NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

press1280 said:

You're reading way too deep into this. I assume you also believe that horseman's pistols will be the only handgun deemed protected under the 2A, and that brass knuckles, batons, stun guns and every other weapon outside a rifle will also not get 2A protection as well?
The conversation wasn't about concealed v open carry, exc. It was about carrying period. Alito also mentioned the subways and law abiding citizens not getting permits to carry concealed. What's the point of saying this if carrying concealed just isn't part of the right?

Click to expand...

Heller clearly stated what weapons are protected. If you can't remember, go back and read the case, but don't include me in your imagined argument. Any discussion at orals beyond the specific denial of a permit to carry concealed firearms is just judicial commentary at its finest. They never had a permit to carry, so how could the subway, or any other place talked about at orals be a part of the ruling. The reading too deep is coming from your end. Here's the question they will answer, and notice it doesn't include subway carry or college campus carry, or any other place outside the home.


GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE STATE'S DENIAL OF PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR CONCEALED-CARRY LICENSES FOR SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT. CERT.

GRANTED 4/26/2021

777GSOTB said:

You missed the fact that 4 other justices did concur in Heller...DC v Heller was 5-4 in Heller's favor. Also, what Scalia spoke of, was exactly what he stated in Heller, as he was the author of that decision.



I sure do understand what was said and I've quoted Scalia's statement many times. The misunderstanding is on your end.

It isn't my argument, it's the argument of a majority of 19th-century courts to decision on the matter of concealed carry. THEY, not me, said it wasn't a right.



Sorry, but never said they could decide what arms...Heller clearly stated that arms that are in common use are protected...Time for a re-read of that case sir.

Click to expand...

I did not miss the fact that 4 other justices did concur. I actually quoted from that opinion. You can check the post.

jcutonilli said:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote 26]

Click to expand...

All you did is quote spoken words. The rumble url points to Scalia paraphrasing part of the Syllabus, specifically holding 2. The authoritative portion of the text is what I quoted. Both the Syllabus and the text begin with the words "For example,".

777GSOTB said:

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

That's exactly what he said.
...


New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

From Oral Arguments:

Click to expand...

You cannot even quote what I said correctly. I never stated

You are misunderstanding the issue because you are not understanding what the actual text in Heller says. use in society to itself.

Click to expand...

Specifically I never wrote the second sentence.

Your are arguing that the same 19th century logic should apply now. The natural consequence of that argument is that NY would not be able to allow concealed carry even for itself.

I understand what common use means. Socially acceptable is simply another way to describe the same thing.

TheBert said:

Or Roberts could change his vote again and go with the anti's.

Click to expand...

It’s very possible depending on the opinion. But considering how much time is left, and the time it takes to write dissents. I would be willing to bed the majority opinion has allready been written, and it’s now in the stage of the dissents being written. The majority opinion has to be finalized first, so that they know what to write in their dissents.

We aren’t for sure which way Roberts will go in the first place.

I still say they will mention 3 things, make comment on 3 things. Roberts May vote with the majority on the major question which was asked, but then May dissent to the opinion written on scrutiny and time/places.

One thing to note… which I laugh at… is that some people are saying it will go this way or that because of previous rulings in various courts.

But I want to point out it’s the Supreme Court can overturn previous rulings, and ignore Stare Decisis.

Consider the fact that Roe V Wade is about to be overturned to some degree. Maybe in its entirety, maybe only partially. But it will be to some degree.

What I personally rely on, is actual opinions and comments made by the actual justices that are currently sitting on the court. The very dissents May have written.

But no one and I mean no one knows for sure what they will say, many will be right, many will be wrong. But no one knows with any certainty until it’s released

777GSOTB said:

Post up what he found to be unconstitutional. Also, who sought a concealed carry license in that case?

Click to expand...

If banning or requiring G&S can be found constitutional for conceal carry it can be found to do the same for open carry as well.

No logic to even making a distinction between the two. Carrying a gun in public.

However no matter what legal BS you spout. Keep in mind SCOtUS can do just about anything it wants.

There is no requirement for them to follow stare Decisis. They are about to overturn Roe V wade either fully or partially. So they can oveturn or uphold just about anything they want.

Roberts can change his vote and go with the antis.

That would be an excellent scenario. Why?

It will still be 5-4, and the most senior justice in the majority gets to assign the opinion and that would be Thomas assigning it to himself. The opinion will be 5-4 with Thomas writing it. lmao, too good to be true. Bye Roberts.

If Roberts stays in the majority, he assigns the opinion. Roberts wanting to stay in the majority and keep control over the opinion is the primary reason I think he will assign it to Barrett. My feeling based on Kavanaugh 's dissent in Heller ( II? or II? https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/) is that he will write an opinion a little too pro gun for Roberts. But maybe Roberts will surprise us and let Kavanaugh write it.

jcutonilli said:

I did not miss the fact that 4 other justices did concur. I actually quoted from that opinion. You can check the post..

