NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

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!
  • rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,725
    Bowie, MD
    Hopefully the parties will read yours and gain some insight from them. Thanks!
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Federal government first, then states, then people.
    Only the tenth. the rest recognize and codify individual rights.

    The Second Amendment tested strict or intermediate is one thing. But there is nothing more absurd than the assertion that it is not a reference to an individual right.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    If you are looking at leglsilatyure, the issue is simple: it will get tougher and tougher to defend the 2A in blue and purple state legislatures. Why? Because fundraising for gun control legislation in the form of funding in support of blue candidates is an extremely effective money laundering. The amount of 501(c)3 money raised for gun control is stunning and growing. It is an ends into itself. Gun control was once a somewhat partisan issue, now it is the most partisan aligned issue in the US, meaning you can use tax deductible funding in a partisan way, which is e holey grail of money in politics.

    The same goes for money poured into academia which gets into the press and in fact where advocacy oriented academic work is now cited more and more in the cases.

    In the federal courts this is also a clearly partisan issue. Federal judges are not being moved by arguments. With rare exception their positions on this issue align by party of appointing executive.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    If you are looking at leglsilatyure, the issue is simple: it will get tougher and tougher to defend the 2A in blue and purple state legislatures. Why? Because fundraising for gun control legislation in the form of funding in support of blue candidates is an extremely effective money laundering. The amount of 501(c)3 money raised for gun control is stunning and growing. It is an ends into itself. Gun control was once a somewhat partisan issue, now it is the most partisan aligned issue in the US, meaning you can use tax deductible funding in a partisan way, which is e holey grail of money in politics.

    The same goes for money poured into academia which gets into the press and in fact where advocacy oriented academic work is now cited more and more in the cases.

    In the federal courts this is also a clearly partisan issue. Federal judges are not being moved by arguments. With rare exception their positions on this issue align by party of appointing executive.

    It is tougher and tougher to defend the 2A because we keep loosing court cases. The problem is that we keep using the same arguments over and over. We fail to adjust to the other sides arguments and expect SCOTUS to fix the issue. It is not SCOTUS's job to figure out how to argue the case. It is our side's job.

    Judges are less partisan than you are suggesting, but you cannot completely eliminate bias. What you can do is adjust the arguments so that they do not rely on the type of judgement that leads to this partisan decision making.

    One area that needs to be adjusted is how you attack the data. Presenting conflicting data leads the court away from the data to a political issue where you will lose. Attach the data directly and the court cannot claim there is a political issue.

    Trying to argue that the right is a purely individual right accentuates the partisan divide. I am trying to argue that the right is really about public safety and how to best provide public safety. The Young en banc ignored what I said about the issue so I need to figure out a better way to articulate it.

    The problem with the court is that we continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. What we need to do is continually improve and evolve the arguments to defeat what ever arguments they make.

    Fixing the court through better arguments will help fix the legislature.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,019
    Glenelg
    serious question

    It is tougher and tougher to defend the 2A because we keep loosing court cases. The problem is that we keep using the same arguments over and over. We fail to adjust to the other sides arguments and expect SCOTUS to fix the issue. It is not SCOTUS's job to figure out how to argue the case. It is our side's job.

    Judges are less partisan than you are suggesting, but you cannot completely eliminate bias. What you can do is adjust the arguments so that they do not rely on the type of judgement that leads to this partisan decision making.

    One area that needs to be adjusted is how you attack the data. Presenting conflicting data leads the court away from the data to a political issue where you will lose. Attach the data directly and the court cannot claim there is a political issue.



    Trying to argue that the right is a purely individual right accentuates the partisan divide. I am trying to argue that the right is really about public safety and how to best provide public safety. The Young en banc ignored what I said about the issue so I need to figure out a better way to articulate it.

    The problem with the court is that we continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. What we need to do is continually improve and evolve the arguments to defeat what ever arguments they make.

    Fixing the court through better arguments will help fix the legislature.


    ok, I have a serious question. I am trying to figure out how and where and why Public Safety comes in. I do not see anything about that in the COTUS with respect to the 2A, even rough drafts where they clearly defined what the 2A meant. As with most things back then, they cut on the verbage to supposedly be concise. Imagine if the Federalists who did not want these written out due to them "duh, understood".....won out?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    ok, I have a serious question. I am trying to figure out how and where and why Public Safety comes in. I do not see anything about that in the COTUS with respect to the 2A, even rough drafts where they clearly defined what the 2A meant. As with most things back then, they cut on the verbage to supposedly be concise. Imagine if the Federalists who did not want these written out due to them "duh, understood".....won out?

    The first thing to do is ask the question am I and individual or am I a member of the public? The answer is that I am both an individual and a member of the public. When you read the 2A it talks about the people rather than an individual, yet we know it means an individual. You cannot separate them from each other because one is a subset of the other. Part of public safety is your own safety. Conversely when you take away the ability of individual people to keep and bear arms, that impacts society because you are really taking away the ability of the public to keep and bear arms.

    By focusing only on the individual you take away the argument that you are impacting the rest of society ie the public.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,019
    Glenelg
    ok, so they are trying as a whole, not as a subset. hmmm.... Still do not see where safety is inferred, I see where they can possibly make it out of "security". I do not know. Like grasping to me. Protection, not safety. It is like they came up with "public safety" to limit our defense...... unless pro 2A side came up with it. Look how public safety has made the left rule over us about masks.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    ok, so they are trying as a whole, not as a subset. hmmm.... Still do not see where safety is inferred, I see where they can possibly make it out of "security". I do not know. Like grasping to me. Protection, not safety. It is like they came up with "public safety" to limit our defense...... unless pro 2A side came up with it. Look how public safety has made the left rule over us about masks.

    There are two aspects to "public safety". One is the literal definition with respect to the safety of the public. The other is the government interest to keep the public safe. This other interest is sometimes referred to as the police power.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

    When you are talking about "public safety" limiting our defense or masks you are referring to the police power of the government. I don't believe we have really addressed how to properly balance the police power and individual rights. Korematsu has been unresolved for 77 years. The police power is directly implicated in 2A litigation. It is also a major issue with COVID. It is part of the reason we are struggling in the courts.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    ok, so they are trying as a whole, not as a subset. hmmm.... Still do not see where safety is inferred, I see where they can possibly make it out of "security". I do not know. Like grasping to me. Protection, not safety. It is like they came up with "public safety" to limit our defense...... unless pro 2A side came up with it. Look how public safety has made the left rule over us about masks.

    In the area in which I work it isn't "public safety" anymore, or even "public health," it is "population health." ALL of those though are "collective" consideration attacks i on individual liberty. But population health is the newer more scientific area of collective over the individual, and involves economists and statisticians ow specializing in "population health."

    The semantics of public safety vs population health, like gun control vs gun safety, and gun crime vs gun violence. are important in both general perceptions of the policy being promoted, but also the "science" behind it, and the claim of moral justification for it.

    Population health based policy includes even psychological affect of worrying about "gun violence."

    In addition to a) the other side promoting false numbers, the b) issue of the numbers being an increasing important consideration is an important part of the our opponents use of "population health" based policy on guns.

    b) needs to be attacked by our side mainly on the basis of the fact that not just the Second, but the First Amendment, Fourth, Fifth and sixth Amendment, can easily be shredded with population health based policy weighing. The same can be said other core and explicit individual rights such as prohibition n double jeopardy. It also can be said for non explicit, but broad case law-based rights, such as the US as an outlier in having (thanks to the ACLU) profoundly higher thresholds to bring someone in as well as mandatorily treat someone for mental health issues.

    The fact is, and we see this especially in attacks on the second Amendment, but closely followed by current attacks on the first amendment, that ALL of our most important, and even most explicit, individual rights don't stand a chance against either minor losses though "nudges" (the economic science of small incentives and disincentives), or even outright assaults, when weighed on a preeminence of population health/common good model. It IS safer for us not to have the current level of individual First Amendment rights. It is SAFER for us not to have current level of Fourth and Fifth amendment rights. After all the gun control lobby side already is holding up as models developed democracies that have lower first amendment (Australia, Japan and the EU have lower First rights) and lower equivalent fourth and fifth amendment rights. It would be "safer" for all of us if evidentiary thresholds were lower, warrants were not as often necessary, or were broader, if we had a procurator system instead of adversarial criminal justice system, if stop and frisk were more broadly allowed and if the mentally ill could be remanded and had forced treatment at lower thresholds than we do in the US now. It would be safer if we allowed double jeopardy. It would be safer we dropped right to a jury.

    So the issue with all our individual rights is that all of our current level of core Bill of Rights liberties have a negative population heath consequence. Frankly anything but a pre crime model does. The statisticians doing the "science" on guns compare us to other countries with Japan in the data set. Well Japans police search powers are much stronger. In Japan they have a 99% trail conviction rate and an 98% confession rate because the power of the state over the individual is overwhelming. In Germany you get no jury.


    on a) the numbers: the statement that higher fatality mass shootings tend to have been done with higher capacity magazines is of course logically fallacious as a tautology in the current legal regime. It is a falsehood to claim that more people are killed because of them, but a slick falsehood that works for the other side as well. Why? Well first of all it has no affect at all in most mass shootings, which using the official definition of four people inured, is about 3/4 general urban/gang shootings that are often drive by type events, with only a portion being spontaneous. the other +1/4 are planned -- and if planned -- anyone who knows firearms and drilling with them, knows the perp can just carry more mags. So today, in a jurisdiction that allows >10 round magazines and you are planning a mass shooting you will bring >10 mags. Hence the science claiming they create more injury. BUT of those are forbidden and removed for availability you will simply bring more magazines and achieve same damage.

    The way the public healthy statisticians working for the gun control groups present the numbers, there is no control for, no place for, the "substitution effect" of a perp simply carrying more magazines. [Just as suicide stats don't do not control for substitution effect, or misclassification affect and where example the Australian data shows no overall decrease in suicide even though they claimed so for the first ten years after their draconian gun control.

    In the last ten years the US has had ONE mass murder of 50 or more people. The European Union has had four mass murders of four or more people, three of those committed by a single individual. That US mass murder, in Los Vegas, involved magazines with over 10 round capacity, but given the cadence of how that guy shot, how many guns he brought up to the hotel, the fact that the victims did not know where the gunfire was coming from meant with a virtual certainty that the casualties he inflicted would have been the same with 10 round mags.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    When you are talking about "public safety" limiting our defense or masks you are referring to the police power of the government.
    Really the latter is more regulatory power. Almost all actual mask enforcement has been about sanction via business license threat. Actual arrests, which are rare, tend to be on trespass law but the impetus for those is regulatory threat to business license or regulatory civil fine on a business.

    On guns one of the most productive ways to attack the Second Amendment will be civil lawsuits which will be affected with removal of regulatory function (not police power function) currently banning most lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers. Money to support lawsuits against gun makers can be done be raised via 501(c)3 charities and foundations. The other side can afford to file and lose hundreds of cases since the threat of a single victory by the other side will force corporations that only have a portion of their business in the firearms business to leave firearms (and insurance costs will be enough to be prohibitive). For business that are mostly or solely makers or sellers it a single civil case loss can kill such a a business.

    Taxes are also in the regulatory function. In the "progressive era" we had a ham fisted prohibition models on for example alcohol as well as "sin" taxes on other behaviors. But today there is an entire science of population health morally and statistically justifying incremental "nudges" to get populations to behave in the way the mandarins/expert class say they should, since, the argument goes, individuals do not know what is in their best interest. It isn't so much about bloomberg tell you that you can "put your eye out" by buying a two liter bottle of coca-cola for a party, but of small incremental taxes and regulatory adjustments to "guide" the population into the desired behavior model.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Public safety vs population health is a semantic argument over what is included in the analysis. They are both correlative arguments that will be unable to demonstrate any correlation. It is the lack of correlation that is the weakness of any statistical analysis. There are simply too many variables combined with the ability to gather the necessary data to eliminate these variables that prevent one from determining that one particular variable is sufficiently causative to justify intruding on the right.

    The police power is not just regulatory power. Police power has the ability to over come rights. Regulatory power is confined by the right and there is no way to infringe on the right.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Unfortunately, this one will bite the dust just like the many before it. They sought a concealed carry license in the exercise of a common law right...Sorry, but that don't fly as a license is needed to do that which is illegal, unlawful, a tort or a trespass and a Constitutional, common law right, is none of those. The really sad thing is, by the time they get an open carry case to the court, it'll be stacked with liberals.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    20-843

    NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.

    The petition for a writ of certiorari is 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
    .

    edit: I am a little disappointed that this case wasn't a "per curiam", "see Heller".
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    My understanding is referencing the prior denials makes the case about an already existing injury, and thus unable to be mooted by the state granting permits, is that correct?
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,143
    Now it comes down to...

    “You” got what you’ve been asking for ... will like “you” what you get.

    Good luck and god bless the DJT3. Hopefully SA and CT have worthy allies in this step of the fight.

    Estimated ruling: just before SCOTUS break, summer 2022?
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    Huzzah! We see a cert. granted on a 2A case. I can't help but speculate that they might have taken up the NY case due to the underhanded moves NYC made in the last 2A case that petitioned the court. They're human.

    So what is the list of cases this has the potential to affect?
    Puerta?
    Wollard?
    ...
     

    Uncle Duke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 2, 2013
    11,666
    Not Far Enough from the City
    20-843

    NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.

    The petition for a writ of certiorari is 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
    .

    edit: I am a little disappointed that this case wasn't a "per curiam", "see Heller".

    Has it been determined that licenses per se as a state requirement are ok? The wording above seems to indicate that the validity of a state requirement for licenses themselves is a given, with denials of such applications being the issue to be ruled upon.
    Is this a case of "may issue" vs. "shall issue?"
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Huzzah! We see a cert. granted on a 2A case. I can't help but speculate that they might have taken up the NY case due to the underhanded moves NYC made in the last 2A case that petitioned the court. They're human.

    So what is the list of cases this has the potential to affect?
    Puerta?
    Wollard?
    ...

    ALL cases that have been argued and we lost will stand in their respective Circuits until new Litigation is brought forward, referencing any positive SCOTUS ruling.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,132
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom