NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

Kharn said:

Rights can expand, they don't contract.

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

I would say your thought process is lacking, compared to 4 US Supreme Court justices that concurred on the Heller ruling, of which 3 are still sitting on the court. The 3 libs with Roberts and Alito, equals, NYSRPA losing..Though, it should be an 8-0 loss if not for legislating from the bench. And here it is again...The 19th-century is the time period, not New York's tradition of licensing in the 20th-century.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

From Oral Arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and -and I will stop after this - Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.

Click to expand...

camo556 said:

well.. Rights do contract. People definitely have less privacy now than 100 years ago.

But.. the idea that banning concealed carry was ok misreads history. People should read Halbrook before commenting.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/05/01/the-right-to-bear-arms-by-stephen-halbrook-book-review/

Prohibitions on concealed carry came from the south and were also generally limited to the south. They were also initially struck down. Restrictions on CC were controversial. And a lot of states didn't ban it - ironically, in the North.

People making these silly arguments about CC and NY winning haven't read Halbrook (who is 3-0 and authored an amicus brief), haven't read Kopel's brief, and most importantly didn't listen to orals. The majority debated how far to go in the opinion, how badly NY would lose, not whether NY was losing. NY was especially ineffective here because they did not seem to have a fallback and not understand their audience. I dont know what they were smoking that day.

Click to expand...

Texasgrillchef said:

They basically allready voted on the outcome of the case. All that is left now is writing the opinion. Once that is written they either concur in part and dissent in part.

They have to vote first to see who needs to write the majority opinion. Then additional opinions are written in dissent, or combination there of.

I suspect that the majority opinion has allready be written at this point. And the dissents are being written currently.

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

Alito ruling against NYSRPA?

Alito wrote the dissent against NYSRPA v NYC being found moot and said that NYC's law was unconstitutional in paragraph IV(A).

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

Not sure why you want to believe RKBA commentators, over sitting US Supreme Court justices that signed onto to the Heller understanding of the right, but more power to ya.

Are you calling this guy silly?
https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

Click to expand...

camo556 said:

lmao. Please bet all your money on that, for everyone sake. That way you will be too poor to have internet and can finally stop posting this silliness.

The quote, taken out of context, does not mean what you or Nichols think it means.

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

Imao too...Talk about silliness. Especially so, when the author of Heller clearly states that prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms are lawful under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues.

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

Imao too...Talk about silliness. Especially so, when the author of Heller clearly states that prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms are lawful under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues.

Click to expand...

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. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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.[Footnote 26]

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

Post up what he found to be unconstitutional. Also, who sought a concealed carry license in that case?

Click to expand...

For a similar reason, 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5–23 also violated
the Second Amendment. We deal here with the same core
Second Amendment right, the right to keep a handgun in
the home for self-defense. As the Second Circuit “as-
sume[d],” a necessary concomitant of this right is the right
to take a gun outside the home for certain purposes. 883
F. 3d, at 58–59. One of these is to take a gun for mainte-
nance or repair, which City law allows. See §5–22(a)(16).
Another is to take a gun outside the home in order to trans-
fer ownership lawfully, which the City also allows. §5–26(j).
And still another is to take a gun to a range in order to gain
and maintain the skill necessary to use it responsibly. As
we said in Heller, “‘to bear arms implies something more
than the mere keeping [of arms]; it implies the learning to
handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep
them ready for their efficient use.’” 554 U. S., at 617–618
(quoting T. Cooley, Constitutional Law 271 (1880)); see also
Luis v. United States, 578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (THOMAS, J.,
concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 3) (“The right to keep
and bear arms . . . ‘implies a corresponding right . . . to ac-
quire and maintain proficiency in their use’”); Ezell v. Chi-
cago, 651 F. 3d 684, 704 (CA7 2011) (“[T]he core right
wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that
make it effective”).

Click to expand...

camo556 said:

A quote taken out of context so Nichols can raise money from idiots like you.

My advice is to take your cues from people who have won at the Supreme Court, like Halbrook, Kopel, and Clement.

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

The plaintiffs wanted NYC's premises license scheme declared unconstitutional because it would not let owners take their guns out of the city, to second homes, e.t.c. NYC stopped issuing hunting/ target shooting permits (restricted CCWs) resulting in the situation.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

That is not what was said..

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

He certainly stated that "19th-century courts" considered prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons to be lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Nowhere does he state that concealed carry is currently not part of the right.

If you actually read and understand the reasoning behind the "19th-century courts" you will find it was prohibited because it was only associated with criminality. Today, the government routinely allows concealed carry for itself and it is not only associated with criminality.

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

That's exactly what he said.




Exactly right, as today, New York decided that it wouldn't give concealed carry licenses to those wanting it for self-defense. And because concealed carry can be prohibited all together, as a majority of 19th-century courts have stated, NYSRPA will lose their case. You should read and understand what Justice Alito said at NYSRPA v Bruen orals...Here, I'll post it up yet again. Notice how the right is determined, not by what is currently happening today, but how it was understood at the time of its inception. US Supreme Court Justice Alito, explains it quite nicely.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

From Oral Arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and -and I will stop after this - Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.

Click to expand...

Batt816 said:

777- troll much? I don’t understand people like you, but I guess you have the right to keep throwing out bait, I just can’t figure out why its worth your time.

I was enjoying the positive aspects of this thread, but you don’t like positivity, again I’m not sure what you gain.

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

That's exactly what he said.




Exactly right, as today, New York decided that it wouldn't give concealed carry licenses to those wanting it for self-defense. And because concealed carry can be prohibited all together, as a majority of 19th-century courts have stated, NYSRPA will lose their case. You should read and understand what Justice Alito said at NYSRPA v Bruen orals...Here, I'll post it up yet again. Notice how the right is determined, not by what is currently happening today, but how it was understood at the time of its inception. US Supreme Court Justice Alito, explains it quite nicely.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

From Oral Arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and -and I will stop after this - Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

What you fail to understand is that what a particular justice speaks is not authoritative. You need four other justices to concur in order for their written words to be authoritative.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

Scalia was simply summarizing what was said in Heller. You are misunderstanding the issue because you are not understanding what the actual text in Heller says. use in society to itself.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

If we are to accept your argument, then NY cannot allow anyone including itself because it is simply not socially acceptable to carry concealed arms.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

It undermines your argument when you say that NY can choose which arms are socially acceptable. NY simply cannot limit those it chooses to use in society to itself. That is the one thing everyone agrees.

Click to expand...