NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

ed bernay said:

NY's license requirement to possess a firearm in your own home, in addition to passing a NICs check when purchasing the firearm, should have been challenged. NYC started requiring it in 1913 so it is not a long standing law. Heller and McDonald recognized the 2nd amendment as a fundamental constitutional right. I don't understand why that was never pursued.

Click to expand...

It probably will at some point (there is a NJ lawsuit challenging the pistol permit requirement). This case is lower hanging fruit as someone who wants to carry is clearly unable to do so legally because of the good cause regulation.
The premises license regulation, while burdensome for sure, at least isn't insurmountable.

JMangle said:

With near 100% assurance, this will move things in a better direction. I agree that any good ruling with be neutered by liberal courts and legislatures, but still in the right direction.

What would you propose? To what should we be waking up? We know how rough things are, how crooked the situation is, and how precarious this road we walk is.

I thought my wife, who is closer to liberal than conservative, was nuts when she said that we'd see another revolution or civil war in my life. Now I can see that lesser acts than what we tolerate every day without question are far beyond what started the Revolution.

Click to expand...

How about taking an open carry case without a license to the SCOTUS. It should have been the first type of case undertaken in defense of the right. Like I said earlier, Scalia stated in Heller that the 2nd Amendment wasn't unlimited, and one of the first examples he gave was that states prohibition on concealed carry was not an infringement upon the right. If after reading that passage in the case, you conclude to take ONLY concealed carry cases to the court, I'd say you're spending someone else' money or you have absolutely no understanding of logical thinking. By the way, no open carry case, without a license, has been brought to the court since Heller in 2008 and EVERY concealed carry case went down without certiorari being granted. Also, instead of a license, a state could issue a certificate of competence to verify competency of individuals who carry if a state has a compelling state interest to do so. A certificate of competence does not have contractual obligations like that of a license, which includes legislation from the past, present and in the future.

777GSOTB said:

Marching and parading disrupt the normal flow of people going about their daily lives and why that activity can require a permit/license. If a single person decided to protest on a sidewalk somewhere in New Hampshire, there would be no way the local government could require a permit as they did in Cox. You and the writer of that article, missed the head count numbers as mentioned, for example, in Cox. It was around 60 plus people if I remember correctly and there's a reason the judge made that distinction in the case. Simply put, that conduct, marching and parading is disruptive and can require a permit or license. You should read the case instead of believing what others, haphazardly write. Individual fundamental rights, like an individual bearing arms in public, is recognized as not being taxable through a license tax, per Murdock v Penn.

Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941)

..;that the regulation with respect to parades and processions was applicable only "to organized formations of persons using the highways", and that "the defendants, separately, or collectively in groups not constituting a parade or procession," were "under no contemplation of the Act."

Click to expand...

I don't think you have read Murdock or Cox very well.

Murdock quotes Cox about this issue.

The manner in which [the right] is practiced at times gives rise to special problems with which the police power of the states is competent to deal. See, for example, Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568. But that merely illustrates that the rights with which we are dealing are not absolutes.

Click to expand...

Cox was found guilty even though they "marched in groups of from fifteen to twenty members each, in close single files"

The issues you are talking about are very situationally dependent and blanket statement like you are making are inappropriate. The 2A is more closely linked to the governments police power than other rights, which is why reasonable licenses tend not to be challenged in court.

press1280 said:

It probably will at some point (there is a NJ lawsuit challenging the pistol permit requirement). This case is lower hanging fruit as someone who wants to carry is clearly unable to do so legally because of the good cause regulation.
The premises license regulation, while burdensome for sure, at least isn't insurmountable.

Click to expand...

The court ordered DC to issue Heller a license for his pistol if he was not otherwise prohibited. He should have immediately turned around and sued for it to be free.

Kharn said:

The court ordered DC to issue Heller a license for his pistol if he was not otherwise prohibited. He should have immediately turned around and sued for it to be free.

Click to expand...

I just moved out of NY. It’s been a while but as I recall, some counties are $200 and up to a 6 month wait for a permit just to own a pistol to keep in your home. Then, you have to go to the clerk to add each pistol to your permit before taking possession. Whether you get the permit varies from county to county depending on the judge. Some counties issue conceal carry only even if you only ask for premise. Others on premise or sportsman only. It’s a terrible scheme that often is a no go for owning a pistol at all.

Woodnickel said:

I just moved out of NY. It’s been a while but as I recall, some counties are $200 and up to a 6 month wait for a permit just to own a pistol to keep in your home. Then, you have to go to the clerk to add each pistol to your permit before taking possession. Whether you get the permit varies from county to county depending on the judge. Some counties issue conceal carry only even if you only ask for premise. Others on premise or sportsman only. It’s a terrible scheme that often is a no go for owning a pistol at all.

Click to expand...

My wifes cousin lived in Coney Island. When her husband passed away she wasnt back at their apartment and the police were already at her door (could of been emotions) she said that there was 20 to 30 cops demanding his gun. Not sure if it is just NYC but he wasnt suppose to have it as she didnt have the premise license (he did). She moved to DE within 2 months of his death and when she called for them to ship the firearm to a FFL in DE they told her it was already "destroyed"

Loving the news this morning. Big Bird is out screeching that these laws are keeping the guns from people who shouldnt have them but now the courts can give them right back. If you arent suppose to be carrying nothing SCOTUS will do with this case will allow you to carry

Just wanted to pop in and say, on behalf of all Floridians that we are really pulling for you guys to rejoin the United States and have shall issue. Carrying a pistol is a human right, and these 8 felonious states have for far too long suppressed their flock.

On a side note, if this passes we will pray for you guys because we know the MSP will be pissing themselves and probably unloading on people at the first sign of a small bulge in your waist.

Also on a side note, I just read on the FL gun forums down here that one of our Reps in Tallahassee is pushing a bill soon that will ban any law-enforcement from one of those 8 states, Maryland included, from carrying their pistol while visiting FL due to none of those states honoring Floridians right to carry. Federal Law be damned.

Godspeed Marylanders, rejoin the United States, we’ll let you, we promise

SCOTUS will kick the can down the road. Too controversial for those wusses.
(I'm being polite ).

ezracer said:

SCOTUS will kick the can down the road. Too controversial for those wusses.
(I'm being polite ).

Click to expand...

Decoy said:

Click to expand...

I am expecting the also...

ezracer said:

SCOTUS will kick the can down the road. Too controversial for those wusses.
(I'm being polite ).

Click to expand...

I'm confused. Why would they agree to take the case if they're just going to defer?

hogarth said:

I'm confused. Why would they agree to take the case if they're just going to defer?

Click to expand...

So far:

The NYC carry previous case was mooted last year.
IIRC, a few years a 2A was DIG'd (dismissed as improvidently granted).

Inigoes said:

The NYC carry previous case was mooted last year..

Click to expand...

Because NYC did a Kobayashi Maru while the case was in the SCOTUS mill.

Are you thinking NY will actually go Shall Issue in order to moot this? Really?

Occam said:

Are you thinking NY will actually go Shall Issue in order to moot this? Really?

Click to expand...

D.C did it in Wrenn.

Occam said:

Are you thinking NY will actually go Shall Issue in order to moot this? Really?

Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine.

I do not think the NY will. NYC will scream to get into NJ, if they do.

teratos said:

D.C did it in Wrenn.

Click to expand...

From what I recall, didn't DC 'take one for the team' to save the whole country? Or something like that?

KevinK said:

From what I recall, didn't DC 'take one for the team' to save the whole country? Or something like that?

Click to expand...

Yep. NY may do the same. If NY falls, they all fall....

Inigoes said:

So far:

The NYC carry previous case was mooted last year.
IIRC, a few years a 2A was DIG'd (dismissed as improvidently granted).

Click to expand...

teratos said:

D.C did it in Wrenn.

Click to expand...

KevinK said:

From what I recall, didn't DC 'take one for the team' to save the whole country? Or something like that?

Click to expand...

teratos said:

Yep. NY may do the same. If NY falls, they all fall....

Click to expand...

NY's Ego wont allow them to go shall issue. Now we have 5 "solid" pro 2a justices dont think mooting will happen

Lets hope Deblasio doesnt let them take one for the team. DC is a small place with no real pull in elections. NY is one of the Big Dogs. They will fold about as likely as MD would. In other words I dont see them folding on this one. I mean how many blue states can take it for the team before its a win for us. And if they do all we got to do is get a MD one in there.

I don’t think they’ll allow it to be mooted and I don’t think NY really will go shall issue.

But I don’t think SCOTUS is going to issue a broad 2A take down. I think they’ll issue a more narrow opinion, but broadly on “bear arms”. I think they will likely tell all states the right extends outside of the home, but limited restrictions are allowable in balance test of public good. So things like reasonable training or a nominal fee are are okay. As would a background check. Similar things are allowed for other rights in public, such as nominal fees and permits for 1st amendment related protests and gatherings that might disrupt traffic, etc.

So I don’t think they’ll issue a blank check for OC and CC. I think they will tell states and courts a state must allow carry of all legal arms outside of the home and that any restrictions must meet the public good test on any restrictions. So they must be shall issue, and the encumbrances have to be limited. I think some like Thomas are damned fed up and I think if they say it can be limited, they’ll make sure to give proper examples as well as make sure his limited is pretty well spelled out this time.

It’ll also likely take states awhile to comply.

I wouldn’t expect “constitutional carry” to be a thing. In a fantasy, best case world.

I think permits might end up getting respected 50 state wide, but for the method allowed in that state (and I think most states will do shall issue concealed carry. Because guns scary. Of course some will allow OC also. But I don’t see a state like Maryland deciding that to comply let’s just allow OC of handguns). Or at least states would need to recognize other states permits if they are at least as stringent.

I do think justices will be clear enough that Maryland’s law allowing OC of long guns is not sufficient under their decision for NYSRPA.

I do think things like a 2-4hr training class with live fire, fingerprint background check and a nominal fee and wait (like less than $100 and 30 days or less) would probably be deemed okay with whatever the justices decision says.

I think whatever results is going to take years and possibly a few other court cases to “settle” things.

Now of course a worse case is NY managed to successfully moot the case. I don’t see the justices handing a defeat on this. I just don’t think we will get the miracle slap down or all the various 2A infringements.