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.
Yay! They get a shot to play the slow walk game with us again.
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.
It is possible that, in the event of a positive SCOTUS outcome in this case, the MD legislature will try to get ahead of the game by going to a shall issue regime but making it even more annoying to get one (increased training reqts, higher fees, more invasive background checks, and so on). Still, it would be an improvement over "you can't get one", I suppose.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.
Fixed.It ispossiblepretty much guaranteed, that, in the event of a positive SCOTUS outcome in this case, the MD legislature will try to get ahead of the game by going to a shall issue regime but making it even more annoying to get one (increased training reqts, higher fees, more invasive background checks, and so on). Still, it would be an improvement over "you can't get one", I suppose.
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?"
Yay! They get a shot to play the slow walk game with us again.
While it is welcome I simply have little trust in SCOTUS at this time. While the court is ostensibly has a conservative, pro-Constitution majority...it's difficult to predict how they'll vote and a lot depends on how the case is argued. Justices Thomas and Alito are pretty reliably in the pro-COTUS camp but Roberts is squishy at best and Barrett and Kavanaugh have yet to prove themselves to be the Justices we want and need.
All we can do is wait and see.
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".
I think any test that is in excess of the state police qual is likely to fail judicial review. And your average state police qual is not exactly the old FAMS qual.Courts may rule you cant say you need a reason for a permit but will "allow" licensing . These liberal states will make it so no one can pass their "test" ie stand on your head and hit a bullseye from 300 yards with a pistol
Sure hope writing in “Concealed Carry” vs “Carry” isn’t a set up...call me spooked after CA9’s Peruta shenanigans...
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-corlett/
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?"
We will find out in two weeks right?
I think any test that is in excess of the state police qual is likely to fail judicial review. And your average state police qual is not exactly the old FAMS qual.
It's good this is towards the end of the legislative session. If this happened earlier, I'm sure we'd see all kinds of new restrictions on the time, place, and manner of carry. Having to prove a need to exercise a right is so blatantly unconstitutional, this SHOULD be an easy win.