The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court

[fred6052000]

The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court

At oral arguments on Monday, the court took a dim view of the heavy-handed way that Andrew Cuomo and the State of New York attempted to crack down on the gun rights group.​

The Supreme Court has sided with the National Rifle Association on Second Amendment issues from time to time. Now the court appears ready to side with them on the First Amendment as well.

 

[Amputee Marksman]

 

[fred6052000]

SCOTUS is our first and last hope.

 

[CMEBoston]

Will the tyrant comply? SCOTUS has zero teeth anymore

 

[appraiser]

The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court

At oral arguments on Monday, the court took a dim view of the heavy-handed way that Andrew Cuomo and the State of New York attempted to crack down on the gun rights group.

newrepublic.com

 

[LakeTrout]

Well, you haven’t done anything for the 2A in a very long time. Might as well try the 1A.

 

[Animal357]

SCOTUS is our first and last hope.

Based a some recent decisions, SC is compromised and can no longer be depended on to do what is right

 

[AMV]

Based a some recent decisions, SC is compromised and can no longer be depended on to do what is right

what decisions are you referring to,

 

[Garys]

Even the ACLU sided with the NRA on this one.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Based on that pic on the video, I would have swore it was the fat guy in his mom's basement video. But I'm not sure if a bad toupee is any better to look at. ROFL!!!!

Especially THIRTY-ONE MINUTES!!!! Damn.

 

[Amputee Marksman]

Based on that pic on the video, I would have swore it was the fat guy in his mom's basement video. But I'm not sure if a bad toupee is any better to look at. ROFL!!!!

Especially THIRTY-ONE MINUTES!!!! Damn.

I know there are a lot of people who don't like his videos. Sometimes I get tired of them also however in general I find his videos to be pretty good.

 

[namedpipes]

SCOTUS is our first and last hope.

I disagree. Our natural and Constitution right to keep and bear arms is.

 

[fred6052000]

I disagree. Our natural and Constitution right to keep and bear arms is.

But they are taking from us, aren't they?

 

[groundscrapers]

But they are taking from us, aren't they?

lmao

 

[doxdsgn]

NRA wins the 1A case against NY at SCOTUS.
NRA vs Vullo

Last paragraph
"(d) The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners. Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA from regulation nor prevents government officials from condemning disfavored views. The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries."

 

[GL2020]

And a 9-0 ruling written by SotoMayor
Nice when that happens

 

[jkelly1229]

what decisions are you referring to,

The ones he disagreed with

 

[PappyM3]

Will the tyrant comply? SCOTUS has zero teeth anymore

The SCOTUS has teeth, so long as there is an administration in the White House willing to force compliance on states who disregard rulings. Look at the civil rights movement and integrated schools. Democrat states back then didn’t want to listen to SCOTUS either, until they were forced to.

Sadly, that’s not the case currently.

 

[Garys]

Justice Sotomoyer wrote the opinion with a concurrence by Justice Gorsuch more or less admonishing the lower courts to stop using such a convoluted framework. OTOH, Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion that read more like a dissent. In fact she refers to "the majority opinion" and recommends that the lower courts find a way around the very decision that she voted in favor of.

At least that's how I read that.

 

[Glockster30]

Justice Sotomoyer wrote the opinion with a concurrence by Justice Gorsuch more or less admonishing the lower courts to stop using such a convoluted framework. OTOH, Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion that read more like a dissent. In fact she refers to "the majority opinion" and recommends that the lower courts find a way around the very decision that she voted in favor of.

At least that's how I read that.

What else would you expect from Justice Jackson who couldn't define what a woman is?

 

[Garys]

I wonder if she even knew how she was voting? She's as bright as the guy who appointed her.

What else would you expect from Justice Jackson who couldn't define what a woman is?

 

[puckoach]

Quoted from an Insurance trade article. The case was about Insurance.

The U.S. Supreme Court has revived a claim by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that a former New York regulator allegedly violated the organization’s First Amendment rights by coercing insurers and banks to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun rights advocacy.

