NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

daNattyFatty said:
Leftists weep.

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Why am I inconsolable? I certainly did not think they would take the case based upon the past denials and what was written in the petition. What is written in the petition is not adequate to address the issue. I suspect that the Young decision and how the dissent addressed the concealed carry in that case gave them sufficient justification to take this case. I also suspect that it was my amicus brief in Young that alerted the dissent in Young to the conclusion they reached.

It has been my contention for years that it is really about the arguments and they have a legitimate argument in Young to correctly decide the case.

Uncle Duke · Apr 26, 2021

jcutonilli said:
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.

Ok sir, thanks. Maybe that's the angle.

Hard for me though to wrap my mind around the Court's wording here in granting cert. While Scalia stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, it seems here that the Court by its wording is assuming a starting position that is accepting of licensing, and accepting of licensing right out of the gate.

To me, these are 2 entirely different concepts. To me, the licensing of a right should be clearly unconstitutional. And unless I've missed something, the licensing of a right is also unheard of in practice, with regard to any other American right, save the licensing schemes of various states heaped upon the 2nd Amendment.

Yes you have the right UNLESS, seems to me to be entirely different than "you need a license." License connotes privilege.

More at play with the distinction than semantics IMO.

Inigoes · Apr 26, 2021

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

Two weeks after the start of the fall session

Inigoes · Apr 26, 2021

Uncle Duke said:
Ok sir, thanks. Maybe that's the angle.

Hard for me though to wrap my mind around the Court's wording here in granting cert. While Scalia stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, it seems here that the Court by its wording is assuming a starting position that is accepting of licensing, and accepting of licensing right out of the gate.

To me, these are 2 entirely different concepts. To me, the licensing of a right should be clearly unconstitutional. And unless I've missed something, the licensing of a right is also unheard of in practice, with regard to any other American right, save the licensing schemes of various states heaped upon the 2nd Amendment.

Yes you have the right UNLESS, seems to me to be entirely different than "you need a license." License connotes privilege.

More at play with the distinction than semantics IMO.

Think of voting.

You have to register to vote, before you can exercise your first amendment right.

If carry licensing is to be allowed, the state must have a compelling reason to not allow you to carry, as they must have to not allow you to vote.

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

Uncle Duke said:
Ok sir, thanks. Maybe that's the angle.

Hard for me though to wrap my mind around the Court's wording here in granting cert. While Scalia stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, it seems here that the Court by its wording is assuming a starting position that is accepting of licensing, and accepting of licensing right out of the gate.

To me, these are 2 entirely different concepts. To me, the licensing of a right should be clearly unconstitutional. And unless I've missed something, the licensing of a right is also unheard of in practice, with regard to any other American right, save the licensing schemes of various states heaped upon the 2nd Amendment.

Yes you have the right UNLESS, seems to me to be entirely different than "you need a license." License connotes privilege.

More at play with the distinction than semantics IMO.

It is not unusual that SCOTUS limits the question presented. It does seem weird that they would limit the issue in this case however. I suspect that they are going to allow concealed carry, but we need to wait for the oral arguments to better understand their persectives.

Heller did not dispute the licensing aspect as long as it is reasonable. It is my recollection that the licensing aspect was not disputed in Peruta either. A license may connote a privilege, but I do not believe that is how it will be argued or decided.

Mike OTDP · Apr 26, 2021

From a tactical perspective, I think it's a lot easier to get from May Issue (but won't) to Shall Issue than it is to go straight to Constitutional Carry.

JTH20 · Apr 26, 2021

Mike OTDP said:
From a tactical perspective, I think it's a lot easier to get from May Issue (but won't) to Shall Issue than it is to go straight to Constitutional Carry.

At this point i'll take what i can get.

ed bernay · Apr 26, 2021

jcutonilli said:
It is not unusual that SCOTUS limits the question presented. It does seem weird that they would limit the issue in this case however. I suspect that they are going to allow concealed carry, but we need to wait for the oral arguments to better understand their persectives.

Heller did not dispute the licensing aspect as long as it is reasonable. It is my recollection that the licensing aspect was not disputed in Peruta either. A license may connote a privilege, but I do not believe that is how it will be argued or decided.

I understand that SCOTUSs does not address topics outside of the petition but I sure hope (assuming a win for the good guys) they put in some language that precludes future lower courts from using concealed carry licensing to allowing licensing of firearms in your own home, especially semi auto rifles and pistols. We see how the Anti 2a side misleads with the language in Heller.

I hope the language somehow makes firearms restrictions/standards the same for citizens and off duty/retired police. If that happens future gun control laws won't receive the support of law enforcement which will go a long way in slowing down the nonsense.

rbird7282 · Apr 26, 2021

daNattyFatty said:
Leftists weep.

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

ROFLMFAO!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uncle Duke · Apr 26, 2021

Inigoes said:
Think of voting.

You have to register to vote, before you can exercise your first amendment right.

If carry licensing is to be allowed, the state must have a compelling reason to not allow you to carry, as they must have to not allow you to vote.

jcutonilli said:
It is not unusual that SCOTUS limits the question presented. It does seem weird that they would limit the issue in this case however. I suspect that they are going to allow concealed carry, but we need to wait for the oral arguments to better understand their persectives.

Heller did not dispute the licensing aspect as long as it is reasonable. It is my recollection that the licensing aspect was not disputed in Peruta either. A license may connote a privilege, but I do not believe that is how it will be argued or decided.

Mike OTDP said:
From a tactical perspective, I think it's a lot easier to get from May Issue (but won't) to Shall Issue than it is to go straight to Constitutional Carry.

Perhaps the argument will be that the state has a right to know who one is, but does not have the right to prevent one from carrying, once one has made their intention to carry known. In other words, shall issue.

Great for Maryland. Potentially though, perhaps not so great for Constitutional carry states.

I hope the Court had another reason for the specific words they chose. But whatever their reasoning, I pray to God that they get this ruling decidedly in our favor.

jbrown50 · Apr 26, 2021

Inigoes said:
Think of voting.

You have to register to vote, before you can exercise your first amendment right.

If carry licensing is to be allowed, the state must have a compelling reason to not allow you to carry, as they must have to not allow you to vote.

To legally purchase a gun you have to first pass a background check and to legally purchase and possess a gun you have to not be a prohibited person. To carry a gun you have to first be able to acquire and posses that gun.

If you already have to jump through one hoop to vote why should you have to jump through two to carry a gun? Not arguing with you or personally attacking you since you're an ally, just pointing out that there's already a requirement. The antigun folks of course would say: "because it's GUNS".

press1280 · Apr 26, 2021

jcutonilli said:
Why am I inconsolable? I certainly did not think they would take the case based upon the past denials and what was written in the petition. What is written in the petition is not adequate to address the issue. I suspect that the Young decision and how the dissent addressed the concealed carry in that case gave them sufficient justification to take this case. I also suspect that it was my amicus brief in Young that alerted the dissent in Young to the conclusion they reached.

It has been my contention for years that it is really about the arguments and they have a legitimate argument in Young to correctly decide the case.

Young will be on the docket when NYSRPA is argued. So you will have a pure CCW case AND a pure open carry case simultaneously

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

Interestingly, the court is going to answer their own question, as that wasn't the question asked by the Plaintiff's. Also, no state has to accept a license/permit from another state. My prediction is that the court will reiterate what was said in Heller about states prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. That being, that it is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, by the time the court gets an open carry case to settle the issue of carrying outside the home, the court will be packed with liberals. The possibility of a packed liberal court may be why they're going to answer their own question, but I doubt it will help in the long run once the court is packed.

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

press1280 said:
Young will be on the docket when NYSRPA is argued. So you will have a pure CCW case AND a pure open carry case simultaneously

I disagree, as a pure open carry case as you say, would be one without a license. Young is ok with having to get a license in the exercise of a fundamental right.

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

press1280 said:
Young will be on the docket when NYSRPA is argued. So you will have a pure CCW case AND a pure open carry case simultaneously

I suspect that they decided to take this case over Young and will GVR Young based on this case.

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

777GSOTB said:
Interestingly, the court is going to answer their own question, as that wasn't the question asked by the Plaintiff's. Also, no state has to accept a license/permit from another state. My prediction is that the court will reiterate what was said in Heller about states prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. That being, that it is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, by the time the court gets an open carry case to settle the issue of carrying outside the home, the court will be packed with liberals. The possibility of a packed liberal court may be why they're going to answer their own question, but I doubt it will help in the long run once the court is packed.

The plaintiffs did ask the question in more general terms.

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

SCOTUS simply narrowed the question as they sometimes do.

I believe that SCOTUS is going to use the dissent in Young to create a majority opinion allowing concealed carry. The petition in this case certainly presents more of an open carry case based on the historical prohibition that this petition did not really challenge. Read the dissent in Young or my amicus brief (argument 3) to understand why you are wrong on this issue.

press1280 · Apr 26, 2021

Licensing per se isn’t on the table, merely can it be conditioned upon some kind of need standard which by definition doesn’t include the public at large.

Kharn · Apr 26, 2021

press1280 said:
Licensing per se isn’t on the table, merely can it be conditioned upon some kind of need standard which by definition doesn’t include the public at large.

And then in five to ten years we'll be back arguing that $1000/yr and 160 hour initial and 80 hour renewal courses aren't acceptable, a parking ticket isn't a sign of a life of lawlessness, within 10,000 feet of a school or licensed daycare isn't a sensitive place, etc.

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

jcutonilli said:
The plaintiffs did ask the question in more general terms.
SCOTUS simply narrowed the question as they sometimes do.

I believe that SCOTUS is going to use the dissent in Young to create a majority opinion allowing concealed carry. The petition in this case certainly presents more of an open carry case based on the historical prohibition that this petition did not really challenge. Read the dissent in Young or my amicus brief (argument 3) to understand why you are wrong on this issue.

I see it as, the Plaintiff's asked a question not on the table, as carrying concealed firearms outside the home in public, which is what they sought to do, CAN be prohibited.

Malachi.2.15 · Apr 26, 2021

FrankZ said:
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.

Yep...also very worried about Thomas getting the Scalia treatment before this is heard.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics