You can think whatever you'd like.
The question is simple. It has an answer. Yes, or no?
But for many, enough of the circle jerkoffs. Shit, or get off the pot.
NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You can think whatever you'd like.
The question is simple. It has an answer. Yes, or no?
But for many, enough of the circle jerkoffs. Shit, or get off the pot.
They can't and it has already been settled by the SCOTUS.
U.S. Supreme Court
319 U.S. 105 (1943)
MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."
"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."
"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."
The best I heard was In the 3 judge panel’s Young hearing. Hawaii’s attorney said plaintiffs didn’t make a proper showing. Judge O’Scannlain shot back saying “what showing?” The tone said it all.
Believe that your assumption is correct. As for the mode of carry, one may believe that the Libs in Annapolis would be horrified with the sight of open carry firearms. Then Canceled Carry would more acceptable to Snowflakes then the sight of a gun.
It's a very good bet the only reason Heller had that language was because of Supreme Court justices who aren't needed any longer to count to 5 (Roberts, Kennedy).
They always had 4 votes supporting a right to carry case; they could have taken your suggested route any time since Heller, but they chose to wait until ACB was seated.
Keep in mind NY is not playing the open carry angle, just like DC and even the dissent in Wrenn.
They may be catching on that playing that angle is playing with fire.
Do we know it was four conservatives who voted for cert?
No, and we may never know unless a justice spills the beans when they retire.
Ok, lets say they decide that NY can't deny a license/application to someone that wants to exercise their right to self-defense. Because in reality what it is, is a license tax, the state can charge whatever they want in license fees, being that it's a proper taxing power. New York can then require $2500 for a carry license with $1,000,000 of liability insurance coverage to boot. It would be ridiculous to believe that the SCOTUS is going to overturn precedent on a states licensing/taxing powers, so that's totally possible and would require another case be brought up to challenge the issue. We're talkin' years down the road on this. So, what good would that be to the millions of Americans this ruling could effect? And they've also muddled the waters with a fundamental right that can now be licensed, because in Murdock v Penn, they said just the opposite is true. That's not good for the 2nd Amendment at all. I wish you guys would wake up and smell the coffee, but at this point, I'd say it's too little too late, with the court packing that WILL, happen.
Many thanks to the two of you for simplifying the issue so that this non-lawyer could understand the nuance of what SCOTUS agreed to take on today. I was delighted when I first heard the news but when I started going through this thread, I was wondering if the news was as good as I thought it was. Now I feel like I better understand what the Justices are going to decide. Thanks guys/gals.
Cal68
My point being, what if it was three libs plus Roberts because they sense that this can do the opposite of what we want (like establishing that the 2A expressly doesn’t protect concealed carry).
Assuming the vote was along partisan lines, it would be a hell of a gamble for the 3 Democrat appointed judges to convince Roberts to join them, particularly when they had RBG a year ago and arguably better cases to chose from.
I've seen it suggested before that previous cases weren't granted cert because they didn't have 5 votes. That was before ACB replaced RGB.
There was absolutely no need to state the first example, after mentioning that the right is not unlimited, of states prohibiting concealed carry as not being an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment right, as Heller had NOTHING to do with concealed carry.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
I don't think everyone is happy. The anti-gunners certainly are complaining. I think what most 2A people are happy about is the fact that SCOTUS is taking another 2A case. I think most would be happier without a license.
There is a big difference between wanting a license and accepting that certain limitations exist. They are not going to challenge the license requirement because there limitations on what is protected and the license is in an area where the court is likely to accept reasonable regulations.
The prohibition on concealed carry existed way before the states. The prohibition is on dangerous and unusual arms. If concealed carry was common, then they would not be able to prohibit it. You have it backwards.
NY's license requirement to possess a firearm in your own home, in addition to passing a NICs check when purchasing the firearm, should have been challenged. NYC started requiring it in 1913 so it is not a long standing law. Heller and McDonald recognized the 2nd amendment as a fundamental constitutional right. I don't understand why that was never pursued.
INMY01TA
Ultimate Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 5,827
Don’t think so.
kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
They were commonly carried concealed by criminals and not by law abiding citizens. Or so the claim goes. The thinking was that if you wanted to carry concealed, it must have been because you had ill intent.
But here, we're talking about concealed carry by law abiding citizens, after having decades of experience with millions of law abiding people carrying in that fashion without demonstrating ill intent.
Put another way, more recent experience blows the original justification for concealed carry prohibitions out of the water, and since the purpose of punitive law is to deal with people of ill intent and not people with no ill intent, it follows that while general concealed carry prohibitions may have had some valid reason in the past, they no longer do.
JMangle
Handsome Engineer
With near 100% assurance, this will move things in a better direction. I agree that any good ruling with be neutered by liberal courts and legislatures, but still in the right direction.
What would you propose? To what should we be waking up? We know how rough things are, how crooked the situation is, and how precarious this road we walk is.
I thought my wife, who is closer to liberal than conservative, was nuts when she said that we'd see another revolution or civil war in my life. Now I can see that lesser acts than what we tolerate every day without question are far beyond what started the Revolution.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
What you fail to understand is that they are only allowed to impose reasonable fees.
See how the court has dealt with marches (1A rights) and has accepted that certain fees are acceptable, but they can become unreasonable depending on the circumstances.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marchfees.html
Marching and parading disrupt the normal flow of people going about their daily lives and why that activity can require a permit/license. If a single person decided to protest on a sidewalk somewhere in New Hampshire, there would be no way the local government could require a permit as they did in Cox. You and the writer of that article, missed the head count numbers as mentioned, for example, in Cox. It was around 60 plus people if I remember correctly and there's a reason the judge made that distinction in the case. Simply put, that conduct, marching and parading is disruptive and can require a permit or license. You should read the case instead of believing what others, haphazardly write. Individual fundamental rights, like an individual bearing arms in public, is recognized as not being taxable through a license tax, per Murdock v Penn.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941)
..;that the regulation with respect to parades and processions was applicable only "to organized formations of persons using the highways", and that "the defendants, separately, or collectively in groups not constituting a parade or procession," were "under no contemplation of the Act."
