Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[HorizontalHunter]

By the time the SC makes a decision, it will be of a matter of whether toilet paper unrolls from the top or bottom!!!

This question was decided long ago by cat owners.

Bob

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The results oriented decision making can easily lead to "WTF? Do you know what this will do to NYC? They will scream like stuck pigs if unconnected people had to be granted "Special Carry" or "Full Carry" (NYC terms) pistol permits based on clean criminal record and objective qualifications not based on occupation, wealth, fame or social standing.

Or, they could look at Chicago or DC that went from "none" to "shall issue" and notice that nothing really changed except the occasional legitimate use.

 

[Mesatchornug]

[...] take a minimum of 150 hrs of handgun and rifle training[...]

...from instructors certified by the NYPD, annually.

 

[GaryO]

Probably not.


Yes. See below.


Two plaintiffs were denied NY carry licenses because the licensing officer said that they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public.” The group bringing the case framed the question to the SC this way:

"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."​

However, the SC decided to answer this question:

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."​

Note the game here. They've moved it from "Does the 2A allow an ordinary citizen to carry outside the home?" to "Is the state's application denial for concealed carry a 2A issue?".

They took a wide ranging question and crammed it WAY down. Look for more weaseling to come.

All they need to show is the shooting stats from Chicago for the last 10 years and that should be all the proof you need to carry outside the home.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

All they need to show is the shooting stats from Chicago for the last 10 years and that should be all the proof you need to carry outside the home.

The more relevant thing to show is how few of the bad shoots were license holders. They probably move that needle less than cops.

 

[T-Unit]

Its not really a CCW permit. Its a carry permit. Conclment isn't up for discussion here.

Also, where does it say that this case specifically deals with the carrying of firearms? There are other weapons that could be carried in NY state that require obtaining a permit to legally carry, such as tasers or certain kinds of knives, which many states outright ban from people being able to carry.

 

[Jim Poulette]

I suspect they'll punt and table a decision until this gets rolled out.

 

[T-Unit]

Two plaintiffs were denied NY carry licenses because the licensing officer said that they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public.” The group bringing the case framed the question to the SC this way:

"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."​

However, the SC decided to answer this question:

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."​

Note the game here. They've moved it from "Does the 2A allow an ordinary citizen to carry outside the home?" to "Is the state's application denial for concealed carry a 2A issue?".

They took a wide ranging question and crammed it WAY down. Look for more weaseling to come.

This appears to point to a case not about the right to carry outside the home, but about whether states have the right to deny law abiding people from being able to carry weapons for self defense outside the home on the basis of need/cause? On that basis alone, the answer is absolutely not, but what I think NY is going to argue that the state has discretion for approving or denying permits to promote the general welfare and safety of its citizens from people who aren't trained and certified.

Basically, I see SCOTUS saying that states cannot deny a person from being able to carry a weapon outside the home, but they can implement their own standards for qualification to receive the permit, which means if you live in NYC you can get your carry permit if you pass the 500 hours of classroom testing and trainging, can hit the bullseye 10/10 times at 100 yards offhand with your .38 snub, and pay the thousands of dollars in fees for all that.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Court to take up major gun-rights case

The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

The announcement came just one day short of one year after the court’s ruling in a different challenge brought by the same gun-rights group. That case involved New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban before the case reached the Supreme Court, a majority of the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims were moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the case should return to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun-rights rulings, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh urged the court to “address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari” then pending before the justices, several of which involved the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.

 

[HARRYM]

Roberts has become Souter so this worries me.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Prepare for "proper cause" to become set in stone as the de facto standard for states to hide behind.

 

[67ray]

Wait everyone there is goodness to be had here. While we shouldn't expect a national-level All Lawful Purposes shall-issue judgement, there is a huge potential for at least preventing these arbitrary denials in NYS and elsewhere. Mass will be listening at least some of the towns need to listen.
.

 

[HARRYM]

Carry outside the home would be decided at the State Level.

Is the Constitution decided at the State level...

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Wait everyone there is goodness to be had here. While we shouldn't expect a national-level All Lawful Purposes shall-issue judgement, there is a huge potential for at least preventing these arbitrary denials in NYS and elsewhere. Mass will be listening at least some of the towns need to listen.
.

There will be no "preventing...arbitrary denials" anywhere, regardless of any SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Picton]

Fingers crossed.

