From https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/frequently-asked-questions-orders/
Apparently the question in Heller was also modified.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett
No date as of today for Argument. Question? What is "Jul 13 2021 Joint appendix filed?"
The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including September 14, 2021.
Most likely a November oral argument. Octobers are already listed.
Constitutional carry isn’t on the table here. If the recent Minnesota case were here instead, then that’s definitely a constitutional carry issue
The court could flip the script and say that 2A rights can never be predicated on a permit, thus NY both requiring permits and denying permits violated the plaintiffs' 2A rights.
Dred Scott said if blacks were citizens, they could keep and carry arms wherever they went. Let the left stew on that one all summer.
Constitutional carry isn’t on the table here. If the recent Minnesota case were here instead, then that’s definitely a constitutional carry issue
That would be great but again someone would have to actually ask the court to do this, and since they haven't the court would have to steer arguments in that direction.
It seems a lot of lawyers don't like quoting Dred Scott for the obvious reason, but my observation is some judges allow the truth out more so in dicta but make political decisions when it comes to actual holdings. The Dred Scott decision with that passage is one example. Another is RBG's quote about the 2A in a pre-Heller case (bear meaning wear or carry in the pocket,exc.). She was spot on there, but when it comes to actually backing up her quote where it matters she does a 180 and tries to render the 2A a dead letter.
Constitutional carry isn’t on the table here. If the recent Minnesota case were here instead, then that’s definitely a constitutional carry issue
Let's get the 2A recognized outside of our door steps first.
Concur
Let's get the 2A recognized outside of our door steps first. Caetano did that, but it has all but been ignored!
The SCOTUS isn't going to make that giant leap to constitutional carry in any of the cases presented so far.
The conduct at issue in this case falls outside the "core" of the Second Amendment, insofar as the defendant was not using the stun gun to defend herself in her home, see Hightower 693 F.3d at 72 & n.8, quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 627, and involves a "dangerous and unusual weapon" that was not "in common use at the time" of enactment. "
....
Moreover, the stun gun was found not in the defendant's hotel room but on her person in a motor vehicle, outside the "core" of the Second Amendment.
Caetano did not recognize the 2A outside our door. Caetano found that the three reasons listed by MA court were not valid. (Stun guns were not in common use at the enactment of 2A, they were dangerous and unusual because they are a modern invention, and were not readily adaptable for military use). SCOTUS vacated and remanded for proper justification and MA dropped the case.
Caetano did not recognize the 2A outside our door. Caetano found that the three reasons listed by MA court were not valid. (Stun guns were not in common use at the enactment of 2A, they were dangerous and unusual because they are a modern invention, and were not readily adaptable for military use). SCOTUS vacated and remanded for proper justification and MA dropped the case.
There are 13 states that do not require a permit to carry concealed. They are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia.
I'm not sure if this case as listed would proposed NO PERMIT required in arguments.
There are 13 states that do not require a permit to carry concealed. They are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia.
I'm not sure if this case as listed would proposed NO PERMIT required in arguments.
Shouldn't be too cold to overnight it, but you might need to be there for 2 days.
Clement points out:
“This Court’s opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts likewise makes sense only on the understanding that the Second Amendment is not a homebound right. 577 U.S. 411 (2016) (per curiam). There, the Court vacated a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirming the conviction of a woman found outside her home in possession of a stun gun that she obtained to defend herself from an abusive exboyfriend, concluding that the state court failed to follow this Court’s precedent in determining whether a stun gun is a protected arm. Id. at 411-412; id. at 412-13 (Alito, J., concurring). That vacatur would have sent the Supreme Judicial Court on a fool’s errand if the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess arms outside the home in the first place.”*
Yep.
Regards
Jack
*https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket....13 FINAL NYSRPA v. Corlett Opening Brief.pdf
Page 38 and 39