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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Right. I am sure Sotomoyor hires clerks in the Federalist Society. :lol2::lol2:

    Question: Doritos or raw cookie dough for a snack right now?

    So you can't actually answer the question. It should be easy to disprove if it was false. It relies on things that are objective. My general observations seem consistent with what this clerk and others have said about the rarity of the change in question. While I have not tracked how closely they follow the question they accept, it does seem consistent with how they would treat such a change in question and he seems to have been in a position to give him some experience with the issue.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    The best outcome for gun rights is for the Court to recognize the reasoning behind the historic prohibitions and recognize concealed carry is really is part of the right today. It is unclear if that will happen because of the arguments that have been presented.

    I don't believe that the plaintiffs are actually challenging the need for a license. The license tends to be accepted as long as the requirements are reasonable. It certainly does not bind one to all future regulations however.

    The best outcome would be for nine Justices to agree on "shall not be infringed."

    The likely outcome is far different.
     

    wjackcooper

    Active Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    That 2A case outcome is almost completely predictable based on who is deciding the case is beyond rational debate. The record shows that when a 2A case is controlled by Democrat judicial appointees facts and law make little to no difference . . . arguments are not even a distance third. To claim that a 2A case result in a Progressive controlled court is argument dependent . . . is the logical equivalent of looking at a happy dog and asserting the dog is wagging, not its tail.

    We have 5 Conservative Justices . . . the odds are that Clement’s text, history and tradition, i.e., Heller/McDonald based approach (not 2A v. Public Safety interest-balancing via some level of scrutiny) outlines the outcome of this case. In any event, it is likely this case was decided when cert was granted; but support for the pro 2A organization of your choice remains critical. The NRA is backing this one, along with the NYSRPA.

    Regards
    Jack
     

    winch

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2011
    1,326
    Towson
    They will come up with some sort of half assed decision that really doesn't answer the actual question. Then we will wait another 10 years for the next case.
    Meanwhile, wecan arm ourselves with Wasp Spray from Home Depot.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The best outcome would be for nine Justices to agree on "shall not be infringed."

    The likely outcome is far different.

    That would be the best outcome, but I do not see that happening based on the available court opinions. The dissent in Young provides a court opinion that could be used to demonstrate the reasoning behind the historic concealed carry prohibitions and why concealed carry is really part of the right.

    I do believe you may be able to bring all nine Justices on board with the right set of arguments. Framing the right as a way to provide public safety by protecting individual members of the public. Addressing the role governments actually play in providing public safety (no protection of the individual). Addressing the reasons the lower courts get intermediate scrutiny wrong would also need to be addressed.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    The ultimate irony of NY "sensitive place" in populous areas argument is that DC is shall issue and one of the most sensitive places in the world. Also, all the Supreme Court clerks know that. If DC can deal so can NY.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    There's a tiny, tinyyyyy remote chance of it being Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, (maybe Kavanaugh?), Barrett.

    But Alito and Gorsuch? No.

    Alito because he was one of the majority in Heller, and Gorsuch because he didn't join the dissent in Rogers, though it was nearly identical to Peruta, that he did join the dissent in. I'm assuming he realized that error.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    This thread is meme
    image_(38).png
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    At which level the Appeal or the En Banc?

    En Banc.

    EDWARD PERUTA V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, No. 10-56971 (9th Cir. 2016)

    "As the uncontradicted historical evidence overwhelmingly shows, the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed weapon in public.The Second Amendment may or may not protect to some degree a right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm in public. If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly. But Plaintiffs do not challenge California’s restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry.If there is a Second Amendment right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, and if that right is violated, the cure is to apply the Second Amendment to protect that right. The cure is not to apply the Second Amendment to protect a right that does not exist under the Amendment."

    Again, I do not think the court will get technical. The court will allow the state the flexibility to define the manner of carry (open or concealed) for what is considered acceptable within their jurisdiction.

    If concealed carry can be prohibited all together, while open carry can't be. (Nunn v State) How can a state deprive one of their, actual protected right, to carry openly. Also, because concealed carry isn't the, actual right, but a privilege, it also can be licensed. One can not be compelled into a contractual agreement with a state in the exercise of a fundamental right. You fail, like many here, to observe the legal definition of what a license is. It is to do something that is ILLEGAL, without the license. Exercising fundamental rights, is not an ILLEGAL act.

    DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    "Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down.

    In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251.

    "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:


    U.S. Supreme Court
    319 U.S. 105 (1943)
    MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    "The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

    "It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

    "It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    Go Clement. There's been reporting that the justices are reviewing the English history of arms control when it comes to carry. Liberals are saying this history means that carry restrictions (such as NY's wholesale rejection of carrying for self defense) have merit. Of course the founding fathers knew the history of arms control in England. In codifying this right in the US, the word bear was not an oversight or an accident, it was a protection. Yes, there is a history of municipalities restricting carry rights for everyone in US history. But whole states? And essentially a lifetime restriction if one wasn't in the right "special" category?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,879
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom