- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,871
He's also a True Patriot, a Brilliant Light for Democracy, and thanked by Thomas Paine, according to what I read in neighbors' yards.
NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
He's also a True Patriot, a Brilliant Light for Democracy, and thanked by Thomas Paine, according to what I read in neighbors' yards.
I am free to travel throughout the country and my right to self protect myself does not change from state to state.
I feel this way as well.
We may get pleasantly surprised.
Since any opinion would not be ground breaking per se, more of a "we meant what we said in Heller and McDonald", here is clarification.
Defense Rifle
Active Member
It seems like SCOTUS will strike down the good cause permit regime, thus making every US state 'shall issue'. Which is a great step forward if it happens.
However, inter-state reciprocity remains a serious issue. Some states like California, don't issue non-resident permits and other states like NY, Oregon have very selective rules on whose eligible for non-resident permits.
I do hope SCOTUS issues a broad ruling that enforces inter-state reciprocity of home state permits and or non-resident permits.
However, inter-state reciprocity remains a serious issue. Some states like California, don't issue non-resident permits and other states like NY, Oregon have very selective rules on whose eligible for non-resident permits.
I do hope SCOTUS issues a broad ruling that enforces inter-state reciprocity of home state permits and or non-resident permits.
If SCOTUS rules that Americans can be armed in America (remember, the 2A must be recognized by the States) there will be either changes to the law or a lawsuit.
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
Fvck that guy
I legitimately hate him for his behavior. And for perverting his son's death for politics
Maybe he should look closer at how he played a part in his kid ending his own life. I'm sure he contributed somehow
Defense Rifle
Active Member
I would actually not rule this out 100%. Listening to the SCOTUS hearing a lot of emphasis is being put on carrying outside of the home and the excessive discretion state bureaucrats have, and less to do with state jurisdiction/borders and the core tenets of self-defense/protection.
They know people may own more than 1 home across states, travel to other states for work/personal reasons... With as conservative of a court we have, they could broaden the ruling to include states respecting other state permits.
Pretty sure its just smack down specifically to the states actions in the case as argued at hand. This case is specifically about state overreach.
I hear nothing to suggest going beyond the scope of the plaintiffs' plea. SC rarely does, sometimes it even rules specifically to the plaintiff's oral arguement presentation, going no farther even though logically it would make sense
I hear nothing to suggest going beyond the scope of the plaintiffs' plea. SC rarely does, sometimes it even rules specifically to the plaintiff's oral arguement presentation, going no farther even though logically it would make sense
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
From what I understand, while there are many states that have reciprocity issues, such as Oregon and washington doesn’t recognize Texas for example. They aren’t worth seeing over.
They are going after the states that are the biggest offenders. Like Hawaii, California a that has no reciprocity and no way if even getting a Non-Resident license. Meaning that there isn’t anyone for someone out of state to carry in those states.
So the suits will make both an issue, no reciprocity and no non-resident permit.
The idea being that a state will have to either allow reciprocity for all 50 states, or allow all 50 states to obtain a permit, with the SAME requirements as a resident.
I can see Illinois opening up non-Resident permitting to the other 44 states. As they make and charge $300 for a non-Resident CCL.
Other states may just opt to open up reciprocity. Washington for instance might do that. So might other states that have reciprocity with some but not all states.
Everything right now though is speculation until we actually have an opinion released and see where that can take us!
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Never said it was. However depending on how the opinion is written. It could allow a basis for law suits to force reciprocity. That’s the point, and that’s why the suits haven’t been filed yet.
For example… if the opinion clearly states that United States citizens have a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home. Then that statement would open up the possibility of suits for reciprocity. Especially under the 14th amendment of equal protection.
One can sue over just about anything. Other then Heller and McDonald neither case directly or intentionally said anything about a right to carry or bear arms outside the home. However clearly both cases are still cited as a basis for this lawsuit, beyond the 2nd and 14th ammendment.
So unless they are extremely narrow and limiting in their opinion, and I personally doubt they will be that narrow. As Heller and McDonald weren’t very narrow either. This case will serve as a founding basis to file a suits against states that have NO reciprocity as well as NO non-Resident permitting. Thus forcing the issue of a state to allow one or the other,
No different then when the GA Supreme Court (many many years ago) gave the state of the option of you can ban open carry or ban conceal carry but you can’t ban both.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Exactly. iMHo, the suits will force a state to decide if they will allow all states reciprocity or issue non-resident permits.
Some will choose reciprocity and others will choose issuing permits. Illinois makes $300 a pop for non-resident permits.
Nobody
Ultimate Member
- Jan 15, 2009
- 2,837
We gain 23 agencies utilizing a couple of personnel to issue permits instead of 1 agency utilizing a couple of personnel to issue permits.
With shall issue out would be pretty easy to do a background check, verify training if required and print out a permit.
Nobody
I hope I am not in Maryland when Ben Cardin leaves his Senate seat. Raskin may pull out an arm to stop any and all contenders from preventing him from getting the seat.
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
He is lower than a sea urchin. A true career man without morals. I wipe more important things off my boots.
After stepping in something smelly.
srephwed
Active Member
He is lower than whale crap and that's at the bottom of the ocean
Kharn
Ultimate Member
It should stay with the state police.
A single state wide regulation and defendant is much easier to deal with for law suits.
There is no way MGA would consider giving away power to the counties. Pure fantasy island. Time to get this thread back on course.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
They released an opinion written by Roberts on a MS/TN water dispute. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/...ssee-in-groundwater-dispute-with-mississippi/
Are you still going through with your training now?
