NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

nedsurf · Apr 26, 2021

krucam said:
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. :sad20:

erwos · Apr 26, 2021

krucam said:
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.

KevinK · Apr 26, 2021

erwos said:
It is ~~possible~~ pretty 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.

Fixed.

Inigoes · Apr 26, 2021

Uncle Duke said:
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?"

The petition covers good cause under the larger question.

I am hoping this is going to be a monumental smackdown!

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Apr 26, 2021

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.

press1280 · Apr 26, 2021

nedsurf said:
Yay! They get a shot to play the slow walk game with us again.

It’s going to be tough for them to do that. They’ve filed briefs in numerous cases essentially tying themselves all together (NY, NJ, MD,CA). If one loses they pretty much all go down.
Sure they may try to say they’re somehow different but I don’t believe it’ll fly.

daNattyFatty · Apr 26, 2021

Leftists weep.

jcutonilli is inconsolable. Did I get that right???

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

pilotguy · Apr 26, 2021

We will find out in two weeks right?

frogman68 · Apr 26, 2021

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

KevinK · Apr 26, 2021

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
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.

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

Inigoes said:
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".

They could not write a per curiam referencing Heller because Heller specifically talked about the historical prohibitions on concealed carry.

erwos · Apr 26, 2021

frogman68 said:
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

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.

smokey · Apr 26, 2021

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.

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

krucam said:
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/

The problem with Peruta is that the plaintiffs never bothered to explain the historical prohibitions on concealed carry.

The petition in this case did not really provide a reason why SCOTUS should decide the case as a concealed case. I suspect the reason they took this case has to do with the Young case where the dissent puts this into perspective. I suspect that the reason why concealed carry was addressed in the Young case the way it was is due to my amicus brief on the subject. I did not see anyone else in that case address the concealed aspect of that case.

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

Uncle Duke said:
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?"

I suspect that this is a may vs shall issue. I suspect that Clement will argue that some type of license is acceptable, but that may issue is not acceptable. That is my recollection as to how Pertua was argued.

Mike OTDP · Apr 26, 2021

I’ll take Shall Issue as a win. Twice on Sundays.

hogarth · Apr 26, 2021

pilotguy said:
We will find out in two weeks right?

What? No. The case hasn't even been argued yet. It looks like it'll be in the Fall.

FrankZ · Apr 26, 2021

So congress will push for court packing to get the "right justices" on the bench before this gets in front of the court.

That's my real worry at this point.

frogman68 · Apr 26, 2021

erwos said:
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.

Which will take years to go thru the courts and the liberal states can still deny citizens their right to carry

BeoBill · Apr 26, 2021

smokey0118 said:
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.

As noted above, with the current makeup of the Court it's anyone's guess how things will end.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

товарищ плачевная

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

2A TEACHER

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Liberty = Responsibility

товарищ плачевная

Crank in the Third Row

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics