Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

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!
  • Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,154
    AFAIK in MD if you can’t legally get an HQL, then you are prohibited from owning firearms. I understand the HQL is not for possession. We’ve had people post about having their HQL revoked/not approved and then a visit from the MSP. Am I mistaken on this?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Not true. A HQL is only needed to purchase new handguns. Many members of this forum have refused to get an HQL however they continue to legally own handguns and previously regulated and other long arms acquired prior to the passage of this unconstitutional law. They also continue to purchase long arms legally.

    I believe the case you are referring to about having a HQL revoked and a visit by the MSP deals with an individual who moved to Maryland after the passage of the law and subsequent to obtaining a HQL and registering his legally acquired and previously owned firearms was tripped up by a technical difference in two different states laws and how they handle offenses and was not considered a Prohibited Person in the previous state he lived in and probably should not be considered Prohibited in Maryland.

    If someone is a Prohibited Person they should not be able to get a HQL nor can they legally posses firearms or ammunition.
    Link to the ATF Identify Prohibited Persons page:
    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

    There are many reasons you might not be able to get an HQL and not be a Prohibited Person. For example: if you do not have a credit/debit card, if you do not have access to or the skills to use a computer with an internet connection, you do not have a way to get to a LiveScan fingerprint location, if you can not afford the fees, you lack the required training regardless of your knowledge and experience, or possibly other reasons.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    There is also the lower courts stating that "bear" is not core to the 2A, bucking Heller. Which is exactly what happened in this case. The appelatte court sided with NYC, only for NYC to "give in" after the case being granted cert.

    I think the SCOTUS will be giving direction about "bear" being an equal part for the civil right.

    I hope you are correct. It is an easy and logical leap to make.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,142
    Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

    What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

    Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming it’s not mooted)

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/guns-new-york-city-supreme-court-state-rifle
     

    ddestruel

    Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    90
    Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

    What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

    Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming it’s not mooted)

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/guns-new-york-city-supreme-court-state-rifle


    I’ve always wondered about how states can regulate private property after it’s legally owned and being used in a non threatening manner?

    Isn’t the commerce complete once the product is purchased and you’ve taken possession
     

    ddestruel

    Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    90
    Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

    What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

    Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming it’s not mooted)

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/guns-new-york-city-supreme-court-state-rifle


    I’ve always wondered about how states can regulate private property after it’s legally owned and being used in a non threatening manner?

    Isn’t the commerce complete once the product is purchased and you’ve taken possession? That’s what always fascinated me about magazine bans or retroactive semi automatic rifle bans. They turn the clock back and want to take back or change the rules on what you already own.

    It is interesting the us solicitor generals position regarding Mootness and the plaintiffs original claims. Our attorneys are going to be threading yarn in a knitting needle to keep this as broad as possible while not loosing themselves in the weeds of several competing discussions. Ny is going to be threading a micro thread through an even small needle hopefully wasting most it’s time on the Mootness argument. And scotus could go any number of directions given all these twist and circus antics
     

    inkd

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 4, 2009
    7,512
    Ridge
    Not true. A HQL is only needed to purchase new handguns. Many members of this forum have refused to get an HQL however they continue to legally own handguns and previously regulated and other long arms acquired prior to the passage of this unconstitutional law. They also continue to purchase long arms legally.

    I believe the case you are referring to about having a HQL revoked and a visit by the MSP deals with an individual who moved to Maryland after the passage of the law and subsequent to obtaining a HQL and registering his legally acquired and previously owned firearms was tripped up by a technical difference in two different states laws and how they handle offenses and was not considered a Prohibited Person in the previous state he lived in and probably should not be considered Prohibited in Maryland.

    If someone is a Prohibited Person they should not be able to get a HQL nor can they legally posses firearms or ammunition.
    Link to the ATF Identify Prohibited Persons page:
    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

    There are many reasons you might not be able to get an HQL and not be a Prohibited Person. For example: if you do not have a credit/debit card, if you do not have access to or the skills to use a computer with an internet connection, you do not have a way to get to a LiveScan fingerprint location, if you can not afford the fees, you lack the required training regardless of your knowledge and experience, or possibly other reasons.

    I think the difference is between choosing to not get an HQL versus not being able to get one because of something prohibiting you, legally, from getting one.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,058
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

    What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

    Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming it’s not mooted)

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/guns-new-york-city-supreme-court-state-rifle

    Commerce clause wouldn't apply if travel was completely within NY State.

    My crystal ball is all clouded up, but it's fun and edifying watching people opine.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    As the merits briefs have noted "there is no reason to decide the commerce clause" question because the 2A is implicated.

    In other words, if the case is not moot, they will next decide 2A. If for some remote reason the 2A is not implicated, they will go to commerce clause. Anyone who thinks it will be decided on commerce clause grounds is absurdly optimistic beyond all reason that the 2A is not implicated.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,172
    Outside the Gates
    Thanks in advance to those going.


    I was just thinking of how might the fact that Dems kind of threatened SCOTUS in attempt to make them side with "dems" on this case actually be a factor. haha


    Five Democrats Warn Supreme Court It Could be 'Restructured;' Urge It to Drop 2nd Amendment Case

    A threat, just a threat. It takes a fully cooperative senate, which the Democrats don't have. Its not like the New Deal, there is no overwhelming public support for such a move these days.
     

    JPG

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 5, 2012
    6,996
    Calvert County
    I hope the Court decides more than "you have a right to transport outside the home BUT the States can put rules on the transportation". I hope the results are more than a baby step in the direction of getting 2A rights back.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Commerce clause wouldn't apply if travel was completely within NY State.

    Except that Congress keeps passing laws that use weasel language like "..., or components thereof, that have moved in, or may move in, interstate commerce...". Even if the gun, including all components, was manufactured entirely in NY, which is unlikely, the iron ore, oil, and other components almost certainly originated elsewhere.

    The post SCOTUS-overturn re-do version of GFSZA is a shining example of that. Look hard enough and a creative lawyer can find an interstate nexus to gain Federal standing.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,531
    Columbia
    Not true. A HQL is only needed to purchase new handguns. Many members of this forum have refused to get an HQL however they continue to legally own handguns and previously regulated and other long arms acquired prior to the passage of this unconstitutional law. They also continue to purchase long arms legally.

    I believe the case you are referring to about having a HQL revoked and a visit by the MSP deals with an individual who moved to Maryland after the passage of the law and subsequent to obtaining a HQL and registering his legally acquired and previously owned firearms was tripped up by a technical difference in two different states laws and how they handle offenses and was not considered a Prohibited Person in the previous state he lived in and probably should not be considered Prohibited in Maryland.

    If someone is a Prohibited Person they should not be able to get a HQL nor can they legally posses firearms or ammunition.
    Link to the ATF Identify Prohibited Persons page:
    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

    There are many reasons you might not be able to get an HQL and not be a Prohibited Person. For example: if you do not have a credit/debit card, if you do not have access to or the skills to use a computer with an internet connection, you do not have a way to get to a LiveScan fingerprint location, if you can not afford the fees, you lack the required training regardless of your knowledge and experience, or possibly other reasons.



    Apologies as I wasn’t entirely clear. What I meant was that if you were prohibited from getting an HQL due to being legally disqualified, you couldn’t legally own firearms in MD.
    As for the above mentioned incident with a member here getting his HQL and then being told he can’t own guns, that is a mistake on the MSP (one way or the other). Either it should never have been issued or they have his eligibility incorrect.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    .
     

    Attachments

    • B974E8E7-A002-449C-B4A1-AF1902DF7197.jpg
      B974E8E7-A002-449C-B4A1-AF1902DF7197.jpg
      93.6 KB · Views: 396

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    As the merits briefs have noted "there is no reason to decide the commerce clause" question because the 2A is implicated.

    In other words, if the case is not moot, they will next decide 2A. If for some remote reason the 2A is not implicated, they will go to commerce clause. Anyone who thinks it will be decided on commerce clause grounds is absurdly optimistic beyond all reason that the 2A is not implicated.

    Although it's not likely IMO, remember we do have a chief justice who may be more apt to want a wide consensus opinion, and the commerce clause may just be the vehicle. However the conservatives took this case for a reason, and I highly doubt it's because of the Commerce Clause
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,630
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom