Your Privacy Choices
Today there is a new and exciting word from the Supreme Court in the case brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) against New York City. The case, with potentially national implications, can move forward. New York City’s motion (discussed here) which would have paused the case was denied. Had their motion been accepted, New York City would have been able to enact a rule change theoretically rendering the case “moot” (meaningless), resulting in an eventual dismissal.
New Information
Unfortunately other than the case being allowed to proceed there really is no new information. New York City filed a brief in an attempt to rebut NYSRPA’s rebuttal of their filing asking for a pause in the proceedings, but it included no new information. It included plenty of platitudes, their rule change would moot the case, there’s no reason for it to go forward, etc. SCOTUS at least feels differently. Don’t expect this case to move quickly. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and that applies double for the Supreme Court. New York has until August 5th of this year to file a brief with the court in response to NYSRPA.
I have reached out to Paul D. Clement, the attorney representing NYSRPA for a quote, but he was out of the office. Updates to this story may come at any time as the result either of the Court publishing their reasoning for the denial, or Mr. Clement returning my call.
Previously Discussed
Previously, I discussed the ongoing court case and what it’s national implications might be. In that case, the NYSRPA is challenging portions of the New York City code. In the language of NYSRPA’s filing is a request that SCOTUS rule all 2nd Amendment cases be subject to strict scrutiny. If the court agrees to implement Strict Scrutiny on all Second Amendment cases then all gun laws brought before the court would have to pass a very difficult 3-part test to be upheld as constitutional. The law or policy would have to, first, be regarding a compelling governmental interest. Secondly, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored. Thirdly, the law or policy being challenged is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
Sources:
