New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

jcutonilli · Dec 3, 2021

ed bernay said:
I will never understand why the pro 2A team never went after the permit requirement to even own in your own home. They could have went after the permit requirement to own a pistol in NY state or the requirement to have a permit for all types of guns in NYC. The permit requirement itself, the process, the cost, the extra steps, the references, all unconstitutional if someone can pass a NICS check at the gun store. They have turned a right into a privilege in NYC.

The reason why NYC is so anti gun is because most of the residents never experienced the freedom to own firearms like the majority of the country. Once that nut is cracked and people experience freedom, Democrats would have a harder time winning elections on the 2A issue.

It is because no right is absolute. Some type of regulation is allowable to control negative aspects of the right. The permit is seen as a type of regulation that helps control negative aspects and is seen as acceptable as long as the requirements of the permit remain reasonable.

rascal · Dec 3, 2021

teratos said:
There is precedent for reporting certain health conditions and still being HIPPA compliant. Not an issue. BTW, MD does not require docs to report when we instruct a patient not to drive. Just document it.

It is complicated though and it certainly goes beyond doctors since counselors that are not physicians, and even marriage counselors can trigger red flags

the issue I think is the fact that as that spreads you will absolutely see a decline in people of all ages avoiding counseling.

There are plenty of people in mental health that will tell you for example that experience clinical depression at certain life events is the norm, and people who do not experience clinical depression are the ones with a mental problem.

Do we want people avoiding seeing a health mental counselor when experiencing moderate depression for fear of a record that could be used to deny them rights?

is it smart to develop a system where to protect rights, the best course of action is to advise your 19 year old kid NOT to seek counseling?

eruby · Dec 3, 2021

jcutonilli said:
It is because no right is absolute. Some type of regulation is allowable to control negative aspects of the right. The permit is seen as a type of regulation that helps control negative aspects and is seen as acceptable as long as the requirements of the permit remain reasonable.

"But no perfection is so absolute,
That some impurity doth not pollute." - W. Shakespeare

rascal · Dec 3, 2021

jcutonilli said:
It is because no right is absolute.

Well yes but if you look at oft cited examples for "no right is absolute," when it comes to rights recognized in the Bill of Rights such as sanctions/limits like defamation, libel laws, etc, these are applied to an individual -- and only that individual -- after a tangible or material harm has been proven in a court to have occurred. We are not all sanctioned nor are we even supposed to be chilled, by the exercise of harmful speech by another individual.

Other examples such as speech and violation of NDAs are about private contracts.

Frankly it is clear that the Bill of Rights liberties, by virtual of being explicitly enumerated in that set of amendments, should be defaulted at strict scrutiny. otherwise we can follow many other developed nations and have for example double jeopardy prohibition, but gut it by allowing it for "new evidence" etc, when we currently do not.

jcutonilli · Dec 3, 2021

rascal said:
Well yes but if you look at oft cited examples for "no right is absolute," when it comes to rights recognized in the Bill of Rights such as sanctions/limits like defamation, libel laws, etc, these are applied to an individual -- and only that individual -- after a tangible or material harm has been proven in a court to have occurred. We are not all sanctioned nor are we even supposed to be chilled, by the exercise of harmful speech by another individual.

Other examples such as speech and violation of NDAs are about private contracts.

Frankly it is clear that the Bill of Rights liberties, by virtual of being explicitly enumerated in that set of amendments, should be defaulted at strict scrutiny. otherwise we can follow many other developed nations and have for example double jeopardy prohibition, but gut it by allowing it for "new evidence" etc, when we currently do not.

If you look at how the Court decides 1A cases, the answer depends on circumstances. The level of scrutiny they use varies between strict scrutiny and rational basis.

See https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf for examples of different circumstances.

Texasgrillchef · Dec 3, 2021

BeoBill said:
Maryland is also guilty of this. Care to bring a suit?

Well the problem is, which will be reduced after NYSPRA v Bruen is that Maryland allows non-residents to apply for a license/permit.

So will have to see what Maryland does AFTER the NY case to see if Maryland starts issuing NR permits, or not.

Texasgrillchef · Dec 3, 2021

jcutonilli said:
It is because no right is absolute. Some type of regulation is allowable to control negative aspects of the right. The permit is seen as a type of regulation that helps control negative aspects and is seen as acceptable as long as the requirements of the permit remain reasonable.

Exactly, and that’s what the NYSPRA are doing, they are saying requiring G&S reasons is unreasonable.

Texasgrillchef · Dec 3, 2021

rascal said:
It is complicated though and it certainly goes beyond doctors since counselors that are not physicians, and even marriage counselors can trigger red flags

the issue I think is the fact that as that spreads you will absolutely see a decline in people of all ages avoiding counseling.

There are plenty of people in mental health that will tell you for example that experience clinical depression at certain life events is the norm, and people who do not experience clinical depression are the ones with a mental problem.

Do we want people avoiding seeing a health mental counselor when experiencing moderate depression for fear of a record that could be used to deny them rights?

is it smart to develop a system where to protect rights, the best course of action is to advise your 19 year old kid NOT to seek counseling?

Yep, exactly, and that’s the hypocrisy of our system.

JMHO… if someone voluntarily seeks help. On their own, they want help, they seek help, they get help. Then they should NOT be penalized, and no record of that should be made public, or available to the public except by permission and release of the person who seeked and received care.

If someone has to be forced to get help, has to be legally committed, if it required police intervention. Then that’s another story.

Even if the person maybe a danger to themselves or others but volunteerly commits themselves for inpatient treatment. They should not be penalized as well. Unless they were released AMA.

But if a doctor releases them and claims they are no longer a threat to themselves or others. The. Leave them alone.

ed bernay · Dec 4, 2021

jcutonilli said:
It is because no right is absolute. Some type of regulation is allowable to control negative aspects of the right. The permit is seen as a type of regulation that helps control negative aspects and is seen as acceptable as long as the requirements of the permit remain reasonable.

IANL. Respectfully, I disagree. The 2nd amendment is an enumerated fundamental constitutional right. In my view it is not constitutional to place a prior restraint, the permit requirement, for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm in their own home. Requiring a license prior to the exercise of a right means it is not a right but a privilege. It is not even rational because when a law abiding citizen purchases a firearms from an FFL, they must undergo and pass an FBI background check. The prior restraint of a permit requirement to own a firearm in your own home serves no rational purpose.

The only other times that I can think of that a permit is required prior to the exercise a fundamental constitutional right is when people have a parade in the street or use sound amplification devices. Two activities that place other people at imminent risk of physical damage. Law abiding citizens possessing firearms in their homes do not pose an imminent risk to others though it can be a potential risk. How does the permit requirement reduce danger to the people outside of the house of a law abiding citizen more so than a NICS check? If felons do not and cannot obtain permits to own firearms and the purpose of permit requirements is to reduce crime, that is not even rational either.

Can politicians require Muslims undergo a background check prior to picking up a Quran to make sure they are not potential terrorists? Could politicians require a permit for people to walk in public? What about requiring a permit to host a gathering of over 10 people in your house? No right being absolute is when it infringes on the rights of others. When there is tension between the exercise of enumerated fundamental constitutional rights and the safety of others, governmental intervention must address the safety issue in the least intrusive manner possible and at the very least, be rational. The prior restraint of the requirement to obtain a permit to own a firearm in your own home is not rational with the existence of NICS and serves no purpose other than to discourage the exercise of an enumerated fundamental right, IMHO.

Biggfoot44 · Dec 4, 2021

Grill Chef beat me to it .

Maryland is not in same catagory as the other listed states . Non Residents currently have exactly the same opportunity for W&C as Residents .

jcutonilli · Dec 4, 2021

ed bernay said:
IANL. Respectfully, I disagree. The 2nd amendment is an enumerated fundamental constitutional right. In my view it is not constitutional to place a prior restraint, the permit requirement, for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm in their own home. Requiring a license prior to the exercise of a right means it is not a right but a privilege. It is not even rational because when a law abiding citizen purchases a firearms from an FFL, they must undergo and pass an FBI background check. The prior restraint of a permit requirement to own a firearm in your own home serves no rational purpose.

The only other times that I can think of that a permit is required prior to the exercise a fundamental constitutional right is when people have a parade in the street or use sound amplification devices. Two activities that place other people at imminent risk of physical damage. Law abiding citizens possessing firearms in their homes do not pose an imminent risk to others though it can be a potential risk. How does the permit requirement reduce danger to the people outside of the house of a law abiding citizen more so than a NICS check? If felons do not and cannot obtain permits to own firearms and the purpose of permit requirements is to reduce crime, that is not even rational either.

Can politicians require Muslims undergo a background check prior to picking up a Quran to make sure they are not potential terrorists? Could politicians require a permit for people to walk in public? What about requiring a permit to host a gathering of over 10 people in your house? No right being absolute is when it infringes on the rights of others. When there is tension between the exercise of enumerated fundamental constitutional rights and the safety of others, governmental intervention must address the safety issue in the least intrusive manner possible and at the very least, be rational. The prior restraint of the requirement to obtain a permit to own a firearm in your own home is not rational with the existence of NICS and serves no purpose other than to discourage the exercise of an enumerated fundamental right, IMHO.

It is not something you can really disagree with. Those are a simplified version of the reasons why 2A lawyers tend to accept reasonable permits. You may not like the reasons, but they still are the reasons. You may believe permits mean it is not a right, but that is not how courts look at it.

The permit is not to mitigate any harms from the individual. It is designed to validate that you are in compliance with the applicable rules/regulations. There may be better ways to validate this and more and more states are adopting better ways that don't require permits.

Infringements on constitutional rights do not always require the least intrusive manner possible. How intrusive the infringement can be depends on the circumstances. I think it is hard to demonstrate a reasonable permit is not among the least intrusive manner because it validates compliance without having to check someplace else, which may not be available in all circumstances.

press1280 · Dec 4, 2021

ed bernay said:
IANL. Respectfully, I disagree. The 2nd amendment is an enumerated fundamental constitutional right. In my view it is not constitutional to place a prior restraint, the permit requirement, for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm in their own home. Requiring a license prior to the exercise of a right means it is not a right but a privilege. It is not even rational because when a law abiding citizen purchases a firearms from an FFL, they must undergo and pass an FBI background check. The prior restraint of a permit requirement to own a firearm in your own home serves no rational purpose.

The only other times that I can think of that a permit is required prior to the exercise a fundamental constitutional right is when people have a parade in the street or use sound amplification devices. Two activities that place other people at imminent risk of physical damage. Law abiding citizens possessing firearms in their homes do not pose an imminent risk to others though it can be a potential risk. How does the permit requirement reduce danger to the people outside of the house of a law abiding citizen more so than a NICS check? If felons do not and cannot obtain permits to own firearms and the purpose of permit requirements is to reduce crime, that is not even rational either.

Can politicians require Muslims undergo a background check prior to picking up a Quran to make sure they are not potential terrorists? Could politicians require a permit for people to walk in public? What about requiring a permit to host a gathering of over 10 people in your house? No right being absolute is when it infringes on the rights of others. When there is tension between the exercise of enumerated fundamental constitutional rights and the safety of others, governmental intervention must address the safety issue in the least intrusive manner possible and at the very least, be rational. The prior restraint of the requirement to obtain a permit to own a firearm in your own home is not rational with the existence of NICS and serves no purpose other than to discourage the exercise of an enumerated fundamental right, IMHO.

IMO all valid points but it all comes down to can you get 5 SCOTUS members to sign off to knock down a permit requirement in total?
While Roberts does seem rather bullish on this, he's only 1 member. I don't recall other members necessarily showing their cards on this particular point (I could be wrong).
I have another thread which I'll resurrect involving a law abiding Marine who was caught carrying w/o a license in Minnesota and is now petitioning SCOTUS for review.

teratos · Dec 4, 2021

Texasgrillchef said:
Well the problem is, which will be reduced after NYSPRA v Bruen is that Maryland allows non-residents to apply for a license/permit.

So will have to see what Maryland does AFTER the NY case to see if Maryland starts issuing NR permits, or not.

Biggfoot44 said:
Grill Chef beat me to it .

Maryland is not in same catagory as the other listed states . Non Residents currently have exactly the same opportunity for W&C as Residents .

If carry is deemed a right for US citizens, eliminating out of State permits would fly in the face of the ruling.

Texasgrillchef · Dec 4, 2021

teratos said:
If carry is deemed a right for US citizens, eliminating out of State permits would fly in the face of the ruling.

I agree with you completely. However the logic of those who want more gun control are anti-2A aren’t really logical in the first place p!

teratos · Dec 4, 2021

Texasgrillchef said:
I agree with you completely. However the logic of those who want more gun control are anti-2A aren’t really logical in the first place p!

See what DC did after Wrenn. Perfectly logical. They won’t want to piss off SCOTUS.

HaveBlue · Dec 8, 2021

I applied for a DC permit twice during the Wrenn PI roller coaster. I was ready to go a third time after the final ruling. Until I saw a permit that my DC resident friend received. It states that you have a duty to inform a LEO upon contact. You also consent to a pat down.

Most places I would go in DC are no carry zones. As soon as my license plate is read ( even if by a plate scanner ) or my ID called in, my CCPL status would be immediately flagged to the officer. If I were stopped (and not carrying) and don’t “inform” the officer (because I have nothing to inform the officer of), why would the officer NOT give me a thorough frisk?

For me it rapidly turned into an expensive “Please Frisk Me” card.

Texasgrillchef · Dec 8, 2021

HaveBlue said:
I applied for a DC permit twice during the Wrenn PI roller coaster. I was ready to go a third time after the final ruling. Until I saw a permit that my DC resident friend received. It states that you have a duty to inform a LEO upon contact. You also consent to a pat down.

Most places I would go in DC are no carry zones. As soon as my license plate is read ( even if by a plate scanner ) or my ID called in, my CCPL status would be immediately flagged to the officer. If I were stopped (and not carrying) and don’t “inform” the officer (because I have nothing to inform the officer of), why would the officer NOT give me a thorough frisk?

For me it rapidly turned into an expensive “Please Frisk Me” card.

I was going to get one for Washington D.C. as well. But saw that it was a useless endeavor unless you live there, because it would make things easier anytime you had a firearm with you. Even if you didn’t need a LTC.

Where can one really go in D.C. with a firearm anyways. D.C. physically geographically is SMALL we have city parks in Texas bigger then the entire area of D.C. most of the buildings are federal buildings, so can’t carry there.

When I go I’m not in a personal vehicle, so can’t there. Can’t carry on public transit in D.C.

I even had a friend mugged on the train in DC TWICE! DC cops are worthless.

Occam · Dec 8, 2021

Texasgrillchef said:
Where can one really go in D.C. with a firearm anyways.

I have my MD W&C, and thus can also carry in VA. Let's say I'm headed down the GW parkway in VA to pick up someone at Reagan National. I will, unavoidably, pass through a bit of DC on my way. With my super power being "When Crap Happens, It Will Be In The Worst Place Possible," that's where some clown will rear-end my truck, and one things leads to another.

Or you're headed down the BW Parkway from Baltimore to pick up 495 and miss the exit. Welcome to DC! You've got to navigate a rough patch of that tiny jurisdiction in order to get back into MD. None of that area is off limits for carry, as long as you have that DC permit. The appeal isn't for walking around heeled just outside federal buildings or museums. The appeal is for, "Crap, I'm inside the DC boundary again, dammit."

BeoBill · Dec 8, 2021

Texasgrillchef said:
Well the problem is, which will be reduced after NYSPRA v Bruen is that Maryland allows non-residents to apply for a license/permit.

So will have to see what Maryland does AFTER the NY case to see if Maryland starts issuing NR permits, or not.

Biggfoot44 said:
Grill Chef beat me to it .

Maryland is not in same catagory as the other listed states . Non Residents currently have exactly the same opportunity for W&C as Residents .

AFAIK, Maryland SP LD has never granted a W&C to a non-state resident. Certainly, correct me if I'm wrong. That was brought up during an appeal to the HPRB a few years back when there was still civilian oversight of the grant process.

BeoBill · Dec 8, 2021

Texasgrillchef said:
I agree with you completely. However the logic of those who want more gun control are anti-2A aren’t really logical in the first place p!

Notice that the majority of police Management believes that only the police under them should be allowed to "keep and bear arms". This attitude is reflected in the carve outs for police enacted by every state legislature in exchange, no doubt, for [wink, wink] [nudge, nudge] [and re-elect me] from the patrol cops and white shirts.

New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Active Member

My hair is amazing

HaveBlue

Active Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics