<< Why Did SCOTUS Sit on 2 Capital Cases for a Year? | Main | Cal. Gov. Blocks Cop Killer's Parole >>


News Scan

January 23, 2019 11:04 AM | Posted by Michael Rushford | 2 Comments
SCOTUS to Review NY Gun Law:  The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a unanimous Second Circuit ruling which held that New York City's harsh gun restrictions comply with the high court's 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision.  Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports that the Second Circuit ruling rejected claims made in a lawsuit by the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, that by prohibiting lawful gun owners from taking their unloaded and locked firearms to second homes, out of city shooting ranges, competitions or anywhere else, the law violates Heller and the Second Amendment.  The article suggests that by agreeing to hear the appeal after denying review of gun cases for nearly a decade, the Court, with the recent confirmation of a new more conservative justice, may be poised to expand Heller.  Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a dissent to denial of a Second Amendment case that "The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court's constitutional orphan."  On Tuesday, NY Mayor Bill de Blasio told reporters that his city would vigorously defend the gun restrictions.    

2 Comments

Adamakis | January 24, 2019 5:59 AM | Reply

~ When it's the 9th, are not bias and incompetence both liable to be about?

Justice Thomas’s dissent last year indicted the credibility of this 9th Circuit
[Silvester v. Becerra (2018)].

“The Ninth Circuit’s deviation from ordinary principles of law is unfortunate,
though not surprising,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Its dismissive treatment
of petitioners’ challenge is emblematic of a larger trend.” …

“This double standard is apparent from other cases where the Ninth Circuit
applies heightened scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit invalidated an Arizona law,
for example, partly because it “delayed” women seeking an abortion.”
…
"Lastly, the Ninth Circuit ignored several ordinary principles of appellate
review. While rational-basis review “is not subject to courtroom
factfinding,” Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 315,
intermediate scrutiny is. And here, the District Court
presided over a 3-day trial and made several
findings of fact." ...

"The Ninth Circuit was supposed to review those findings for clear error.
See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6). Yet the Ninth Circuit barely
mentioned them. And it never explained why it had the
“definite and firm conviction” that they were wrong.
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948)."

~ Unless other Circuits are so devient, or unless Justice Thomas is so
Inaccurate, the 9th Circuit seems to this observer to be a ridiculously
roguish and partial court needful of lasting correction.

~ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf
~ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/supreme-court-waiting-period-gun-purchases.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer

Kent Scheidegger replied to comment from Adamakis | January 24, 2019 9:07 AM | Reply

This case is from the Second Circuit.

Leave a comment

Search

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed

Subscribe to FULL feed Subscribe to FULL feed

Recent Entries

Monthly Archives