Andrew Teter v. Anne E. Lopez motion to moot
Before the Bruen opinion, the Supreme Court heard arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. City of New York, New York, et al.. This case had been working its way up through the court system for many years.
The Second Circuit heard the case on August 17, 2016, and issued their opinion on February 23, 2018.
I. Rule 5-23 Does Not Violate the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court announced that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right is incorporated within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore binds the States as well as the Federal Government. 561 U.S. 742. 791 (2010). However, the Court remarked that its holding should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27. “Neither Heller nor McDonald … delineated the precise scope of the Second Amendment or the standards by which lower courts should assess the constitutionality of firearms restrictions.” N.Y. State Rifle, 804 F.3d at 254.
—New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’N, Inc. V. City of New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2018)
From this, we can see that the arguments used then are the same they are using today. They are hyper focused on the part which allows them to wiggle and not on the part where the Supreme Court told the inferior courts “The People have a right to keep and bear arms.”.
The remark about Heller and McDonald not giving the “scope” of the Second Amendment nor telling the inferior courts how to analyze Second Amendment cases is a self reference, back to the Second Circuit court.
The state argued for over 5 years that the law was absolutely required to protect the subjects of New York City and New York State.
From June 2018 through January 2019, the state continued to represent that this law was required. That blood would run in the streets if it was struck down. That the Supreme Court should not grant certiorari.
Part of the reason that the Second Circuit court said that this law was required was because people with NYC “target licenses” were going to the range without abiding by the rules on how to store and transport firearms to the range.
No harm was caused by The People not following the exact rules, but the NYPD decided the only answer, and least restrictive answer, was to eliminate “target licenses”.
On Jan 22, 2019, Certiorari was granted.
On April 12, 2019, the state informed the Supreme Court that a new rule was being considered by the state and asking for the court to hold all briefings on the case until that rule making process was completed.
Of course, everybody with an interest in the Second Amendment went into over drive filing briefs. All the normal names were there. The briefs continued until Nov. 20, 2019. The case was argued two weeks later, on Dec. 2nd.
4 months later, the court issued their judgement. The case was vacated and remanded because of mootness.
This is and has been the states’ method when they are about to lose. It is more important to them that no unfavorable opinions be issued than it is to stand their grounds on “moral” principles.
And that is precisely what is happening in this case. The governor of Hawaii asked for a new law allowing for the possession of butterfly knives. The legislature passed the law.
The state is now arguing to the Ninth Circuit en banc panel that the case should be vacated and remanded because it is a moot issue, not withstanding that “possessing” and “bearing” are two different parts of the right to keep and bear arms.
Being the Ninth Circus, this is the type of argument that they will often find “convincing”
