NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[beavisman1]

Good job NYSRPA Gun owners/valid permit holders are worse off as of today than before Bruen.

The law is summarized in detail below within the quote.

Thanks for nothing NYSRPA. Coming soon to an MGA near you. Over on the NYGuns forums, rural/upstate permit holders are waking up to realize that effective 9/1 their permits are worthless because all of NY is now a "sensitive place". And yes, the atitude is "Thanks for nothing NYSRPA".

NY's New Gun Law.

-CCWs will expire every 3 years. You have to complete the mandatory training course in order to renew. If your permit was re-certified >3 years ago you have 1 year to renew, requiring only live fire qualification.

-Training course requirements: 16 hours of classroom training on general firearm safety, safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices, state and federal gun laws, situational awareness, conflict de-escalation, best practices when encountering law enforcement, places considered sensitive or illegal to carry, conflict management, use of deadly force, suicide prevention, and the basic principles of marksmanship. Minimum score of 80% on a written test. Minimum 2 hours live fire training.

Gun owners must have "good moral character" supported by 4 references and a review of all social media activity. Claiming to not have social media accounts may be deemed "anti-social" behavior and grounds for non-issuance of a permit.

-Ammunition background checks: The state is pushing forward with a statewide licensing and record database, managed by the state police. Before Ammunition is transferred, the seller will be required to contact the state police prior to sale.

-They've added verbiage to fix the law pertaining to body "vests". It would be amended to "body armor" designed to protect against gunfire.

"Sensitive" places where carrying is a Class E felony: Places where carrying will get you a felony charge:

• Guns will be off-limits on private property unless the property owner indicates that he or she expressly allows them. This bans carry by default in all businesses unless the owner allows it in writing. It also potentially bans firearms within apartments if the landlord hasn't expressly given permission.
• Anywhere people gather to express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble
• Any place under the control of federal, state, or local government for the purpose of administration
• Any medical facility
• Any church or place of worship
• libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos
• Any place the office of children and family services runs a "program"
• nursery schools, preschools, summer camps
• anywhere the office for people with developmental disabilities runs a program, or programs funded by them
• homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence
• residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health
• grounds owned or leased by educational institutions, public or private
• Any public transportation, including the buildings or structures that facilitate them
• Anywhere alcohol or cannabis is served for public consumption
• any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events
• polling places
• public sidewalks of public places where access has been restricted
• Times Square

Current Maryland W&C permit holders will probably be looking at a similar statute, making their current permits worth less than an old gummed up playing card. In may issue states, those who already have unrestricted licenses will find themselves subject to far more restrictive carry laws than before Bruen was decided. The lower courts will simply ignore Bruen the way they ignored Heller for 12 years. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Circuit is going to support 2nd Amendment rights because "Clarence Thomas said so" is living in a fantasy world. The lower courts will support these laws for another decade before anything of significance comes back to SCOTUS.

 

[Bertfish]

Good job NYSRPA Gun owners/valid permit holders are worse off as of today than before Bruen.

The law is summarized in detail below within the quote.

So the suit to expand rights being ignored by shitbag politicians is their fault?

 

[MJD438]

So the suit to expand rights being ignored by shitbag politicians is their fault?

BGOS

My Ignore list is getting huge...

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

 

[beavisman1]

So the suit to expand rights being ignored by shitbag politicians is their fault?

Ignore seemed like it was going to be the obvious outcome based on the text, history, and tradition of left wing politicans and the activist judges that enable them. 10-12 years under Heller and McDonald and yet plenty of arms in "common use" have been banned. All NYSRPA did was kick the hornet's nest that left plenty of rural/upstate permit holders in NY with permits that are no longer good for anything as of September 1st.

 

[rseymorejr]

I always thought that was Jefferson

Jefferson said: "Get out of my living room, honkie!"

Oh wait, that was George Jefferson.

 

[SWO Daddy]

Is there any kind of motion that can be filed directly with the USSC, bypassing appeals that says “they are blatantly saying no to comply with the ruling”? Second, what are the chances NY ends up under some type of conservatorship (likely the wrong term given the situation), akin to Alabama when they thumbed their nose at voting rights laws?
Im a pretty calm guy, generally. I left NY because of these laws, among other things. Their ignorance and blatant disregard makes my blood pressure rise.