Click to expand...

Here's your COMPLETE post. Point out that opinion you quoted from. What justice Scalia was speaking about in the audio, was what he had written in Heller. You said 4 justices were needed to concur. I stated 4 justices did concur in the Heller decision. Therefore it's authoritative.

jcutonilli said:

What you fail to understand is that what a particular justice speaks is not authoritative. You need four other justices to concur in order for their written words to be authoritative.

Scalia was simply summarizing what was said in Heller. You are misunderstanding the issue because you are not understanding what the actual text in Heller says.

If we are to accept your argument, then NY cannot allow anyone including itself because it is simply not socially acceptable to carry concealed arms.

It undermines your argument when you say that NY can choose which arms are socially acceptable. NY simply cannot limit those it chooses to use in society to itself. That is the one thing everyone agrees.

Click to expand...

*****************************************

jcutonilli said:

All you did is quote spoken words. The rumble url points to Scalia paraphrasing part of the Syllabus, specifically holding 2. The authoritative portion of the text is what I quoted. Both the Syllabus and the text begin with the words "For example,"

Click to expand...

Scalia quoted from, HIS, written text in Heller and he never used "For example" in the audio. What he said in the audio is below what he said in the written decision. He declares that the Heller opinion points out that the right is not unlimited and concealed weapons can be prohibited. Somehow, you and others, just can't believe this to be true.

From that post, you didn't quote any authoritative text. If so, where are the quotations?


DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Quoting Justice Scalia:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

From Rumble audio:
"The next section of our opinion points out, like most rights the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. Concealed weapons prohibitions have been uphold under the Amendment or state analogues."



********************************

jcutonilli said:

You cannot even quote what I said correctly. I never stated Specifically I never wrote the second sentence.

Click to expand...

You're pulling quotes from 2 different posts. And that one was from my response to camo556. Below is what I said and then what you said. Scalia in fact said, concealed weapons can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment in the audio at Rumble. He also said that in Heller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
ME) Imao too...Talk about silliness. Especially so, when the author of Heller clearly states that prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms are lawful under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues.

YOU) That is not what was said.

From Rumble, Scalia audio:
"The next section of our opinion points out, like most right the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. Concealed weapons prohibitions have been uphold under the Amendment or state analogues"
********************************

jcutonilli said:

Your are arguing that the same 19th century logic should apply now. The natural consequence of that argument is that NY would not be able to allow concealed carry even for itself.

I understand what common use means. Socially acceptable is simply another way to describe the same thing.

Click to expand...

Where did you come up with that logic? NY can't allow concealed carry even for itself, do to the fact that states can prohibit it under the 2nd Amendment or state analogues? That is some seriously flawed logic imho.

777GSOTB said:

Where did you come up with that logic? NY can't allow concealed carry even for itself, do to the fact that states can prohibit it under the 2nd Amendment or state analogues? That is some seriously flawed logic imho.

Click to expand...

The state courts said that concealed carry is prohibitable because it's criminal activity.

Is it your claim here that states can allow, at their whim, criminal activity on the part of at least some people they "favor"?

Either concealed carry is criminal activity, in which case states aren't empowered to allow it, or it's not, in which case the reasoning behind the state courts' decisions is no longer valid, thus rendering their decisions invalid. Which is it?

kcbrown said:

The state courts said that concealed carry is prohibitable because it's criminal activity.

Is it your claim here that states can allow, at their whim, criminal activity on the part of at least some people they "favor"?

Either concealed carry is criminal activity, in which case states aren't empowered to allow it, or it's not, in which case the reasoning behind the state courts' decisions is no longer valid, thus rendering their decisions invalid. Which is it?

Click to expand...

Interesting, but your error is believing that all states did so do to criminal activity. In Arizona and Wyoming at least, the prohibitions on concealed carry were to protect the public from unseen weapons that could be used in the sudden heat of passion.

Dano v. Collins, 802 P. 2d 1021 - Ariz: Court of Appeals, 1st Div., Dept. B 1990


"Arizona's prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons does not frustrate the purpose of the constitutional provision. We do not read the Arizona constitutional provision as granting an absolute right to bear arms under all situations. The right to bear arms in self-defense is not impaired by requiring individuals to carry weapons openly. Appellants *324 are free to bear exposed weapons for their defense. Furthermore, the statute has a reasonable purpose — it protects the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a deadly weapon of which the public is unaware, and which an individual may use in a sudden heat of passion. State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986)."