Not sure if I see a downside for states like CA, MA, etc... I think a ruling that supports NYS would simply leave those states in the same shithole status they currently are WRT RKBA. Though such a ruling would also embolden people like Linsky. But I think if he's having difficulty passing additional gun control in MA as it currently is, I can't see how a SCOTUS ruling that maintains the status quo would change that dynamic much.

If I were living in a purple state with ambitious blue legislators, I'd be watching this VERY closely.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Is the Constitution decided at the State level...

Well, 2A already is nullified in MA, so yes.

 

[LittleCalm]

why isn't this just a simple decision yes you can carry outside the home subject to "reasonable" restrictions for the protection of the public or some BS like that. That is what the court did in Heller.

 

[HARRYM]

Well, 2A already is nullified in MA, so yes.

Which is why it's at the SCOTUS.

 

[45Badger]

Don't worry, they will say:

fine, we are shall issue... after you present 300 different documents proving who you are, 15 doctor notices saying you are not crazy, 72 reference letters (with one at least from each State), ask your previous 3 ex girlfriends/wives to say you are a good person and take a minimum of 150 hrs of handgun and rifle training.

This is what happened in Illinois. Big fees, 16 hour training requirement, range qualification, re-certification in 5 years, etc. The state underestimated the demand and commitment of gun owners so the system was bogged down for a bit.

Common sense has been quietly prevailing and licensed carriers are not wantonly shooting up the world. Several buddies live and carry in Chicago daily. Sister-in-law is a Chicago cop. All say it’s a non-issue.

 

[45Badger]

why isn't this just a simple decision yes you can carry outside the home subject to "reasonable" restrictions for the protection of the public or some BS like that. That is what the court did in Heller.

That’s not “shall issue”. NYC issues to all who fit the “reasonable and common sense” set of restrictions. Most of America does not find it reasonable or common.

 

[LittleCalm]

That’s not “shall issue”. NYC issues to all who fit the “reasonable and common sense” set of restrictions. Most of America does not find it reasonable or common.

I see. Thx. So "shall issue" is just that, i.e., can be no additional requirements. What about a PP? They just can't buy? I'm still not optimistic. SCOTUS seems to have a problem with interpreting "shall not be infringed".

 

[safetyfirst2125]

This is just the John Roberts way of sending the message "PLEASE DON'T PACK US...WE'LL DELIVER THE GOODS!".

Prove me wrong.

 

[MaverickNH]

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

I like that tag line.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Which is why it's at the SCOTUS.

Nope. This is a NY case.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I got a bad feeling about this........

 

[E.Stoner]

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

"My rights in deez nuts"
-Thomas Jefferson, probably.

 

[T-Unit]

This is just the John Roberts way of sending the message "PLEASE DON'T PACK US...WE'LL DELIVER THE GOODS!".

Prove me wrong.

I doubt Roberts even voted to grant cert, this was likely Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barret.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I doubt Roberts even voted to grant cert, this was likely Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barret.

Five is enough.

Bob

 

[T-Unit]

why isn't this just a simple decision yes you can carry outside the home subject to "reasonable" restrictions for the protection of the public or some BS like that. That is what the court did in Heller.

Because unlike simple ownership of a gun in the home, "reasonable restrictions" on carrying a gun outside it opens up a huge can of worms. What's a reasonable reason to deny someone a carry license/permit? That they don't know how to shoot accurately? Great, now EVERYONE has to spend 50 hours of classroom instruction and pass an annual range qualification of hitting a quarter... make that a dime at 50 yards 100 times in a row. Any misses and you fail the qualification and you are denied the permit.

This is how Democrats operate. Unless SCOTUS says that unless a person is otherwise barred from owning a gun under state/federal law, the state cannot deny you a license to carry.

SCOTUS isn't going to make that ruling because it's not narrow enough, they'll say states can't deny you for no reason and the states will take that and make up ridiculous standards that nobody would be able to pass and few would be able to afford to pay for. They will be shall issue states in name only.

 

[MaverickNH]

Making Sense of the Limited Cert Grant in NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett

One week ago, I lamented about Heller's sad bar mitzvah. On April 26, the Court denied review in three Second…

reason.com

Day 1 of The Pundits - Decision expected June 2022 - like, 14 months from now...

Josh Blackman: "... the Court only granted review to a limited question presented: ‘Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.’

As soon as I saw the grant, I started to scratch my head. Why did the Court rewrite the QP? Here is how Paul Clement framed the issue for the petitioners: ‘Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."

"This grant may be the last time a nine-member Court decides a Second Amendment case. Any punt here will sweep Heller to what Justice Scalia called the "the dustbin of repudiated constitutional principles."