“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” the court declared in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

 

[drgrant]

I wonder if she even knew how she was voting? She's as bright as the guy who appointed her.

Someone probably told her "if you are the lone dissenter you are no longer going to be able to pretend that you're not retarded, so don't do that. "

I mean this is a slam dunk retard level 1A case, it sounds like all of the justices were annoyed it even went that far, given its basically a virtue signaling temper tantrrum very similar to a case that was brought in CA where it was ruled the state couldnt snuff someones 1A speech (based off a gun logo on a sign).

 

[Garys]

Reading through the Opinion of the Court, it was clear that eight of them thought it was stupid of New York to try an end run around the 1st Amendment by EXTORTING non involved parties into doing the state's dirty work.

Jackson seemed to say that doing that was fine, but that the state's extortion letter should have been more subtle.

Someone probably told her "if you are the lone dissenter you are no longer going to be able to pretend that you're not retarded, so don't do that. "

I mean this is a slam dunk retard level 1A case, it sounds like all of the justices were annoyed it even went that far, given its basically a virtue signaling temper tantrrum very similar to a case that was brought in CA where it was ruled the state couldnt snuff someones 1A speech (based off a gun logo on a sign).

 

[Garys]

The case was about a state regulatory agency extorting licensed insurance companies into dropping the NRA as a client because of the NRA's advocacy for the Second Amendment. The state caused harm to the NRA's financial interest (insurance) because the NRA expressed it's opinions about gun control. Those opinions and comments are protected speech under the first Amendment.

The state didn't directly threaten the NRA, but it did tell the insurance companies that the state would look the other way in other cases if the companies would just work with the state to cripple the NRA's insurance policy.

Quoted from an Insurance trade article. The case was about Insurance.

The U.S. Supreme Court has revived a claim by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that a former New York regulator allegedly violated the organization’s First Amendment rights by coercing insurers and banks to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun rights advocacy.

“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” the court declared in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

 

[71montess]

And what is the remedy? It’s too late now ?

 

[Garys]

The case is remanded back to the Second Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

So far as I know there has been no trial on the merits as the District dismissed the case, that was affirmed by the Circuit, and now the Circuit decision has been vacated and remanded.

Interestingly, the Court opinion included a comment that Circuit is free to reconsider the claim that Vullo has no qualified immunity here. That will be an interesting case in and of itself.

Here is a well written description of the case itself, Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU)

And what is the remedy? It’s too late now ?

 

[Love Machine]

And what is the remedy? It’s too late now ?

Sue the f*** out of Vullo, who may not have qualified immunity and therefore may be on the hook personally for her actions.

 

[MaverickNH]

Reading through the Opinion of the Court, it was clear that eight of them thought it was stupid of New York to try an end run around the 1st Amendment by EXTORTING non involved parties into doing the state's dirty work.

Jackson seemed to say that doing that was fine, but that the state's extortion letter should have been more subtle.

Well, not “stupid” - rather clever, I’d say. Thinking they wouldn’t get the smack down was an iffy bet. Sometimes iffy bets pay off, like alleging 34 felonies based on committing an undefined crime, saying the felony was committing a crime, not the crime itself.

More legal reflection on the case:

Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU)

From Justice Sotomayor's opinion today in NRA v. Vullo (the NRA was represented by the ACLU, with David Cole arguing…

reason.com

 

[Dennis in MA]

Reading through the Opinion of the Court, it was clear that eight of them thought it was stupid of New York to try an end run around the 1st Amendment by EXTORTING non involved parties into doing the state's dirty work.

Jackson seemed to say that doing that was fine, but that the state's extortion letter should have been more subtle.

Imagine being a President and being AOK with appointing someone as a judge who would rather see their personal opinion around an issue moved forward at teh expense of trampling all over the law.

I get that Presidents and judges are people, but damn. Overall, that group should have a shred more integrity than your average Marlboro smoker at the local 7/11.