NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

trickg · Mar 30, 2022

delaware_export said:
I’ll predict a ruling in 3 months +\-… or less

I wanting the broadest pro2a ruling, but we should be prepared for disappointment to some extent or another.. somehow I think they’ll hedge somewhere along the line

Tic tic tic…

Heller wound up being a disappointment for me with a few lines in the decision that appear towards the end of Scalia's Opinion:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
.
.
.
From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
.
.
.
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
.
.
.

Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners 58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.
.
.
.
...Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

The parts in bold are the parts that I didn't like - they struck down the law, but Scalia opened the door for governments to mandate strict regulation, registration and licensing. This is the part that Frosh loves to cherry pick - I've heard him quote some of this in his bloviating to his anti-gun fawning fans.

Texasgrillchef · Mar 30, 2022

delaware_export said:
I’ll predict a ruling in 3 months +\-… or less

I wanting the broadest pro2a ruling, but we should be prepared for disappointment to some extent or another.. somehow I think they’ll hedge somewhere along the line

Tic tic tic…

Well we will get a ruling that we have a right to carry in non sensitive places in public and all that’s required for a reason is elf defense. Basically requiring states to be shall issue. We won’t get them saying permits are unconstitutional.

They will comment on place and time restrictions. Limits, allowances etc…

They will comment on the use of scrutiny, intermediate, strict, text/history/tradition, or some combination. Or something new we haven’t thought of yet. Several justices have allready voiced disdain over the way lower courts have been deciding previous 2A cases.

Many doubt anything else will be discussed…

However… never say never… they could surprise us.

You are right we will win, but to what degree.

Also to what degree are they going to screw the pooch, intentionally or accidentally and give anti-gun foes loopholes to work with like they did in Heller.

I personally think that they didn’t realize to what extremes the anti-gunners would take in finding loop holes and exceptions in Heller. I think those loop holes were accidental on the Justices who wrote the Heller opinion

Texasgrillchef · Mar 30, 2022

trickg said:
Heller wound up being a disappointment for me with a few lines in the decision that appear towards the end of Scalia's Opinion:

The parts in bold are the parts that I didn't like - they struck down the law, but Scalia opened the door for governments to mandate strict regulation, registration and licensing. This is the part that Frosh loves to cherry pick - I've heard him quote some of this in his bloviating to his anti-gun fawning fans.

I get that… and agree… however while there are several justices still on the court that took part in the Heller decision and opinion, there are several NEW justices that have slightly differing opinions. As well as Thomas has some thoughts that I am sure didn’t make it into the Heller decision.

I doubt that they will go this far, but Chief Justice Roberts himself made comment during the Nov 3rd arguments wondering why we need permits for us to exercise THIS constitutional right, but don’t need a permit to exercise any other constitutional right.

Well they find permits unconstitutional, I highly doubt it. It’s possible, but doubtful. Keep in mind that petitioners never claimed that permitting schemes themselves were unconstitutional. Only the need to show cause, beyond the simple reason of Generalized Self Defense.

Like I said in a previous post. They will issue comment opinions on 3 parts. May issue/self defense the G&S reasons. Sensitive places, and use of various levels of scrutiny.

I personally think like I said in the previous post. That unintentional mistakes will be written in the opinion, just like there was in Heller. Those lines that you highlighted in Bold, I don’t think the justices realized how the anti gun era would use several of those statements as loopholes to pass more restrictive laws. Except what was clearly stated as being unconstitutional.

I am without any doubt, that anti 2A lawyers will look for any phrase in their opinion that they can use as a loophole. Will there be “loop holes” absolutely and I don’t believe they will be intentional.

trickg · Mar 30, 2022

I can't help but think that there was a compromise in the court when it came to the Heller decision considering it was split 5/4, and that compromise included Scalia allowing for registration and licensing in his wording, thus keeping it 5/4 and not 4/5.

I would have liked to have seen a clearer margin on something like the 2nd Amendment, and it's always been so bizarre to me how people can take a statement that is so simple and clearly defined and come up with unbelievably outlandish ideas about it. The fact that the Heller decision barely came through at 5/4 speaks volumes about the threat of abuse in the form of legislation from the bench.

SCOTUS is the one thing I really lamented when Trump lost in 2020 - with 4 more years, he could have set up the court with Constitutional purists and conservatives that would have lasted a generation.