IANAL but I think "preclearance" is the term you're looking for. It's possible but I believe would take an act of congress and I'm skeptical considering how much a Republican led congress and white house take gun owners for granted

 

[Biggfoot44]

Four licensed concealed carry gun owners sue D.C. for prohibition to carry on Metro​

Four licensed concealed carry gun owners sue D.C. for prohibition to carry on Metro

Four men with D. C.

wjla.com

Well now, that didn't take long to happen.

We know that Tyler Y ! He's Dick Heller's sidekick .

 

[Allen65]

IANAL but I think "preclearance" is the term you're looking for. It's possible but I believe would take an act of congress and I'm skeptical considering how much a Republican led congress and white house take gun owners for granted

It happened previously under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Preclearance was enabled by Federal legislation, which doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing Congress, even post-2024 if DeSantis ends up in the White House.

Interestingly, it wasn't just the former Confederate states that required adult supervision, there were 3 New York counties, too. See:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act

I can't see a conservative SCOTUS ordering a Section 5-style remedy for 2A rights because there wouldn't be a historical constitutional basis for it to happen out of judicial fiat, absent specific Federal enabling legislation.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Doom pill extreme https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/01/bruen-broke-the-deal/

Kind of like Machinegun collectors supporting Hughes to increase the value of their collections .

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Yes, they are. What they either don't realize or don't care about is the can of worms this opens.

As a native New Yorker, I had to deal with the Sullivan Act and its related statutes for much of my life. I am quite familiar with their history. The debates in the NYS legislature at the time were saturated with racism and the transcripts of those debates still exist. The main proponents of the Sullivan Act openly stated that its purpose was to disarm Catholics, Italians and other ethnic and religious minorities. Timothy Sullivan, for whom the Sullivan Act was named, was a notorious crime lord. "Good moral character" was code for being a White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, preferably one with a certain amount of financial worth. SCOTUS is not going to allow this type of subjective standard.

The NYS definition of "sensitive places" isn't going to fly either. Times Square? Libraries? Public Parks? The Subway? Lol. Absolutely not. SCOTUS is going to pummel NYS for this.

What they are all over looking is the statement that was made in the opinion that no NON-Objective reasoning by a individual would be or is allowed. That’s what they are missing.

And like I said in my last post….
They are idiots if they think their laws won’t be challenged.

They are also bigger idiots if they believe NOW that SCOTUS will continue to ignore 2A cases like they have in the last 10 years. And that they SCOTUS will find in their favor.

In fact keep in mind that they have GRANTED cert in 5 cases just in the last Year and 3 months.

They just don’t understand that. Maybe someone should tell them. But even if someone did, they would whine and give us their middle finger.

 

[beavisman1]

What they are all over looking is the statement that was made in the opinion that no NON-Objective reasoning by a individual would be or is allowed. That’s what they are missing.

And like I said in my last post….
They are idiots if they think their laws won’t be challenged.

They are also bigger idiots if they believe NOW that SCOTUS will continue to ignore 2A cases like they have in the last 10 years. And that they SCOTUS will find in their favor.

In fact keep in mind that they have GRANTED cert in 5 cases just in the last Year and 3 months.

They just don’t understand that. Maybe someone should tell them. But even if someone did, they would whine and give us their middle finger.

I think they understand but just don't care. If the courts throw the law out, they just go back to the drawing board and come up with a new set of infringements. It takes years for courts to act, so the rinse and repeat cycle for practical purposes will go on forever.

 

[delaware_export]

If we learned anything from the nyc/premise pistol permit that was mooted, add damages to the claims when filed, so they just can’t be mooted when the courts take them up.

 

[teratos]

I think they understand but just don't care. If the courts throw the law out, they just go back to the drawing board and come up with a new set of infringements. It takes years for courts to act, so the rinse and repeat cycle for practical purposes will go on forever.

It will not go on forever.

