New York City Lawyers Argue To The Supreme Court That It Should Dismiss Case Against City’s Weapon Transportation Ban
BY Herschel Smith4 years, 9 months ago
The Supreme Court should dismiss a challenge to New York City’s gun transportation ban because a new ordinance will moot the case, city lawyers told the justices Wednesday.
The ordinance and a newly enacted state law will give the plaintiffs who challenged the transportation ban everything they have sought in court, making dismissal the appropriate course, city lawyers wrote in a letter to the high court.
The new city regulation gives petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit,” assistant corporation counsel Richard Dearing wrote. “The new state law, upon signature by the governor, will make the case doubly moot.”
If the case is not dismissed, the city will continue arguing the dispute is moot in a legal brief due Aug. 5. They will not address the merits of the controversy, Dearing wrote.
If, however, this Court prefers to allow briefing (and potentially oral argument) to play out, respondents will file a brief on the designated due date maintaining in greater detail that the case is moot,” the letter reads.
Respondents do not intend to address whether the Constitution entitles petitioners (or any other residents of New York City with premises licenses) to transport their handguns from their homes in the city to second homes, or to firing ranges or shooting competitions beyond municipal borders, where they have a legal right to possess them. Respondents no longer have any stake in that legal question,” it adds.
It’s men like this who give other lawyers a bad name and reputation.
Essentially, they have presumed to boss the Supreme Court around, and told them that the case should be dismissed because it is moot, but if the case isn’t dismissed, they’ll just argue extensively in front of the court, attempting to embarrass everyone there, that the case is moot.
Not only that, they’ve conceded absolutely nothing, except what the petitioners ask for. They didn’t concede that the constitution has any bearing on this, and they won’t argue the case on those merits.
Take note of the legal tricks and shenanigans here. If the Supreme Court decides that the constitution does have bearing, and that they do in fact have a right under the constitution to what they asked for in their petition, New York lawyers can respond by saying that the Supreme Court case is and was un-argued. The Supreme Court decided something that wasn’t asked, something the SCOTUS really doesn’t like to do. Now, the court can do just that, but my bet is that they won’t, not with Roberts at the helm.
They’re taking their ball and going home because they’re bitches.
On July 8, 2019 at 6:41 am, ragman said:
The Supremes should rule that all gun laws are unconstitutional. Will they do this? Of course not!
On July 8, 2019 at 10:27 am, revjen45 said:
Roberts values the public perception of SCOTUS over the application of Constitutional principles.
He has no principles except the prestige of the Black Robed Shysters.
On July 8, 2019 at 7:11 pm, Archer said:
“The new city regulation gives petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit,” assistant corporation counsel Richard Dearing wrote. “The new state law, upon signature by the governor, will make the case doubly moot.”
Note the sleight-of-hand going on here. Regulations are not legislation. And the governor presumably has some time left before the legislation dies. But the lawyers are asking SCOTUS to dismiss the case now.
If SCOTUS dismisses the case as moot now, the city regs can be changed back immediately, and Gov. Cuomo can opt to not sign the new state law. Then SCOTUS will have passed on the case with no relief to plaintiffs. Where does that leave the plaintiffs, except to start over from scratch?
No, SCOTUS needs to keep this one, even if it becomes moot. (But like other commenters, I don’t believe Roberts is very interested in enforcing the Constitution against the several States.)