So last I read...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Young v Hawaii was on hold pending the decision on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York. IIRC NYCR&P is waiting for SCOTUS to hear argument this Fall but the date is not yet set. Has anyone heard any new info having bearing on either of those?

[hlthe2b]

1. Laurence Tribe comment on WAPO article re: NY easing a law that all but rendered the case moot

This isn’t just a case where a city repeals a challenged law to evade judicial review while standing ready to restore it later. It’s a case where the state has stripped the city of power to do what was being reviewed. There’s no real case left.

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/new-york-eased-gun-law-hopeful-supreme-court-would-drop-second-amendment-case--but-that-hasnt-happened-yet/2019/08/10/9031682e-bab6-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html
Courts & Law
New York eased gun law hopeful Supreme Court would drop Second Amendment case — but that hasn’t happened yet

As the nation renews debate over gun control, the Supreme Court must decide whether to press ahead with a Second Amendment case it has accepted for the coming term, its first in a decade.

Gun-control groups operate under a no-news-is-good-news approach to the Supreme Court, leery of giving what they view as a strengthened conservative majority the chance to expand gun rights and weaken restrictive laws.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, which the court accepted in January, the city and state of New York appear to agree. They have essentially surrendered, changing the restrictions at issue even though the city successfully defended them before a district judge and a federal appeals court.
New York says it has given those who hold licenses to have guns on their premises exactly what they asked for — a greater ability to transport their weapons through and outside the city — and there no longer is a controversy for the Supreme Court to settle.

“New legislation or regulations giving plaintiffs all they seek moots the case,” wrote Zachary W. Carter, corporation counsel for New York City. He cited Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s dissenting opinion on a mootness question in an unrelated case in 2016, in which he said the court may not rule on a plaintiff’s entitlement to relief simply because he “won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.’ ”

--more--

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Thanks

It will be interesting or maybe not.

[Alea]

3. I hope NYSRPA keeps up the pressure and scotus don't drop the case

This isn't the first time NY weaseled out of a court case on gun laws they thought they might lose. There's also a reason there's only 10 or less percent compliance with the safe act but very few people are being arrested and prosecuted. They're afraid of their unconstitutional law being challenged in higher courts.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I believe the 9th Circuit is still waiting for this decision

I don't know if that bears on the decision of SCOTUS to proceed or not.
Based on my degree from the internet university/Google school of law, all I can say is who knows.

[Lucid Dreamer]

7. My favorite university. I also learned...

to answer every question with a sentence that begins, "It depends..."

[Alea]

9. Some of it is too confusing understand, intentionally me thinks.

[FBaggins]

5. Five Democratic Senators just filed an AC with SCOTUS

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/112010/20190812151259076_18-280bsacSenatorSheldonWhitehouse.pdf

Senator Whitehouse's conclusion after pushing the mootness case:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics" - Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Can you please summarize your position on Young n/t

[FBaggins]

8. I think the 9th circuit ain't what it once was

Of course... the ruling was three republican judges.

From a political perspective, the en banc 9th has a tough decision to make that isn't unlike what NY has been facing. If they overturn, they give the Supreme Court the ability to make law for the whole country. But can they take a narrow loss that's still big enough to moot the case? I haven't read the law in question or anything but a summary of the panel decision, so I couldn't guess. Other states have shifted to "will issue" in order to moot a case and avoid a national shift... but I'm not sure Hawaii has the will to do so either.

From a constitutional perspective? I'd say that carrying in public is a constitutional right... but not one so fundamental that the government cannot enact reasonable restrictions. I'd put it right on the cusp between intermediate and strict scrutiny and state that in most cases, the government has a sufficient enough governmental interest to survive either test. So the question comes down to how narrowly tailored the law must be in trying to achieve that end and/or whether it is substantially related to the interest. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that Hawaii is a "may issue" state that is effectively "no issue". I doubt they could survive an as-applied challenge if that's the case... would pass a facial challenge in the 9th en-bank... and would fail with SCOTUS.