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!

    • Register Log in
    camo556

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Ive been convinced by the commandos in this forum open carry is the real right so SC will pass on NYC and rule in Young.

    I've already bought my open carry rifle for NYC.
     
    camo556

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    I was thinking open carry of this:

    E9e7zplXEAMLn2c
     
    River02

    River02

    One Ping Only...
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 19, 2015
    3,978
    Mid-Maryland
    Lalez said:
    Hi, checking in from the great free state of Florida (I escaped Marylandistan in 2011 thankfully).

    I believe that this case will be a win and that these 8 states will all be made to go shall issue. And on top of that what’s the worst case scenario here? They rule against shall-issue in NY and the other 7 states? Ok so you have 42 other states to choose from, and the vast majority of those have a way higher quality of life than the Blue State paradises.

    But hypothetically let’s say my prediction comes true and those 8 crazy states are made to go shall issue, I still wouldn’t want to live in any of those, first and foremost you think cops in those states won’t be on edge even more than usual? Maryland cops have been taught since they were toddlers that “normal citizens” are not suppose to carry guns, how on edge are they going to be when all of these carry permits are issued?

    It’s the opposite here in FL, over 6 million CCWs now issued to FL residents (not even counting out of state) and every cop I’ve met here in my 10 years here have all told me they like having the citizens armed and carrying. Hell a few FL cops have had their lives saved by Concealed Carriers (Lee County 2017 incident comes to mind)

    TLDR: This case should be a slam dunk but we live in clown world now. If you still live in Maryland or one of these other 7 states that are blatantly infringing, why??
    With the coming inflation apocalypse the last place I would ever want to be in or near is one of those 8 states, it will be ugly beyond belief
    Click to expand...

    Just spent last weekend w/ several "Md Cops" from at least 3 different departments who were instructors and RSOs at a defensive handgun course--- not one of them expressed any concern about me packing heat on the mean streets of Maryland...except for my ability to be able to survive a gunfight and win in court.
     
    7

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    press1280 said:
    I'm sure the LA Times wouldn't say abortion requires a "specialized need"
    Click to expand...

    That really doesn't have anything to do with what I stated, but I doubt they would require one to pay a license fee first before getting one. You should read what the legal definition of what a license is, and then maybe you'll get it. Or just explain to everyone how the government can compel, anyone, into signing a contract with the government, which requires adherence to all legislative changes from that point on, in order to exercise a fundamental right.
     
    J

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    kcbrown said:
    It is both textualism and originalism. And it is perfectly valid to the degree that it reflects the original intended meaning.

    I used the phrase because it's consistent with the judicial rules of statutory construction (see, e.g., https://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf).
    Click to expand...
    Originally understood plain meaning is about the original meaning of words. Originalism is about the idiomatic meaning. The words/text may not relate to the original meaning.

    Your reference does not contain the word "originally"

    So what? That's irrelevant. The Constitution, not "common law", is the supreme law of the land. It's the Constitution that we're talking about here. Judges are free to shape the law underneath our Constitution-based common law system only to the degree that both the act and the result are consistent with the originally intended meaning of the Constitution, and no more.
    Click to expand...

    It is not irrelevant. It is all about understanding the role of the courts and the type of language used to craft laws, as understood by the founders. As someone that is pushing originalism, you need to understand the basis from which the Constitution was written. The Constitution is inadequately written for it to be understood in anything other than a common law system. The Constitution does not define the right to be protected under the 2A. It is left to judges for the ultimate determination if the right has been infringed.
     
    J

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    kcbrown said:
    Really? You're asking this in the face of laws that have been passed in various states like California against all manner of common arms? In the face of states and localities (like DC) that until Heller had effectively banned mere possession of an operative handgun in the home? In the face of post-Heller laws that ban possession of the most common rifle in the country (the AR-15)?

    Seriously?

    How much evidence do you need that the mere passage of a law by the legislature does nothing to indicate whether or not something falls within the scope of a Constitutionally protected right?

    You already noted that most bans are illegitimate. You can't simultaneously claim that and that passage of such laws is indicative that what they forbid is outside the scope of the right. So which one is it?


    And in any case, as I've already noted, mere societal preference isn't sufficient to overcome a Constitutionally protected right, nor to indicate its scope. If it were, then KKK marches wouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment because those are most certainly not preferred by society, and yet the Supreme Court has insisted that they are protected anyway.

    Finally, that only two states passed such a law while the founding generation was still active does not indicate the prevailing societal views of the founding generation for the entire country. And yet, it's the latter that informs of the scope of the right, if prevailing societal views inform of such a thing at all (a proposition that I'm deeply skeptical of for the reason stated above).
    Click to expand...
    The modern bans were not made by the founding generation. You are trying to understand what the founding generation thought, so the reasoning behind the passage of the law is important.

    While I have claimed that most bans are illegitimate, I have also claimed that those that reflect societal standards are not illegitimate. I am also not claiming that the presence of the law is what provides the justification, I am trying to get you to think of reasons why they may have created the ban on concealed carry.

    Concealed carry has the problem that if someone is doing it properly, nobody even knows about it. So you can't equate lack of prosecution (in particular, lack of prosecution that ultimately winds up with a 2nd Amendment challenge that lands in a state supreme court) with absence of the activity.
    Click to expand...
    The nature of concealed carry would explain a low number of prosecutions per year, but the almost 10 year passage between enactment and prosecution seems to suggest that it is also not used very often.

    It's really hard to say, given the nature of concealed carry.


    In any case, I agree with your original statement: there's conflicting information about it.

    But if there's conflicting information about it that cannot somehow be resolved, then it follows that one should fall back onto something that was agreed upon: the presumption of liberty. In this case, that means that if we don't know what the founding generation believed about concealed carry, then we have to presume it to be protected because that would be consistent with the presumption of liberty, and it would also be consistent with the plain meaning of "bear" as outlined in Heller.
    Click to expand...

    The information presented in the article mentioned pistols, but provided little to no information on if they were actually carried concealed. They talked about pockets, but made no mention how exposed they might be in a pocket.
    The latter court cases seem to clarify the conflicting information as they specifically address the issue of concealed carry.
     
    J

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    motorcoachdoug said:
    I wish that SCOTUS would be live during the arguments but we will have to wait and see if they will or not. It will also be interesting to see what the SCOTUS blog has to say after the case is argued before the court..
    Click to expand...

    They have already said the oral arguments would be live. There is a link to the live audio on the supremecourt.gov main page in the quick links section. They also seem to be archiving the recordings the same day so you can hear it relatively soon afterward if you miss the live recording.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Jlowes gun sales Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,597
    Messages
    7,287,847
    Members
    33,482
    Latest member
    Claude

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom