pcfixer
Ultimate Member
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193217/20210921144917606_20-843bsacUnitedStates.pdf
Brief for the United States ( IE Biden Admin)
Brief for the United States ( IE Biden Admin)
The Heller case cited five antebellum state supreme court cases concealed carry laws. Only one of them asserted that concealed carry was outside the right to bear arms. The main line of the cases indicate that concealed carry can be banned as long as open carry is allowed. Or vice versa. Because New York State prohibits open carry, the statutory system of concealed carry licensing may not be misused so as to prohibit the vast majority of law-abiding, trained adults from obtaining a carry permit.
Judges use dicta all the time in their rulings. Machine guns and short-barreled shotguns had nothing to do with Heller's handgun, yet they're now classified within the dangerous and unusual understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. But, no matter, that dicta made by a US Supreme Court justice, supports what Scalia stated when referencing a majority of 19th century courts that have addressed the matter of concealed carry, have ruled that, that form of carry can be regulated under the 2nd Amendment.
Biden Demands Participation In Supreme Court 2A Arguments!!! NYSRPA v. Bruen
I would bet money that there are MDS Members who are happy about this.
Do you have an opinion on which brief in this case is the best written one?
Not really, it is a hard question because it depends on how you define what is best. There are a number of amici that add small parts of the issue. From an amici stand point that is good. The problem I see is that no one really directly addressed the question presented (Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.) The briefs are more about carry in general and don't really explain why concealed carry is now part of the right given the historical prohibitions.
Judges use dicta all the time in their rulings. Machine guns and short-barreled shotguns had nothing to do with Heller's handgun, yet they're now classified within the dangerous and unusual understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. But, no matter, that dicta made by a US Supreme Court justice, supports what Scalia stated when referencing a majority of 19th century courts that have addressed the matter of concealed carry, have ruled that, that form of carry can be regulated under the 2nd Amendment.
The Heller case cited five antebellum state supreme court cases concealed carry laws.
Only one of them asserted that concealed carry was outside the right to bear arms.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/0...ief-in-supreme-court-right-to-bear-arms-case/
DAVID KOPEL | 10.6.2021 6:31 PM
Is it because licensing of a fundamental right being relatively new ( a product of the 20th century), compared to the right itself.
The thing with dicta is that it is much easier to overcome than precedent. This is why the lower court in Wrenn decided concealed carry was acceptable even though SCOTUS found a historical prohibition on concealed carry. Had the historical prohibition on concealed carry been precedent, the lower court would have needed to decide things differently.
I wish people would stop using the term “regulated” in this context. Basically everything is regulated to one degree or another. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Open carry can also be “regulated” apart from concealed carry. We’re still in the same spot as before.
Ok, thanks, should have said, PROHIBITED under the 2nd Amendment.
I don't think you actually ever answered my question from way back (and perhaps it wasn't you but a different open-carry-only guy so forgive me).
That is, which justices, in your opinion, would be the ones to rule in NYSRPA that open carry is the right, regardless of the current state of the law?
Keep in mind the Peruta and Rogers dissents. I'll await your answer.
I don't think you actually ever answered my question from way back (and perhaps it wasn't you but a different open-carry-only guy so forgive me).
That is, which justices, in your opinion, would be the ones to rule in NYSRPA that open carry is the right, regardless of the current state of the law?
Keep in mind the Peruta and Rogers dissents. I'll await your answer.
Open carry isn't an issue in NYSRPA. They waived that right when they signed the application for a license contract to carry concealed firearms. Just like Norman did in Florida. Since no one has any kahuna's to open carry without a license, we won't be finding out any time soon.
Interestingly, Gorsuch, who joined Thomas in Peruta, didn't join Thomas and Kavanaugh in Rogers, though both very similar cases. Also, Kavanaugh didn't agree with Thomas' reasoning in Part II, in regard to the circuit split on carry outside the home. You must remember, 7 other Justices disagreed with the dissent.
It was acceptable because the state licensed the activity. Licenses are given out by governing authorities, to do that which would otherwise be, illegal and unlawful. A fundamental right is the complete opposite of illegal and unlawful.
Open carry isn't an issue in NYSRPA. They waived that right when they signed the application for a license contract to carry concealed firearms. Just like Norman did in Florida. Since no one has any kahuna's to open carry without a license, we won't be finding out any time soon.
Interestingly, Gorsuch, who joined Thomas in Peruta, didn't join Thomas and Kavanaugh in Rogers, though both very similar cases. Also, Kavanaugh didn't agree with Thomas' reasoning in Part II, in regard to the circuit split on carry outside the home. You must remember, 7 other Justices disagreed with the dissent.