New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

[Biggfoot44]

MD issues a crap ton of W&C to non MD Residents .

The biggest single catagory is undoubtedly Security related ,for employees of companies that provide security services throughout the DMV region , and have employees who live in all three jurisdictions .

( It is standard procedure to have employees licensed in all jurisdictions , so that they can be moved inbetween as needed .

 

[HaveBlue]

I was going to get one for Washington D.C. as well. But saw that it was a useless endeavor unless you live there, because it would make things easier anytime you had a firearm with you. Even if you didn’t need a LTC.

Where can one really go in D.C. with a firearm anyways. D.C. physically geographically is SMALL we have city parks in Texas bigger then the entire area of D.C. most of the buildings are federal buildings, so can’t carry there.

When I go I’m not in a personal vehicle, so can’t there. Can’t carry on public transit in D.C.

I even had a friend mugged on the train in DC TWICE! DC cops are worthless.

This happened on a crowded Metro Train last month.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...change-gunfire-in-southeast-dc-metro/2903912/

 

[Biggfoot44]

No , actually that happened on a BUS .

Actually riding on a TRAIN is substantially safer than overall for the surrounding jurisdiction . ( At one time , riding a Metro Train was 17 times safer than overall DC , but I haven't crunched recently .)

Riding a BUS is about as safe as walking the sidewalk in same area .

Car thefts , and thefts from car at Metro parking lots is roughly the same , or hair less than large parking lots in surrounding areas , and MTPD aggressively persues this .

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I have my MD W&C, and thus can also carry in VA. Let's say I'm headed down the GW parkway in VA to pick up someone at Reagan National. I will, unavoidably, pass through a bit of DC on my way. With my super power being "When Crap Happens, It Will Be In The Worst Place Possible," that's where some clown will rear-end my truck, and one things leads to another.

Or you're headed down the BW Parkway from Baltimore to pick up 495 and miss the exit. Welcome to DC! You've got to navigate a rough patch of that tiny jurisdiction in order to get back into MD. None of that area is off limits for carry, as long as you have that DC permit. The appeal isn't for walking around heeled just outside federal buildings or museums. The appeal is for, "Crap, I'm inside the DC boundary again, dammit."

If I lived in the area, I totally get that and would do the same as well. Absolutely without a doubt.

I have 11 LTC/CCL so I wouldn’t hesitate to get another. But as a tourist, it’s not worth the effort. Parking in DC is hell wound most of the tourist sites, or when I see my senators/reps etc… so leave my firearm in a safe at the hotel. An take the train in.

 

[camo556]

MD issues a crap ton of W&C to non MD Residents .

The biggest single catagory is undoubtedly Security related ,for employees of companies that provide security services throughout the DMV region , and have employees who live in all three jurisdictions .

( It is standard procedure to have employees licensed in all jurisdictions , so that they can be moved inbetween as needed .

Last I checked Maryland issues less than 30k permits total.

Most counties in free states issue more permits than that lmao.

Your definition of "crap ton" and mine are very different. Yours would put a lot of plumbers out of business.

The number of permits MD issues total rounds down to zero in my math.

 

[camo556]

Also, tomorrow we get one or more opinions in argued cases. Texas SB8 is a good guess (although I tend to think that will be held for Dobbs). There is about a 6% chance its NYSRPA.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

AFAIK, Maryland SP LD has never granted a W&C to a non-state resident. Certainly, correct me if I'm wrong. That was brought up during an appeal to the HPRB a few years back when there was still civilian oversight of the grant process.

They do and will issue a w&c to a non-reisident, if you can show G&S. Which because a NR can’t really use where they live, or that they have an abusive ex to deal with, or other substantial crime issue. The vast majority of those issued to NR’s are due to employment. Security/body guards, etc…

However when NYSPRA v Bruen overturns and invalidates laws for G&S, Maryland (unless it changes their laws otherwise) will theoreticaly start issuing NR W&C because G&S won’t be allowed to be a factor.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I get Camo's overall point .

But within the universe of the 30K-ish MD W&C , non residents are not discriminated against .

FWIW , within 5 or so years , the number of active W&C has gone from 12K- ish to 30K- ish .

 

[Kharn]

Also, tomorrow we get one or more opinions in argued cases. Texas SB8 is a good guess (although I tend to think that will be held for Dobbs). There is about a 6% chance its NYSRPA.

There's a infinitesimal chance it is NYSRPA.

It will be released the last week of the term, if not the last day of the term. Heller was the second to last case of the term, McDonald was the last case. Civil rights shake-ups go last because the clerks and justices go back and forth getting the opinion right until the last minute, and a bit of grandstanding when all of DC is focused on them for that week.

NYSRPA I was released early because the case was moot and nothing was being decided.

 

[camo556]

There's a infinitesimal chance it is NYSRPA.

It will be released the last week of the term, if not the last day of the term. Heller was the second to last case of the term, McDonald was the last case. Civil rights shake-ups go last because the clerks and justices go back and forth getting the opinion right until the last minute, and a bit of grandstanding when all of DC is focused on them for that week.

NYSRPA I was released early because the case was moot and nothing was being decided.

Guns, abortion, emergency vaccine mandates, emergency redistricting lawsuits, they may take an affirmative action case.

Roberts has his hands full! Its going to be hard for him to stay in the majority (and in control) of all of these cases.

I am sticking to the averages, which makes it Feb / March.

Also, I dont think NYSRPA is really a shake-up. Its a shake up for communist states and NYC, but not for the other 75% of the country. Its not even a shake up for upstate NY. Dobbs on the other hand will be a shake up, and is likely what ppl will remember from this term.

Also, my view is longer is worse for us. Quicker means Thomas is writing it, he writes quick concise opinions, like "shall not be infringed, what was unclear about that?"

Longer means Barrett/Roberts is spending alot of time watering it down a whole lot of dicta on sensitive places that wasnt argued.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I get Camo's overall point .

But within the universe of the 30K-ish MD W&C , non residents are not discriminated against .

FWIW , within 5 or so years , the number of active W&C has gone from 12K- ish to 30K- ish .

I bet within 3 years after this NYSPRA case is decided, that the number of Maryland W&C permits will more then triple to well over 100,000. Especially from the western park of the state nearest to West Virginia.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

There's a infinitesimal chance it is NYSRPA.

It will be released the last week of the term, if not the last day of the term. Heller was the second to last case of the term, McDonald was the last case. Civil rights shake-ups go last because the clerks and justices go back and forth getting the opinion right until the last minute, and a bit of grandstanding when all of DC is focused on them for that week.

NYSRPA I was released early because the case was moot and nothing was being decided.

Normally I would agree with you. However this term has at least two other cases that I would argue as being even more controversial then this case.

That’s the two abortion cases from TX and MS.

This term has the 3 most controversial cases that it has had in the last 3-4 terms. You could say the last NYSPRA was, but we knew it was going to come back moot. So it doesn’t count.

So these three case might be the last to be released. But I think they will release all three at the same time probably. Since for the most part the news media have a hard time focusing on more then one issue at a time!

However with that being said, and 3 current cases, soon to be 4 or 5 will probably get some action before then giving us a bigger hint of what’s coming.

We currently have two cases “on hold” pending grant/denial (Hawaii, and a Magazine case)

We also have another magazine case that will be filing soon.

And we have a bump stock case pending cert, with several more bump stock cases that will be filing a petition for cert as well

The two cases “on hold” I just don’t feel like that will leave on hold till then, but nothing says they can’t. I also really highly doubt that they will deny cert as well. Otherwise they would have allready done so. JMHO. I just don’t see any logical reason to put those two case “on hold” if they are going to deny them. I also feel like if they grant cert, that may signal something coming that they don’t wish to reveal yet. As well as I think they haven’t fully decided yet what impact they want to have on these two cases until they work out exactly what they want to say in the NYSPRA case.

Now I could be totally wrong. We won’t know either till they do something.

 

[camo556]

lol, short and sweet DIG for #1 this morning.

 

[camo556]

And also whole womens health.

This is is some insight how the whole term will go:

GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II–C. ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and THOMAS, J., joined except for Part II–C. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Dont be surprised to see Roberts on the losing side of NYSRPA with Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

 

[rascal]

Well yes but if you look at oft cited examples for "no right is absolute," when it comes to rights recognized in the Bill of Rights such as sanctions/limits like defamation, libel laws, etc, these are applied to an individual -- and only that individual -- after a tangible or material harm has been proven in a court to have occurred. We are not all sanctioned nor are we even supposed to be chilled, by the exercise of harmful speech by another individual.

Other examples such as speech and violation of NDAs are about private contracts.

Frankly it is clear that the Bill of Rights liberties, by virtual of being explicitly enumerated in that set of amendments, should be defaulted at strict scrutiny. otherwise we can follow many other developed nations and have for example double jeopardy prohibition, but gut it by allowing it for "new evidence" etc, when we currently do not.

If you look at how the Court decides 1A cases, the answer depends on circumstances. The level of scrutiny they use varies between strict scrutiny and rational basis.

See https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf for examples of different circumstances.

You proved my point. You are not giving examples analogous to gun control. The unprotected speech examples you gave require a harm to have been committed. They do not limit the possession of the tools that can potentially commit the harm.

Gun control is essentially analogous to extremely narrow -- and rare -- prior restraint aspects of First Amendment law -- which are even higher thresholds than strict scrutiny.

The examples in your cite of unprotected speech involve sanctioning post-harm. There is no sanction in your examples of the ability to harm -- but sanctions after harm.

Possessing the tools or ability to profoundly harm are not limited. With my computer hardware, which is the analogy to possing firearms, I could widely and profoundly defame you an/or your business. If you and i had engaged in an NDA to protect your business interests, I could with my computer destroy value of your business. I could disseminate HBO's valuable intellectual property. With my computer hardware, indeed with a pen and ink, I could issue violent and illegal threats.

But government controlling that hardware to prevent it based on the possibly 340 million Americans might commit those harms is well above strict scrutiny -- not below it.

What the analogies in your example are irrelevant. Unless someone is claiming a Second Amendment right to kill people. Your examples are equivalent to assult or homicide law, or use of lethal force law -- not gun control law.

The only limit on possessing the hardware that could be used to commit all the potential harms of the "unprotected speech" in your cite are among incarcerated persons, or a tiny number of persons on parole typically for serious threatening felonies over computer.

 

[rascal]

IANL. Respectfully, I disagree. The 2nd amendment is an enumerated fundamental constitutional right. In my view it is not constitutional to place a prior restraint, the permit requirement, for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm in their own home. .

You are exactly right. people who try and make analogies with First amendment are always listing examples where harm is already committed. Prior restraint (the actual equivalent of gun control) in first Amendment law is profoundly higher than even strict scrutiny.

 

[1time]

Cannot active / retired police carry widely without knowing the particular carry restrictions of the states they are transiting? How does the LEOSA address this issue?

Leosa helps with some laws but not completely. School zones, govt building, parks, and magazine capacity vary by state. There is also the disagreement between leosa and nj state attorney on the matter of hollow points.

 

[jcutonilli]

You proved my point. You are not giving examples analogous to gun control. The unprotected speech examples you gave require a harm to have been committed. They do not limit the possession of the tools that can potentially commit the harm.

Gun control is essentially analogous to extremely narrow -- and rare -- prior restraint aspects of First Amendment law -- which are even higher thresholds than strict scrutiny.

The examples in your cite of unprotected speech involve sanctioning post-harm. There is no sanction in your examples of the ability to harm -- but sanctions after harm.

Possessing the tools or ability to profoundly harm are not limited. With my computer hardware, which is the analogy to possing firearms, I could widely and profoundly defame you an/or your business. If you and i had engaged in an NDA to protect your business interests, I could with my computer destroy value of your business. I could disseminate HBO's valuable intellectual property. With my computer hardware, indeed with a pen and ink, I could issue violent and illegal threats.

But government controlling that hardware to prevent it based on the possibly 340 million Americans might commit those harms is well above strict scrutiny -- not below it.

What the analogies in your example are irrelevant. Unless someone is claiming a Second Amendment right to kill people. Your examples are equivalent to assult or homicide law, or use of lethal force law -- not gun control law.

The only limit on possessing the hardware that could be used to commit all the potential harms of the "unprotected speech" in your cite are among incarcerated persons, or a tiny number of persons on parole typically for serious threatening felonies over computer.

I certainly did not prove your point. The examples given were designed to demonstrate examples of circumstances that lead to different levels of scrutiny. Nothing more.

If you want examples of gun control, just look at Heller. Powder storage and firing guns in the city are not harms in and of themselves. They reflect potential harms, which led the Court to acknowledge that the right was not unlimited.

Zoning and building/fire codes limit what can be done based on potential harms rather than actual harms. There has been litigation over zoning on 1A grounds and the litigants tend to lose.

Computers have certain restrictions due to ITAR based on potential harms rather than actual harms.

Is that enough examples to prove you are wrong?

 

[jcutonilli]

Last I checked Maryland issues less than 30k permits total.

Most counties in free states issue more permits than that lmao.

Your definition of "crap ton" and mine are very different. Yours would put a lot of plumbers out of business.

The number of permits MD issues total rounds down to zero in my math.

It is not really possible that most counties issue more than 30K permits because the majority of counties in the US have less than 30K people.

https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html

1710 of 3142 counties (54%) have a population less than 30k

 

[Kharn]

And also whole womens health.

This is is some insight how the whole term will go:



Dont be surprised to see Roberts on the losing side of NYSRPA with Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

If Roberts joins the dissent in NYSRPA II, then we would all need to rush out and buy some fancy BBQ guns for the 4th of July.