Bringing this back around to the NYC CCW case, I truly hope we win this one and we win it in such a way that the antis can't do things like create a sea of red tape, or levy exorbitant fees that make it prohibitive.

Texasgrillchef · Mar 30, 2022

trickg said:
I can't help but think that there was a compromise in the court when it came to the Heller decision considering it was split 5/4, and that compromise included Scalia allowing for registration and licensing in his wording, thus keeping it 5/4 and not 4/5.

I would have liked to have seen a clearer margin on something like the 2nd Amendment, and it's always been so bizarre to me how people can take a statement that is so simple and clearly defined and come up with unbelievably outlandish ideas about it. The fact that the Heller decision barely came through at 5/4 speaks volumes about the threat of abuse in the form of legislation from the bench.

SCOTUS is the one thing I really lamented when Trump lost in 2020 - with 4 more years, he could have set up the court with Constitutional purists and conservatives that would have lasted a generation.

Bringing this back around to the NYC CCW case, I truly hope we win this one and we win it in such a way that the antis can't do things like create a sea of red tape, or levy exorbitant fees that make it prohibitive.

That is very possible to get that 5th vote. But from who Roberts? As long as you get at least 5 people to sign on and agree, it doesn’t matter what he other 4 say.

Here’s the thing though. The current justices though can overturn various parts of Heller in our favor if they choose too.

Just like they can overturn Roe v Wade as well. Which many progressives are worried about with the Texas and MS abortion laws.

However will that be done. Probably not. Like I said before. The petitioners are only asking to find the G&S part of permitting to be unconstitutional. Not the permitting scheme.

However, even if Trump has wine in 2020. Breyer probably would not be retiring yet and would hold on until 2024. Only retiring after that.

Look at Ginsberg, she was trying to hold on until the last minute.

We have for sure 5 justices on our side, with the 6th petty much on our side within reason.

I don’t ever see them granting cert on a case that challenges the constitutionality of permitting to carry, or them ever going that far to agree to that.

Why I see them making comment on sensitive places and times restrictions to carry.

Just hoping that don’t write that part, in a way that leaves the antis a lot of leeway to ban guns in places we should be able to carry

press1280 · Mar 31, 2022

It's been a while since I listened to oral arguments but I'm not sure if there is a plurality to list a bunch of sensitive places (perhaps other than what was already in Heller). Kavanaugh seemed set on basically sticking to what was in front of them which was a challenge to may issue, not a sensitive places (as currently set under NY law). All it would take is one other justice to agree with him, since it's pretty obvious the libs will basically write that all restrictions are OK.

Texasgrillchef · Mar 31, 2022

press1280 said:
It's been a while since I listened to oral arguments but I'm not sure if there is a plurality to list a bunch of sensitive places (perhaps other than what was already in Heller). Kavanaugh seemed set on basically sticking to what was in front of them which was a challenge to may issue, not a sensitive places (as currently set under NY law). All it would take is one other justice to agree with him, since it's pretty obvious the libs will basically write that all restrictions are OK.

What is written in the dissents, doesn’t matter so much as what is written in the majority opinion.

One can still have more then one majority opinion and it be split. It has happened before. As long as you can get a majority.

I am pretty sure they will mention sensitive places. Will they list each one out individually? Absolutely not! If they mention any locations at all, they will be very general about those locations. Just like they were in Heller.

Keep in mind many decisions have been issued opinions on several issues in the case, even though only one question was asked, and even when that question was very narrow. Just look at Heller. One question asked, but comments on several areas regarding firearm possession. In regards to who and where.

So like said before IMHO. There will be at least three things they comment on. The May issue, Times/places, and Scrutiny.

One thing I am wondering though. Is if they will in their opinion on May Issue, make comment only about conceal carry or include open carry. OR, if they are leaving comment about open carry for Young v Hawaii which is on hold pending cert. Personally I think they will just issue one opinion, being that in NYSPRA saying that a state has to allow both. And then Send Young back to the 9th reversed using the Opinion issued in NYSPRA. I will admit that is conjecture though.

russ498 · Mar 31, 2022

2A doesn't have "special place" exemptions like many jurisdictions are trying to institute. removing our rights one thread at a time.

lazarus · Mar 31, 2022

russ498 said:
2A doesn't have "special place" exemptions like many jurisdictions are trying to institute. removing our rights one thread at a time.

Yes it does. All rights have some sort of limitation.

Just like courts have been fine disarming particularly dangerous people since the inception of the republic despite “shall not infringe”. You think SCOTUS would ever sign off on “carry anywhere and everywhere”?

Heck no. I highly doubt the court would ever decide legislatures can’t restrict carry in to places like court houses and prisons.

Maybe the constitution never planned for any right to be abridged in anyway, but this country has operated since very, very early on that it is a very high burden to abridge a right, but all rights can be if there is a particularly compelling interest. It should just be a very high bar.

I guess maybe we aught to go back to the way “things were”, but the way things were have never really existed even at the founding. Absolutely things have been eroded over time. But no administration and almost no court has ever treated rights as being absolute.

camo556 · Mar 31, 2022

(someone claiming to be) Charles Nichols posted on scotusblog this morning, predicting Kavanaugh writing NY Rifle.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-march-31/

My crystal ball predicts the following assignments for the remaining six opinions from November and October.

Justice Kavanaugh - NYSRPA v. Bruen
Justice Kagan - Badgerow v. Walters
Justice Barrett - US v. Vaello-Madero
Justice Thomas - Austin v. Reagan National Advertising...
Justice Gorsuch - Thompson v. Clark
Justice Kavanaugh - Brown v. Davenport

Charles Nichols

Texasgrillchef · Mar 31, 2022

camo556 said:
(someone claiming to be) Charles Nichols posted on scotusblog this morning, predicting Kavanaugh writing NY Rifle.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-march-31/

Could be for Kavanaugh but personally I highly doubt it. Both ALITO and Thomas have been itching to write an opinion for the 2A. I think Roberts will give it to one of them. They been around longer, and this decision is to important to leave it up to a relative newbie.

We will see though. My money is on Thomas or Alito though

camo556 · Mar 31, 2022

Texasgrillchef said:
Could be for Kavanaugh but personally I highly doubt it. Both ALITO and Thomas have been itching to write an opinion for the 2A. I think Roberts will give it to one of them. They been around longer, and this decision is to important to leave it up to a relative newbie.

We will see though. My money is on Thomas or Alito though

Alito has already written an opinion for Nov. https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/ So have Roberts and Gorsuch. Gorsuch has written two for Nov.

So Alito is extremely unlikely. Having Thomas write the opinion is equivalent to winning the Powerball. No way Roberts assigns it to him.

It will be Kavanaugh or Barrett.

Kavanaugh is a distinct possibility. He's already written on 2A issues from the D.C. Court. Kavanaugh is likely to leave out all the dicta about sensitive places. Recall that during orals he did not think that they needed to reach that issue. If Kavanaugh writes the main opinion, I see Roberts and Barrett joining a concurrence about sensitive places, or only a subset of the majority joining that part of the opinion. There is a good argument to be made for Kavanaugh. Maybe they will ditch the whole sensitive places debate, Kavanaugh writes a clean opinion, even better.

The main reason I think its Barrett is that Roberts wants to have a lot of control over the opinion, and assigning it to Barrett would give him the most control. Roberts wants to write a big opinion like this, keep it tame. Having Barrett do it is almost as good.

Thomas will not write the main opinion, but he will write a concurrence that will get 2-3 other votes.

What is going to take a long time potentially is not writing the opinion, its responding to all the bs in Breyers' dissent.

Texasgrillchef · Mar 31, 2022

camo556 said:
Alito has already written an opinion for Nov. https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/ So have Roberts and Gorsuch. Gorsuch has written two for Nov.

So Alito is extremely unlikely. Having Thomas write the opinion is equivalent to winning the Powerball. No way Roberts assigns it to him.

It will be Kavanaugh or Barrett.

Kavanaugh is a distinct possibility. He's already written on 2A issues from the D.C. Court. Kavanaugh is likely to leave out all the dicta about sensitive places. Recall that during orals he did not think that they needed to reach that issue. If Kavanaugh writes the main opinion, I see Roberts and Barrett joining a concurrence about sensitive places, or only a subset of the majority joining that part of the opinion. There is a good argument to be made for Kavanaugh. Maybe they will ditch the whole sensitive places debate, Kavanaugh writes a clean opinion, even better.