 

[Fedora]

NY and Maryland are going to give the whole country Constitutional Carry

I believe you're correct. It would put an abrupt stop to these mischiefs. If not Constitutional Carry, the non-complying states would pass two anti-gun laws for every one the Supreme Court shoots down. SCOTUS will be reduced to playing Whac-A-Mole. I am not convinced the 6 justices see that as how they want to spend the rest of their careers.

 

[ironpony]

When does SC come back from vacation or break.

 

[rambling_one]

It will not go on forever.

Forever's such a long time. I'm thinking something more like not in my life time.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I think they understand but just don't care. If the courts throw the law out, they just go back to the drawing board and come up with a new set of infringements. It takes years for courts to act, so the rinse and repeat cycle for practical purposes will go on forever.

It’s interesting, because they didn’t fight McDonald and Heller so fiercely back then, neither did really anyone else.

They did put pressure on D.C. when they lost the Wrenn case not to file a pet for cert back then for fear that what happens with NYSPRA would have happened back then. If they had, they might have had a semi win, as SCOTUS back then might have denied cert.

However, the writing was on the wall. NYSPRA case was one bound to happen somewhere eventually. Especially after we finally got a Super Majority in SCOTUS.

What they failed to realize is that the NYSPRA v NYC that they mooted, just pissed SCOTUS off for mooting the case. That is ONE of the main reasons (not the only one though) that SCOTUS chose to accept cert on NYSPRA v Bruen case instead of one of the other carry cases.

Why are they fighting back so hard now? Well partly because in the last 6 years, the divide in the country has become much more sharply divided. The fights between the Liberals and Conservatives are Getting bigger, more fierce and longer.

As long as we maintain the 6 super majority. We will continue to win.

I knew this would not be the end of it. I knew they would fight back and whine etc…

This will take a few more cases reaching the Supreme Court. It will take them issuing a few more opinions, AND/OR GVR Cases along with mandates.

If the courts on the 4 GVR’d cases don’t correctly resolve those cases. Then those cases will absolutely get a pet for cert to SCOTUS again, And SCOTUS will again GVR them again but with a mandate.

For sake of statistics. In every single GVR case I have found, where a lower court did NOT for the second time make a proper finding, SCOTUS issued another GVR on that case, but the second time around they did so with a mandate.

Now that we have a new standard to work with on 2A cases, it’s going to be a lot harder for them to win.

But I want to warn everyone in advance. They have already hired teams of people to research history for every single state, town city, county and federal laws, rules, regulations for anything that will help them win when it comes to using THT.

We need to be just as vigilant as they are, in doing our research as well.

I don’t know about you, but I have already started.

THANKFULLY, Thomas is very skilled and knowledgeable about history as well, and his staff is as well too.

IMHO, I also believe Thomas as well as several other Justices knew that some of these states would be fighting back, and knew they would soon be getting more cases filed on behalf of the 2A. I think they are prepared, and are ready to grant more Certs when the time comes.

 

[Doctor_M]

It will not go on forever.

I pray you are right... but I fear you are mistaken, my friend. My faith in the system is not as strong as it used to be.

 

[beavisman1]

But I want to warn everyone in advance. They have already hired teams of people to research history for every single state, town city, county and federal laws, rules, regulations for anything that will help them win when it comes to using THT.

We need to be just as vigilant as they are, in doing our research as well.

I don’t know about you, but I have already started.

That's a great point. Notice how back in the 1980s/early 1990s many states were "No Issue". Alabama prohibited carrying on property not owned by the gun owner until about 1990, and Texas didn't go "shall issue" until 1995. No doubt, liberal judges will view the No issue/May issue schemes as in line with text, history, and tradition. Now, I know people will say "but but what about the time of our founding or post reconstruction" the issue with that is that liberal judges don't like guns and will continue to rule accordingly.

 

[teratos]

I pray you are right... but I fear you are mistaken, my friend. My faith in the system is not as strong as it used to be.

It’s not so much faith in the system. I have no faith in the system. I don’t know that it will go smoothly, but I don’t see our side losing. We may need to flex a little. I hope the left is smart enough to understand what exactly that means.