Paul Clement Responds To New York
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 5 months ago
There are, after all, substantial reasons to doubt that these ever-evolving developments will actually moot this case, as it is not at all clear that the City has foresworn the power to control where its residents may transport their duly licensed handguns or that there are no continuing effects from past violations of licensing restrictions that the City has consistently maintained are consistent with the Second Amendment. As for the state legislation to which respondents point, it is not even clear that it will ever take effect, rendering the question of what effect, if any, it will have on petitioners’ claims manifestly unripe.
Moreover, a party asserting that its own actions have mooted a case has “the ‘heavy burden of persua[ding]’ the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222 (2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)). That heavy burden should be heavier still where, as here, a defendant’s about-face is unabashedly motivated by a desire to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to review the defendant’s actions. See Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (“Such postcertiorari maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court must be viewed with a critical eye.”). There are particularly strong reasons to doubt the sincerity of any claim that the City has forever changed its errant ways here given respondents’ declaration that they have no intention of taking any position before this Court on the constitutionality of the rules that they have changed. Indeed, the procedural irregularity of respondents’ actions to date makes plain that their goal is not just to try to moot this case, but to do everything they can to avoid ever having to take a definitive position on those issues. It is hard to understand why respondents are so reluctant to take any position on the questions on which this Court granted certiorari if they have no intention of resuming the challenged conduct or materially similar conduct in the future.
I have in on good authority that in legal circles, they call that the “slamma-jamma body-cramma.”
|
|
On July 9, 2019 at 9:18 am, DAN III said:
Mr. Smith,
Is Mr. Clement an attorney ? Anyway….
Here we (citizens) go again, the scum of people who comprise what one calls “government”, can break, violate, and/or disregard federal and/or state CON-stitutions or any and all laws and statutes. If der untermenschen dare to complain about the scum of government violating the law(s), CON-stitution(s), they can pound salt ! OR they can attempt to challenge the lawbreakers via the justus system(s). In so doing they can make attorney(ies) rich and themselves broke or in debt to the tune of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in their quest for justice. Should an untermensch have a judicial ruling in his/her favor, there is no guarantee that the scum one calls government, will actually comply with the ruling. Certainly, the scum one calls “government” will feel no pain. No pain whether professionally, personally, financially or physically, will the government lawbreakers be held accountable. Only the taxpayer, der untermenschen, will suffer.
Screw the justus system. The only guarantee that citizens will enjoy true justice against the scum one calls “government”, is through the use of hemp and lead AGAINST the criminal scum one calls “government”.
Hemp and Lead. It IS the only solution to the tyranny of government.
On July 9, 2019 at 9:42 am, Fred said:
Yay, the right wins another argument…with itself. What a relief. Yes, let’s conserve this: “…not at all clear that the City has foresworn the power to control where its residents may transport their duly licensed handguns…” Duly licensed? Duly, what? Oh, I think it’s clear, crystal clear.
Watch us help to conserve this, we are conservative, we are helping you, we are the good guys, no no no – we’re not the other party in on the con – no no no, we are the good guys, we would neeeeeeever “TREAT” you like the counter party to the con, we looooove your freedum, we always help, we conserve the current condition of the commie takeover. Every. Step. Of. The. Way. You’re welcome for that, now pay us or donate to today before the baaaaaad guys get you, and your pretty guns too!!!
On July 9, 2019 at 11:06 am, Herschel Smith said:
Have readers become so bitter that they can’t be happy over small victories (which could become bigger victories depending) for fellow gun owners in NY?
On July 9, 2019 at 11:57 am, DAN III said:
Mr. Smith,
I am trying HARD to see the alleged “small victories” you make reference to.
A citizen’s God-given right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment supporting said rights, have been usurped, compromised, revoked, terminated and just eliminated in many, many venues across this former, great nation.
Please provide the SCOTUS ruling that provides a small victory for a citizen’s right to transport personal property, i.e., firearms in NYC per the “ever-evolving developments” you reference in your “Paul Clements…” posting.
One step half-way forwards is not a victory of any sort to me. Especially since the NY State SAFE ACT continues to smother every upstate New York citizen and their right to Keep and Bear Arms.
On July 9, 2019 at 12:24 pm, Fred said:
Sir, respectfully, prayerfully, and reminded of last weeks embittered arguments, like Dan III, in this specific case, I still don’t see the victory either. Maybe you’re right. I certainly hope I’m wrong and do want this to be the first step in a multi-year turnaround to take back that which God has commanded of every man. And you know that I personally work toward that and don’t just complain.
On July 9, 2019 at 1:45 pm, Gryphon said:
“Small Victories” and “We didn’t Lose as much of our Rights as we Might Have” are the plaintive lamentations of those making Excuses for Not having stood up and Declared “Shall Not Be Infringed” is the Bedrock Principle of Opposing Gun Control. We are already well into a situation where Millions of People are quietly Ignoring “laws” that are Repugnant to the Constitution (“No Law at All” paraphrasing some former SCOTUS Justice), and the bolshevik bureaucracy is continuing to “Outlaw” Free Men owning Weapons by ‘incrementalism’.
We need to watch New Zealand closely; it is there that the same commies have pushed right to the Edge, where either they begin Violent Confiscations, or Lose any semblance of respect of the “law”.
Have Spare Weapons and Ammo in a Place not your Home, and a Target List.
On July 9, 2019 at 1:53 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Am I making excuses Gryphon? Is that what this post is?
On July 9, 2019 at 2:21 pm, Gryphon said:
Herschel – No, I don’t think you’re making excuses, This ‘bitter commenter’ just sees the ‘small victories’ as always, Ineffective against the onslaught of bolshevik communism, which has Mastered the Technique of Incrementalism, and nothing will Stop it until its own inherent Instability causes a societal collapse that Destroys its ability to Rule. Only then will Honest Men be able to ‘mop up’ the Wreckage and (hopefully) restore some semblance of a Republic; then, there will still remain the problem of “Keeping It’.
On July 13, 2019 at 1:55 pm, moe mensale said:
Herschel posts an update to a potentially far reaching – beyond just NYC – Supreme Court case and you shit on him? Really? Nice move. Kill the messenger.
Maybe Herschel should just spike the blog and go home. I’m sure he has far more important things he can be doing than having to deal with the bullshit here.
Unbelievable.
On July 13, 2019 at 7:16 pm, Fred said:
Look, what I wrote above is not personally directed against Mr. Herschel. He should know that. My derision and snide attitude is toward the Republican/Conservative lawyers and activists who fail to see what this case may represent, in fact, down the road.
1. The weapons are already licensed. We all know what that means, confiscation is next.
2. This case, as argued, doesn’t attempt to resend the licensing but will by de facto acceptance, make it potentially a permanent reference case in American jurisprudence, to wit; Yes you can move about somewhat with your LICENSED handgun.
3. Thus making licensing an acceptable standard in case law as a requirement to possess and transport a handgun.
4. My difficulty is with the merits of the resultant set of policy(law) as a whole.
5. And, they are real concerns. I’m an actual pro gun activist, have been for years. This case may be emblematic of how the right seems to help but actually makes it worse…and I no longer think that they are somehow misguided or unable to see second and third order affects. I think this stuff on purpose, to enslave.
6. None of this is personal against Herschel. It’s my analysis of this case, and a general observation of the, so called, pro gun Republicans and Conservatives.
7. This case attempts to stop the progression, and may well. This I’m not arguing.
8. Stopping the Progression by making case law for licensed transport, and that’s the potential result, in my view, is not a win and doesn’t actually stop anything.
9. Is there a valid counter argument? I haven’t heard one.
10. If it’s indeed an incremental win, explain please. Perhaps I’m merely missing it.
And, men such as us don’t usually gush but I’ll say that Mr. Herschel has, by my testimony, laid up much treasure in heaven whether he knows it or not. He has been instrumental in my rapid and substantial growth in maturity as I seek the truth of our King Savior Christ Jesus.
And finally, being a Christian and activist means taking risks and losing some. Are we simply to say; Forget it, and quit? The LORD came to bring a sword, to divide families, tribes, nations, and, to a lesser extent firearms activism may cause similar division because any time men fight for a specific aspect of the Law of God (the sixth commandment) he will get push back. A discussion, where I might have been admittedly less annoying, about how to promote and implement an aspect of the Law of God is a very good thing. It’s a noble work to make a record here.
Herschel will do as he will, I only pray that he does it, in Christ.
On July 14, 2019 at 8:47 am, Gary L. Griffiths said:
I simply can’t believe the effrontery of one who denigrates incremental 2nd Amendment victories, yet doesn’t know who Paul Clement is. FYI, yes, he’s a lawyer. I also understand the frustration of fighting a rear-guard action against a seemingly endless tide of gun control legislation. It would have been great if the Heller decision had stated plainly that any and all gun control laws are hereby null and void. It’s just that that’s not the way things work. Are these commentators totally oblivious to the fact that New York’s increasingly desperate efforts to moot this case means it is likely to be a significant victory for 2nd Amendment advocates? True, it will likely only fairly narrowly be applied, like Heller was, but it may well rule that the right to keep and bear arms exists outside the home, if only to transport firearms for legal purposes. That will lead to the re-examination of laws restricting concealed carry.
Those who insist on one-shot (so to speak) nullification of all encroachments on the 2nd Amendment are as naive as those pollyannas who seek utopia by banning all firearms. In any event, thank you, Mr. Smith, for an informative and insightful blog entry. May the eventual result be what we are hoping for.
On July 14, 2019 at 7:42 pm, DAN III said:
Moe@1355,
Hey, nice to read your derogatory remarks transmitted in accordance with Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5.
Perhaps you could influence those commenters here at The Captain’s Journal, to your way of thinking, who spout “bullshit”, as you so elegantly put it. But, you would have to dispense a concerned and intellectual remark to add to the discussion; your Point-of-View.
Commenters here such as Fred, Gryphon and many others provide much food for thought in their often eloquent and always intellectual remarks, rebuttals and/or agreements/disagreements with essays posted by Mr. Smith.
Attacking commenters with meaningless ridicule only goes to waste bandwidth. Sniveling about comments you disagree with by assigning the term “bullshit” to said commentary offers nothing of value, pro or con.
On July 14, 2019 at 8:52 pm, Fred said:
“It would have been great if the Heller decision had stated plainly that any and all gun control laws are hereby null and void. It’s just that that’s not the way things work.”
No, that’s not just the way things work. All gun control laws are null and void. The LORD has already spoken on this. That we revisit this, over and over, as a race, since Cain slayed Able, is not evidence of the authority of any court of men, but of man’s continued denial of Holy God, refusal to accept His laws as immutable, infallible, and timeless, and it is proof that evil is real and men would rather follow that creature and the lusts of their own creation than a thrice holy God. It matters not one whit what Heller said before he got arkancided, there is a higher Law. Can you not see, even blinded by the devil, that gun control, or the denial of any aspect of the law of God puts you at enmity, at war with the Almighty and leads us as a people and civilization to make war upon each other over and over much to the delight of the fallen one?
“Thou shalt not kill” solidifies in Revealed Law, for the right existed prior, 1) the right to life, and 2) therefor the right to defense of life. All gun control, even when supposed as some good is a work against the law of Holy God, and evil work, an affront putting those who would do such things at variance and making themselves as some ruler above God. God will not be mocked. The reason I fight for gun rights is because I don’t want to have to kill my neighbors, tribesmen, and countrymen yet they insist that I not defend myself in violation of the highest laws of men and more so of God. They argue that if we would only make government our god, no Nebuchadnezzar I will not bow down, then and only then will the killing end, when in fact all evidence of the history of men is contrary and the Word says that’s false, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” but apparently too stupid as your own gods to know good FROM evil from a retarded sense of even what is natural and right as you have rejected God. “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” So it will be war, not with me, not men against men but the destruction of all of us because you will hand yourself over to the devil to attempt, once again, to settle what was settled.
I ask, reversing the question, was Able then Cain’s keeper, even to allow himself to be killed? If so then why did Cain have to come on him unawares? I am not Able you self declared puddle of ooze born decedents of monkeys. I see you coming. Fools and naves follow the devil to the destruction of us all, a thing I work to prevent. And so now that, you will more than likely continue to be unable to understand as children of darkness, IS just the way things work.
On July 15, 2019 at 2:28 pm, moe mensale said:
“Hey, nice to read your derogatory remarks transmitted in accordance with Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5.”
You’re welcome, DAN III, but my remarks had nothing to do with Alinsky’s rules. Nice try at derailing though.
On July 15, 2019 at 2:40 pm, moe mensale said:
“Commenters here such as Fred, Gryphon and many others provide much food for thought in their often eloquent and always intellectual remarks, rebuttals and/or agreements/disagreements with essays posted by Mr. Smith.”
I hope your nose isn’t bleeding way up there on top of your pedestal, DAN III. All that rarefied air and what not. No, really. That’s a funny comment. And it’s only Monday!