From State v McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236 (Wyo. 1986)

"In most jurisdictions, statutes in varying terms prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. 79 Am.Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms § 8 at 12 n. 89 (1975). Although the courts which have dealt with this subject have formulated many statements regarding the legislative purpose of such statutes,[1] the common thrust is that the statutes are intended to protect the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a deadly weapon of which the public is unaware, and which may be used in a sudden heat of passion. 79 Am.Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms § 8, supra."

777GSOTB said:

Here's your COMPLETE post. Point out that opinion you quoted from. What justice Scalia was speaking about in the audio, was what he had written in Heller. You said 4 justices were needed to concur. I stated 4 justices did concur in the Heller decision. Therefore it's authoritative.



*****************************************

Scalia quoted from, HIS, written text in Heller and he never used "For example" in the audio. What he said in the audio is below what he said in the written decision. He declares that the Heller opinion points out that the right is not unlimited and concealed weapons can be prohibited. Somehow, you and others, just can't believe this to be true.

From that post, you didn't quote any authoritative text. If so, where are the quotations?


DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Quoting Justice Scalia:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

From Rumble audio:
"The next section of our opinion points out, like most rights the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. Concealed weapons prohibitions have been uphold under the Amendment or state analogues."



********************************


You're pulling quotes from 2 different posts. And that one was from my response to camo556. Below is what I said and then what you said. Scalia in fact said, concealed weapons can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment in the audio at Rumble. He also said that in Heller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
ME) Imao too...Talk about silliness. Especially so, when the author of Heller clearly states that prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms are lawful under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues.

YOU) That is not what was said.

From Rumble, Scalia audio:
"The next section of our opinion points out, like most right the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. Concealed weapons prohibitions have been uphold under the Amendment or state analogues"
********************************



Where did you come up with that logic? NY can't allow concealed carry even for itself, do to the fact that states can prohibit it under the 2nd Amendment or state analogues? That is some seriously flawed logic imho.

Click to expand...

To find the quote all you needed to do was read the next line to find out where I quoted from Heller. Apparently that was too difficult.

I don't know why you keep wanting to point out what was in the audio. It is not an authoritative source. Four justices did not concur with his spoken word. They concurred with the written opinion, which always uses "For example" before the statement about concealed weapons prohibitions having been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. It is not the definitive statement you make it out to be.

I came up with that logic by actually reading why those 19th century courts upheld those conceal weapons prohibitions. They were prohibiting criminality. The state cannot cannot allow people to engage in criminality.

777GSOTB said:

Interesting, but your error is believing that all states did so do to criminal activity. In Arizona and Wyoming at least, the prohibitions on concealed carry were to protect the public from unseen weapons that could be used in the sudden heat of passion.

Dano v. Collins, 802 P. 2d 1021 - Ariz: Court of Appeals, 1st Div., Dept. B 1990


"Arizona's prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons does not frustrate the purpose of the constitutional provision. We do not read the Arizona constitutional provision as granting an absolute right to bear arms under all situations. The right to bear arms in self-defense is not impaired by requiring individuals to carry weapons openly. Appellants *324 are free to bear exposed weapons for their defense. Furthermore, the statute has a reasonable purpose — it protects the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a deadly weapon of which the public is unaware, and which an individual may use in a sudden heat of passion. State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986)."

From State v McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236 (Wyo. 1986)

"In most jurisdictions, statutes in varying terms prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. 79 Am.Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms § 8 at 12 n. 89 (1975). Although the courts which have dealt with this subject have formulated many statements regarding the legislative purpose of such statutes,[1] the common thrust is that the statutes are intended to protect the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a deadly weapon of which the public is unaware, and which may be used in a sudden heat of passion. 79 Am.Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms § 8, supra."

Click to expand...

Those are modern cases and do not reflect 19th century reasoning. It is also really just one case citing the other.

777GSOTB said:

Interesting, but your error is believing that all states did so do to criminal activity. In Arizona and Wyoming at least, the prohibitions on concealed carry were to protect the public from unseen weapons that could be used in the sudden heat of passion.

Click to expand...

In other words, to protect against criminal activity (i.e., activity which is criminal in nature)? You're not doing your argument any favors here ...

Dano v. Collins, 802 P. 2d 1021 - Ariz: Court of Appeals, 1st Div., Dept. B 1990


"Arizona's prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons does not frustrate the purpose of the constitutional provision. We do not read the Arizona constitutional provision as granting an absolute right to bear arms under all situations. The right to bear arms in self-defense is not impaired by requiring individuals to carry weapons openly. Appellants *324 are free to bear exposed weapons for their defense. Furthermore, the statute has a reasonable purpose — it protects the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a deadly weapon of which the public is unaware, and which an individual may use in a sudden heat of passion. State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986)."

From State v McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236 (Wyo. 1986)

"In most jurisdictions, statutes in varying terms prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. 79 Am.Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms § 8 at 12 n. 89 (1975). Although the courts which have dealt with this subject have formulated many statements regarding the legislative purpose of such statutes,[1] the common thrust is that the statutes are intended to protect the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a deadly weapon of which the public is unaware, and which may be used in a sudden heat of passion. 79 Am.Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms § 8, supra."

Click to expand...

Neither of those cases were cited by Heller, so they don't count even if they did somehow contradict my claim (they do not). And they are recent cases, not historical cases, so they don't reflect the views of the founding generation on the right.

So my question stands. The historical cases which you claim provide the foundation for concealed carry not being part of the right explicitly state criminality of the act of carrying concealed as the sole reason that concealed carry isn't part of the right (and thus isn't protected).

Either concealed carry is criminal activity or it isn't. Which is it?

Gentlemen , With all the different views and opinions here that are strongly expressed,which is your 1st amendment right, all of you have a different view or view's on the law and who said what or what they meant thru their words they left behind when they left this earth, is what makes the law so interesting in itself, but lets keep in mind as well,some of us are not the legal eagles that you might be and thus unable to understand the techno babble that comes with the law like a legal eagle would understand, another words saying that person is full of SH$$ and his views are SH** as well, lets keep it friendly and thank you for that very very find spirited and emphatic discussion on 2A law plus do you really think that Roberts wants Thomas to write the majority opinion on this case when Thomas has been chomping at the bit for the past decade or more to write an opinion on 2A law??

Orders and opinions are going to be released today. Watch to see, if we get lucky and resolve the opinionating.

I read and mostly understood the conversation but wow my brain hurts. IANAL

Fingers crossed for today!

I am polishing and cleaning my AR today, because obviously open carry is the only right embedded in the 2nd Amendment, so I will be open carrying all over New York City and I need to be stylish. I might get some cerakote done too, for looks. This is totally what the Supreme Court will encourage people to do, because rumble said so.




Edit: if you dont think this is the most ludicrous outcome of this case you can think of, please dm me where you get your drugs.

motorcoachdoug said:

Gentlemen , With all the different views and opinions here that are strongly expressed,which is your 1st amendment right, all of you have a different view or view's on the law and who said what or what they meant thru their words they left behind when they left this earth, is what makes the law so interesting in itself, but lets keep in mind as well,some of us are not the legal eagles that you might be and thus unable to understand the techno babble that comes with the law like a legal eagle would understand, another words saying that person is full of SH$$ and his views are SH** as well, lets keep it friendly and thank you for that very very find spirited and emphatic discussion on 2A law plus do you really think that Roberts wants Thomas to write the majority opinion on this case when Thomas has been chomping at the bit for the past decade or more to write an opinion on 2A law??

Click to expand...

Hear hear!

I agree with you… Roberts OWES him (Thomas) one! Big time… it’s the one thing Thomas MOST wants to write an opinion for is on 2A law.

He still might not get it… but I fully believe if he doesn’t.. he will be secretly pissed. He will get one eventually I do believe.

We still have the AWB, the Mag Ban, the under 21, Bump Stocks, and the ghost gun cases to deal with. If he doesn’t get this one, he will get one of those.

I just can’t see SCOTUS denying cert in everyone of those issues.

camo556 said:

I am polishing and cleaning my AR today, because obviously open carry is the only right embedded in the 2nd Amendment, so I will be open carrying all over New York City and I need to be stylish. I might get some cerakote done too, for looks. This is totally what the Supreme Court will encourage people to do, because rumble said so.

Edit: if you dont think this is the most ludicrous outcome of this case you can think of, please dm me where you get your drugs.

Click to expand...

While other courts may have made a distinction between one’s right to open carry, v concealed carry. I am hoping that SCOTUS does not see any distinction between the two. I don’t.

If one is carrying a gun, one still has a gun in their possession on their body. Should not make a difference if it’s concealed or not!

Texasgrillchef said:

If one is carrying a gun, one still has a gun in their possession on their body. Should not make a difference if it’s concealed or not!

Click to expand...

Yup. Just like they can't stop you from walking in public, but can pass local laws saying you can't do it naked.

completly WOW the discourse here.

Texasgrillchef said:

While other courts may have made a distinction between one’s right to open carry, v concealed carry. I am hoping that SCOTUS does not see any distinction between the two. I don’t.

If one is carrying a gun, one still has a gun in their possession on their body. Should not make a difference if it’s concealed or not!

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me either way. I am a big guy, I can hide an M82 in my pants and still have room for my Fn 5.7