the limitations where we can keep and transport an unloaded gun in Hawaii.  Definitely be the finishing blow if that hotel gun ban somehow actually gets into law.  Enforcing  FOPA.  Some related precedent on public carry would be nice too.

Here's the link to the case:  https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

It appears NYC has an even stricter version of Place to Keep where they cannot take the gun out of the city or to a second home.  A win in the case could remove the limitations where we can keep and transport an unloaded gun in Hawaii.  Definitely be the finishing blow if that hotel gun ban somehow actually gets into law.  Enforcing  FOPA.  Some related precedent on public carry would be nice too.

I'm not sure how a narrow decision (which the court has previously rendered in 2a cases) saying that people may take their unloaded, cased firearms to locations outside the city would have any effect here, since we don't have any law similar to that. I guess some legal challenge could be mounted and argued by analogy...

Pretty sure there isn't going to be a word written about public carry, since that appears nowhere in the briefs nor the decisions being appealed, and you can't bring up an issue not argued previously.

But I'll take any 2a win even if it doesn't help us here in Hawaii.

I'm sure the case will be narrowly focused, and NYC does have much stricter laws than Hawaii does.  However the precedent may help us and commentators are saying there is a chance this case will open up strict scrutiny on 2a cases.

I had a firearms class with some police officers from NYC.  They said the licensing is insane there.  You have to take a class in NYC to purchase a handgun, or to even touch one.  But you can't shoot a gun without a license first.  So you take the firearms class in NYC then have to go out of the city to do the live-fire part.

Yeah, strict scrutiny would be good, but hard to know how they could rule on that wider than the case at hand. Or better yet, "take all interest balancing tests off the table". But Clifford in his dissent in Young made of point of emphasizing that bearing outside the home is NOT a "core" of the right protected, and thus intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard (and the way intermediate scrutiny has been applied in all the lower courts validating "good cause", etc. has really been "rational basis"). And he was appointed by a Republican...

Attorney and scholar Stephen Halbrook on NRA TV today discussing the case. He expresses the hope that the best outcome is one in which the court clearly outlines the standard of review to be applied to 2a cases (i.e. strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review, or text, history and tradition.

https://www.nratv.com/videos/stinchfield-stephen-halbrook-supreme-court-to-hear-nyc-gun-case

And from an article at TTAG re the case:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/01/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-to-ny-state-rifle-pistol-assn-v-city-of-ny/

[Quoting another person writing last fall]: I believe that the day of reckoning for the anti-2A forces is coming. Roberts being Roberts (and I think he’s going to be the key vote given the current composition of the Court), he’s going to want a near-perfect test case before he’ll enforce/expand Heller. There are several in the pipeline that might do the job.

My prediction is that whatever case they take, Roberts writes a narrow opinion that declares that laws that impinge 2A rights are subject to strict scrutiny, and kicks the case back down for determination under that standard. (Thomas will write a blistering concurrence joined by 2-3 others saying that there’s no need to send it back, as there is no way the law in question survives strict scrutiny.) …

Roberts and likely Kavanaugh are going to want to wait for an ideal 2A test case. Best bet right now is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, given that the NYC laws are so draconian as to amount to a blanket denial of 2A rights. We should have a decision on whether they will hear the case early next year.

[The comments section has extensive further speculations about the possible details, and why...]

"text, history and tradition" is the only thing which will save the 2A.  The levels of scrutiny (rational, intermediate, strict) were invented by the courts so that judges could uphold unconstitutional laws.

"In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny. To be sure, the Court never said something as succinct as "Courts should not apply strict or intermediate scrutiny but should instead look to text, history, and tradition to define the scope of the right and assess gun bans and regulations." But that is the clear message I take away from the Court's holdings and reasoning in the two cases." Heller v. District of Columbia ("Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 at 1271 (2011) KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting. 

Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, party to the case, states during this interview today on Cam and Company on NRA-TV that the case will be heard this spring:

https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-tom-king-new-york-city-firearms-case-taken-up-by-scotus

Tom King has no way of knowing when oral argument will take place.  Nobody, including the lawyers in the case, will know until the date is made publicly available by the Court for everyone to see.

Tom King has no way of knowing when oral argument will take place.  Nobody, including the lawyers in the case, will know until the date is made publicly available by the Court for everyone to see.

He didn't qualify it all with a "maybe" or a "could" or even "I hope" or "I want" or "they should"... just stated it as a flat out fact. He didn't mention how he knew this, while no one else does. Let's hope the lawyers who actually argue the case before SCOTUS, whenever it happens, will have their factual claims well supported.

The petitioners' brief is due on March 8th.  The response is due on April 8th.  Typically, the justices are given 14 days to review a brief.  That would put oral argument sometime in the last three days of oral arguments for this term (April 23-25).  Keep an eye on the docket and the arguments calendar.  If oral argument is to take place this term then it should be scheduled within the week of March 8th.  Either side can ask for an extension of time to file their brief.  If either does and if it is granted then oral argument will take place next term unless the court issues an opinion without oral argument, which is unlikely. 

For those who might like to read the speculations re this case by the anti-Second Amendment side (they seem to be "concerned"  ):

The Atlantic   https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/court-hears-gun-rights-case-ny-rifle-pistol-association-v-city-ny/581017/

Washington Post   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-review-gun-restrictions-for-first-time-in-nearly-a-decade/2019/01/22/d6b36496-1b47-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html

Slate   https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

CNBC   https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case-on-transporting-handguns.html

Seventeen minute interview of Paul Clement, who will be arguing this case before SCOTUS, with Cam Edwards of NRA TV. Gives the general outline of the case and his beliefs about the larger issues that may be involved, such as appropriate levels of scrutiny that apply in such 2a cases. He also seems to believe that the case will be heard in the fall, contrary to NYRPA leader Tom King who stated it WILL be heard this spring.

https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2019-paul-clement-attorney-representing-new-york-gun-owners-in-scotus-case

is any gun association helping with this financially?  As in paying for attorneys?

is any gun association helping with this financially?  As in paying for attorneys?

The NYSRPA is the New York affiliate of the NRA. Pretty sure NRA is at least partially funding the effort, just like they did in California when Clement was the attorney who argued for Peruta at the Ninth en banc.

If new york was smart, they would quickly withdraw this law.  It would be a delaying tactic only, but IMO gun control states have more to lose than gain in the supreme court.
---------------------
I would not assume that this has no bearing on hawaii.

They can choose an obscure, most restrictive law to issue a sweeping ruling.  A law as egregious as this one probably makes it easier to issue such a ruling than a more "reasonable" gun control law.   The supreme court could clarify that all gun restrictions such as this one, permitting, etc etc has to clear a high bar instead of allowing the states to pass restrictions and conditions willy nilly.  That potentially affects laws such as 2 week wait times, permitting, magazine bans, etc.  Since this law prevents gunowners from transporting their firearms outside of the city, the SC could "go nuclear" and allude to the right to bear arms extends beyond the home to public places.  *BOOM*

At worst, even a narrow ruling puts states like NY, CA, and HI on notice that their continued enroachment (such as the hotel bill and assault rifle ban) on 2A rights is not acceptable and that the supreme court will pick away at the more restrictive gun laws to more correctly define Heller.

These anti 2a states are only thinking about themselves.

Same thing for Young vs. Hawaii.  If I were NY, CA, MA, I would call HI and say take one for the team.  If not, then it becomes law of the land.  Well to late for CA, but east coast should tell Hawaii to concede.

I rather see Young go to SCOTUS this year.  But knowing our slow moving judicial system, it could and probably be years before it gets a hearing.  And since the 3 judge panel ruled in his favor, he should be allowed to carry until the en banc or SCOTUS rules against him.

I rather see Young go to SCOTUS this year.  But knowing our slow moving judicial system, it could and probably be years before it gets a hearing.  And since the 3 judge panel ruled in his favor, he should be allowed to carry until the en banc or SCOTUS rules against him.

I was thinking about that.  How come the law isn't applied until the appeal?