The main reason I think its Barrett is that Roberts wants to have a lot of control over the opinion, and assigning it to Barrett would give him the most control. Roberts wants to write a big opinion like this, keep it tame. Having Barrett do it is almost as good.

Thomas will not write the main opinion, but he will write a concurrence that will get 2-3 other votes.

What is going to take a long time potentially is not writing the opinion, its responding to all the bs in Breyers' dissent.

Yeah but Roberts owes Thomas one though too. Thomas hasn’t had a good case that he has truly wanted to write an opinion for in a while. Not a big case anyways.

I suspect that Majority opinion has allready been written and now the dissenting opinions are being written and approved now. Maybe even possible a reply opinion to the dissenting opinion as well. That’s been done before.

No matter who writes the majority opinion, a lot of feedback and input from all the justices, have been considered prior to writing and even in the process of writing.

It’s possible that sensitive places isn’t mentioned. Could be in a separate concurring opinion that gets votes as well..

However, each day draws a day closer to the decision. I still suspect a decision before May 15th. I’d bet on that… what about You?

Bertfish · Mar 31, 2022

Question

The majority opinion is the Court's ruling

Are concurrent opinions also part of that ruling? Or is there "one ring to rule them all"

press1280 · Mar 31, 2022

camo556 said:
(someone claiming to be) Charles Nichols posted on scotusblog this morning, predicting Kavanaugh writing NY Rifle.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-march-31/

The way we would know for sure it's Nichols would be a prediction of a loss claiming no right to CCW based on Robertson v. Baldwin dicta

press1280 · Mar 31, 2022

Bertfish said:
Question

The majority opinion is the Court's ruling

Are concurrent opinions also part of that ruling? Or is there "one ring to rule them all"

It's not controlling if it doesn't have at least 5 justices signed on. It's more or less persuasive authority

camo556 · Mar 31, 2022

Texasgrillchef said:
I still suspect a decision before May 15th. I’d bet on that… what about You?

It's imminent in my opinion, by which I mean any week now. I'll take before May 15th, probably april.

press1280 said:
The way we would know for sure it's Nichols would be a prediction of a loss claiming no right to CCW based on Robertson v. Baldwin dicta

lol, true.

Kharn · Mar 31, 2022

press1280 said:
The way we would know for sure it's Nichols would be a prediction of a loss claiming no right to CCW based on Robertson v. Baldwin dicta

He is predictable.

Texasgrillchef · Mar 31, 2022

press1280 said:
It's not controlling if it doesn't have at least 5 justices signed on. It's more or less persuasive authority

That is correct. There have been multiple opinions on a case before with multiple questions, or multiple issues.

The ruling decision's, are each opinion that has received at least 5 votes.

There was a recent ruling that had two opinions released on two separate sections. One received 5 votes, the other received 6 votes. But not the same 5 +1 new one.

It is possible it could happen in this case, if they issue an opinion beyond the question that was asked.

Texasgrillchef · Mar 31, 2022

It is interesting to note the number of gun permitting cases that have been put on hold because of this case. Besides Young v Hawaii, there are at least 3 in California. (One being Nichols case), one out of New Jersey, two out of Maryland, and a couple out of NYC. There is probably at least one or more that I have forgotten about as well.

Once SCOTUS rules on this case. Give it about 30-45 days for those other cases to be decided on as well. It will be an interesting domino falling.

You will see a few more NEW cases on some of those 8 states being filed within 30-45 days after the SCOTUS opinion to get states like MA, DE, and RI’s May issue laws enjoined and overturned. You will see the 8 states legislatures rushing to imitate new bills as well.

Remember when D.C. went a couple of months with “Constitutional Carry” until D.C. could get their new laws enacted? Same thing might happen in a few of those 8 states.

One other thought… in the process of doing research on this.

I am wondering how this case will effect US Territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, US virgin islands, etc on gun laws there.

Puerto Rico isn’t as big a deal. They are falling inline already with their new act effective 2020. Heller is requiring them to allow firearms in the home. But other then Puerto Rico, several of the Territories are “NO ISSUE” when it comes to carry permits. Guam is also May Issue currently.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Guns 'n Drums

Active Member

Active Member

Guns 'n Drums

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Throw bread on me

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics