Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 23rd, 2021, 12:05 PM #521
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 40,195
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 40,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by wabbit View Post
Maybe the rising New York crime rate and its effect on the recent mayoral election was writing on the wall that these attorneys saw and decided to be on the right side of history.
Sounds like they are sick of having to defend good people against getting felonies.
__________________
Quote:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256)
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2021, 06:53 PM #522
fscwi fscwi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,145
fscwi fscwi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,145
Another brief filed to the NY case by the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) stating restrictions on the right to bear arms are racist.

https://thereload.com/black-gun-owne...me-court-brief
fscwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2021, 07:00 PM #523
Bullfrog's Avatar
Bullfrog Bullfrog is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 6,638
Images: 2
Bullfrog Bullfrog is online now
Senior Member
Bullfrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 6,638
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by fscwi View Post
Another brief filed to the NY case by the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) stating restrictions on the right to bear arms are racist.

https://thereload.com/black-gun-owne...me-court-brief
This sums it up pretty well.

Quote:
“In historical perspective,” NAAGA said, “New York’s law is heir to the Black Codes and Jim Crow regimes except that, instead of discriminating only against black people, it deprives the people at large of the right to bear arms, which is reserved to members of a privileged class determined by government officials to have ‘good cause.'”
Bullfrog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2021, 10:17 AM #524
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 678
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 678
Patrick Charles, Amicus

Amicus brief:

PATRICK J. CHARLES HISTORIAN IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

Charles describing himself as a “historian in support of neither party” displays (once again) his gift for self-deception.* Charles is a go to supporting “authority” for those who claim the 2A does not mean what it says. The Progressive Judges on the Peruta and Young en banc panels (in part with the Charles “research” as cover) predictably found “public carry . . . [concealed and open] not entitled to constitutional protection.”

Judge O’Scannlain dissented.** An article in Reason picks Charles based “history” apart. *** The PROFESSORS OF SECOND AMENDMENT LAW Amicus brief (among others) refutes Charles allegation by allegation.****

Regards
Jack

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...arles%20br.pdf
**O’Scannlain: in dissent: “It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...4/12-17808.pdf
***Reason: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/01...-to-bear-arms/ Scroll down to “English Legal History.”
****Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...us%20Brief.pdf See pages 10, 11 and 12 for example.
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2021, 01:14 AM #525
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,829
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
Amicus brief:

PATRICK J. CHARLES HISTORIAN IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

Charles describing himself as a “historian in support of neither party” displays (once again) his gift for self-deception.* Charles is a go to supporting “authority” for those who claim the 2A does not mean what it says. The Progressive Judges on the Peruta and Young en banc panels (in part with the Charles “research” as cover) predictably found “public carry . . . [concealed and open] not entitled to constitutional protection.”

Judge O’Scannlain dissented.** An article in Reason picks Charles based “history” apart. *** The PROFESSORS OF SECOND AMENDMENT LAW Amicus brief (among others) refutes Charles allegation by allegation.****

Regards
Jack

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...arles%20br.pdf
**O’Scannlain: in dissent: “It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...4/12-17808.pdf
***Reason: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/01...-to-bear-arms/ Scroll down to “English Legal History.”
****Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...us%20Brief.pdf See pages 10, 11 and 12 for example.
The reason the progressive judges find "public carry .. not entitled to constitutional protection" has as much to do with how the cases are argued. In Peruta they never rebutted the historical prohibition on CCW and this prohibition was used against them. Young did slightly better, but never really addressed the other sides points directly. I was the only one to point out why the historical prohibition existed, which was incorporated into O'scannlain's dissent.

The 2A is more nuanced than the text of the amendment suggests. There are nuances as to prohibitions that have occurred and need proper explanations to properly understand them. Clement's main brief does not really provide these explanations. I have not read all the amicus briefs, but they don't provide a lot of explanation either. I am pretty disappointed in the briefs. They all seem to want to answer the original question about carry in general and downplay the revised question, which addressed concealed carry specifically.

The amicus briefs coming in about 2 months will be much more biased towards this anti carry position.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2021, 07:55 AM #526
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,287
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,287
The briefs are about the right to carry in general, because Heller looked favorably on laws that banned one form of carry as long as the other was readily available. In both Peruta and NYSRPA II, the state has banned open carry, so the issuance of a carry permit is the only way for a citizen to exercise that right.

In Woollard, one permit covered both open and concealed carry, but I'm sure you'll find a way to negative Nancy that away as the fault of counsel because they didn't hire you.

And the amicus briefs due in two months will be in support of the state, so of course they will be against carry.
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2021, 01:49 PM #527
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 678
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 678
Progressive opinions / conservative dissents

Peruta
Justice Thomas dissenting:
“The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf p. 3

Young
Judge O’Scannlain: dissenting:
“It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...4/12-17808.pdf

Just two of the almost all “untenable” and “baffling” opinions produced by the unshakable progressive notion that “gun control” is a good thing.

Regards
Jack
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2021, 05:57 PM #528
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,829
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
The briefs are about the right to carry in general, because Heller looked favorably on laws that banned one form of carry as long as the other was readily available. In both Peruta and NYSRPA II, the state has banned open carry, so the issuance of a carry permit is the only way for a citizen to exercise that right.

In Woollard, one permit covered both open and concealed carry, but I'm sure you'll find a way to negative Nancy that away as the fault of counsel because they didn't hire you.

And the amicus briefs due in two months will be in support of the state, so of course they will be against carry.
The question before the court is limited to concealed carry.

Quote:
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment
Whether open carry is allowed in no longer relevant to this case. The ultimate conclusion of this case may be the same as Peruta, you cannot claim that concealed carry is part of the right. You may need to challenge the ban on open carry only.

Why should concealed carry be allowed given the historic prohibition mentioned in Heller? The briefs don't really answer that question directly. It is sad because the Young dissent answers the question.

Maybe you are content with the ever growing restrictions on our 2A rights. I am not and want to find better ways to remove these restrictions. The current ways do not seem to be working.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2021, 06:16 PM #529
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,829
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
Peruta
Justice Thomas dissenting:
“The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf p. 3
Yet the SCOTUS did exactly the same thing in this case
Quote:
Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
Quote:
Young
Judge O’Scannlain: dissenting:
“It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...4/12-17808.pdf

Just two of the almost all “untenable” and “baffling” opinions produced by the unshakable progressive notion that “gun control” is a good thing.

Regards
Jack
This is the key part of the quote
Quote:
the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated
and needs to be addressed otherwise it will be spun in a very negative context., which is what these progressive judges have done.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 04:25 AM #530
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 6,048
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 6,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
The question before the court is limited to concealed carry.



Whether open carry is allowed in no longer relevant to this case. The ultimate conclusion of this case may be the same as Peruta, you cannot claim that concealed carry is part of the right. You may need to challenge the ban on open carry only.

Why should concealed carry be allowed given the historic prohibition mentioned in Heller? The briefs don't really answer that question directly. It is sad because the Young dissent answers the question.

Maybe you are content with the ever growing restrictions on our 2A rights. I am not and want to find better ways to remove these restrictions. The current ways do not seem to be working.
If that's the case then were back to the other question and that's why would they even take the case knowing that a Peruta-style opinion guarantees another challenge on open carry?
Isn't it possible the question is just re-written to its bare facts, and not that they are going to rule on CCW in a vacuum?
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (1 members and 2 guests)
Pope414
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service