NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

Texasgrillchef · Apr 16, 2022

Mark75H said:
As has been stated many times in this thread: it all comes down to the exact verbage of the decision

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
And that depends on who writes the decision.

I won’t disagree with either of you on those two points. You are absolutely correct on that matter.

Yet… i Would like to point out a few things.

1. Several of the Justices have recognized the issues and problems with the Heller Opinion and how it was written and how all the Anti-2A people have warped what the opinion has said. Because of that, if this opinion is written by any of those Justices. I would like to believe they are and will take great care to make sure they are clear on their meaning.

2. Then we look at who might write the opinion. Doubtful Roberts will write this one. Barrett is still to new to write an opinion of this magnitude this early in her career. Leaving one of the other 4. Two were around when the Heller opinion was written. Thomas and Alito. either of them want the mistakes of the Heller opinion to happen again. The other two Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both of them have issued dissents in previous cases and neither are happy how the Heller opinion has been misconstrued.

however even with that being said… we are human and mistakes can be made.

As I have said in previous posts though. I still believe three things will be said. I do believe they will clarify clearly that one has the right to carry a loaded firearm In Non-sensitive places in public outsides one’s own home or business with the only reason needed is for self defense. I believe they will say one has this right to do openly, and/or concealed.

They were pretty clear about one having the right to keep and posses a firearm in the home. While some states may make it difficult to do so. It is still now legal to do so and possible in every state.

Just keep in mind though. It will still take up to a year or longer for May Issue states to figure out how they will do their shall issue permitting laws.

Fedora · Apr 16, 2022

Easy Button: Make open carry the default right, but find that states can offer a concealed carry option.

Bertfish · Apr 16, 2022

Texasgrillchef said:
I won’t disagree with either of you on those two points. You are absolutely correct on that matter.

Yet… i Would like to point out a few things.

1. Several of the Justices have recognized the issues and problems with the Heller Opinion and how it was written and how all the Anti-2A people have warped what the opinion has said. Because of that, if this opinion is written by any of those Justices. I would like to believe they are and will take great care to make sure they are clear on their meaning.

2. Then we look at who might write the opinion. Doubtful Roberts will write this one. Barrett is still to new to write an opinion of this magnitude this early in her career. Leaving one of the other 4. Two were around when the Heller opinion was written. Thomas and Alito. either of them want the mistakes of the Heller opinion to happen again. The other two Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both of them have issued dissents in previous cases and neither are happy how the Heller opinion has been misconstrued.

however even with that being said… we are human and mistakes can be made.

As I have said in previous posts though. I still believe three things will be said. I do believe they will clarify clearly that one has the right to carry a loaded firearm In Non-sensitive places in public outsides one’s own home or business with the only reason needed is for self defense. I believe they will say one has this right to do openly, and/or concealed.

They were pretty clear about one having the right to keep and posses a firearm in the home. While some states may make it difficult to do so. It is still now legal to do so and possible in every state.

Just keep in mind though. It will still take up to a year or longer for May Issue states to figure out how they will do their shall issue permitting laws.

Far as I'm concerned they should be sued immediately for overturn. No quarter. No time to sort it out.

They've screwed us for decades. Now they'll scream that they need time to figure it out. F them.

teratos · Apr 16, 2022

Bertfish said:
Far as I'm concerned they should be sued immediately for overturn. No quarter. No time to sort it out.

They've screwed us for decades. Now they'll scream that they need time to figure it out. F them.

Like DC, folks may just…carry. That, until the State puts some scheme in place. You cannot suspend a right cause Frosh has too much snot in his pornstache from sobbing. God, I’d love to have his sobs as a ringtone.

Bertfish · Apr 16, 2022

teratos said:
Like DC, folks may just…carry. That, until the State puts some scheme in place. You cannot suspend a right cause Frosh has too much snot in his pornstache from sobbing. God, I’d love to have his sobs as a ringtone.

Some people may be willing to be test cases. This is a hell of a risk given how Maryland chooses to prosecute the law-abiding who may carry without a permit. Walk in the city as a criminal no issue but you or I will definitely get strung up.

Carry in any form here requires a permit. Now if SCOTUS said permitting schemes as a whole were unconstitutional that's another story. Questions were asked about permitting this particular right at the hearing. But I doubt we will see such a statement.

teratos · Apr 16, 2022

Bertfish said:
Some people may be willing to be test cases. This is a hell of a risk given how Maryland chooses to prosecute the law-abiding who may carry without a permit. Walk in the city as a criminal no issue but you or I will definitely get strung up.

Carry in any form here requires a permit. Now if SCOTUS said permitting schemes as a whole were unconstitutional that's another story. Questions were asked about permitting this particular right at the hearing. But I doubt we will see such a statement.

It did in DC as well, IIRC. Multiple members posted pics of themselves open carrying in DC, before they made “shall issue” regulations. It did help that after Wrenn, the police were instructed to leave folks carrying alone.

Mark75H · Apr 16, 2022

I think my comment is as correct as it can be. Adding more verbage doesn't do anything to the meaning or understanding.

press1280 · Apr 17, 2022

Texasgrillchef said:
I won’t disagree with either of you on those two points. You are absolutely correct on that matter.

Yet… i Would like to point out a few things.

1. Several of the Justices have recognized the issues and problems with the Heller Opinion and how it was written and how all the Anti-2A people have warped what the opinion has said. Because of that, if this opinion is written by any of those Justices. I would like to believe they are and will take great care to make sure they are clear on their meaning.

2. Then we look at who might write the opinion. Doubtful Roberts will write this one. Barrett is still to new to write an opinion of this magnitude this early in her career. Leaving one of the other 4. Two were around when the Heller opinion was written. Thomas and Alito. either of them want the mistakes of the Heller opinion to happen again. The other two Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both of them have issued dissents in previous cases and neither are happy how the Heller opinion has been misconstrued.

however even with that being said… we are human and mistakes can be made.

As I have said in previous posts though. I still believe three things will be said. I do believe they will clarify clearly that one has the right to carry a loaded firearm In Non-sensitive places in public outsides one’s own home or business with the only reason needed is for self defense. I believe they will say one has this right to do openly, and/or concealed.

They were pretty clear about one having the right to keep and posses a firearm in the home. While some states may make it difficult to do so. It is still now legal to do so and possible in every state.

Just keep in mind though. It will still take up to a year or longer for May Issue states to figure out how they will do their shall issue permitting laws.

Unless the courts allow them to do so, this should go relatively quickly IMO. It's not like these states don't have a system in place; all they need to do is stop enforcing the "need" portion (and perhaps the interview which would no longer serve any purpose). The only exception is Hawaii/California since the 9th previously rejected a similar CCW challenge in Peruta and the current Young case is open carry. This may go on a bit longer but Hawaii will have to capitulate on SOME form of carry. You'd have to believe based on IL & DC that both will be shall issue CCW at the end of the day.

clandestine · Apr 17, 2022

I wish the Justices would acknowledge the burden that carry permits place on applicants, but they won't.

One carry permit depending on the state/jurisdiction can be extremely costly.

These are fees that some applicants have to deal with:
*Notary Fees
*Money Order or Prepaid Credit Card for Payment/s because they don't take Cash or Personal Checks
*Postage
*Copy Fees/Toner & Paper
*Newspaper Advertising Fees (DE)
*Fingerprint/Live Scan Fees (Some have to be done by L.E.)
*Passport Photo/s
*Application Fee
*Separate Background Check Fee (CT)
*Training Cost
*Travel Cost for Class
*Ammunition Cost (Live Fire/Qualification)
*Gun Registration Fees/Prints (D.C.)
*Travel Cost for Interview/In Person Only Application Submission (D.C., RI)
*Time off Work

Texasgrillchef · Apr 17, 2022

press1280 said:
Unless the courts allow them to do so, this should go relatively quickly IMO. It's not like these states don't have a system in place; all they need to do is stop enforcing the "need" portion (and perhaps the interview which would no longer serve any purpose). The only exception is Hawaii/California since the 9th previously rejected a similar CCW challenge in Peruta and the current Young case is open carry. This may go on a bit longer but Hawaii will have to capitulate on SOME form of carry. You'd have to believe based on IL & DC that both will be shall issue CCW at the end of the day.

Hawaii already has a bill pending the outcome of young v Hawaii and NYSPRA.

However, the permit will expire after 6 months and needs to take a firearms course (8hr) to renew. So that means every 6 months you have to Pay $10 and retake the firearms course. It can are 3 months for them to approve. So you to Start renewal process three months after your issued the license in the first place.

DC-W · Apr 17, 2022

clandestine said:
I wish the Justices would acknowledge the burden that carry permits place on applicants, but they won't.

One carry permit depending on the state/jurisdiction can be extremely costly.

These are fees that some applicants have to deal with:
*Notary Fees
*Money Order or Prepaid Credit Card or Payment/s
*Postage
*Copy Fees/Toner & Paper
*Newspaper Advertising Fees
*Fingerprint/Live Scan Fees
*Passport Photo/s
*Application Fee
*Training Cost
*Travel Cost for Class
*Ammunition Cost (Live Fire/Qualification)
*Gun Registration Fees/Prints
*Travel Cost for Interview/In Person Only Application Submission
*Time off Work

Depending on how the Court rules, a lot of that will probably be the subject of many challenges across the country in time. Precedent in other cases has allowed fees and restrictions on the exercise of rights (and no, the inevitable citation from Murdock v. Pennsylvania doesn't do what many think it does). Heller II and III are also instructive of some of what could happen going forward; some hurdles are too far and others are fine.

I try to tell folks that precedent in realms beyond gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment all matter. The more authority given to governments over all sorts of other social issues and police powers can be and is inevitably wielded against guns and gun owners to justify all sorts of garbage.

Texasgrillchef · Apr 20, 2022

I would like to remind everyone, that once SCOTUS issues their decision and opinion. It will still take time for the May-Issue states to fall in line. It will even take New York and NYC to fall in line as well.

Remember the process is they issue their decision and opinion and then send it back down to the lower court to actually issue the appropriate orders. Then it will take time for the state to actually start issuing the permits. Many of those applications from people who applied to early will get denied, and end up in the appeals process. Which will get overturned. But that’s time.

In other words, the states won’t just start automatically start Issuing permits as though they are shall issue. It will take several months if not longer. Many applications will be delayed. Many will be wrongfully denied, many will still need to appeal.

Eventually it will come to pass. Just don’t expect it this year unless the state legislatures decide to work fast!

camo556 · Apr 20, 2022

True, but I read what happened in Woollard. Likely the same thing will happen in MD. People who apply with "self defense" as their G&S should get approved or at least held. I think that they were held pending appeal in Woollard. They have to make a decision in 90 days. If they don't accept apps, or they deny apps with Self Defense, they will be donating a lot of money to MSI because there is no other appeal. The legislative season is over (in MD). What they do about interviews and references will be interesting, especially if there is a deluge of apps.

Texasgrillchef · Apr 20, 2022

camo556 said:
True, but I read what happened in Woollard. Likely the same thing will happen in MD. People who apply with "self defense" as their G&S should get approved or at least held. I think that they were held pending appeal in Woollard. They have to make a decision in 90 days. If they don't accept apps, or they deny apps with Self Defense, they will be donating a lot of money to MSI because there is no other appeal. The legislative season is over (in MD). What they do about interviews and references will be interesting, especially if there is a deluge of apps.

Heres the thing, you apply online. It comes to the question of giving a reason for G&S. It does NOT have an option for “Self Defense”, nor does it have an option for “Other”. The other options would be not be correct and void your application because those other options are not valid.

So until they update that part of the application online, how will you enter “Self Defense” as your reason?

River02 · Apr 20, 2022

Texasgrillchef said:
Heres the thing, you apply online. It comes to the question of giving a reason for G&S. It does NOT have an option for “Self Defense”, nor does it have an option for “Other”. The other options would be not be correct and void your application because those other options are not valid.

So until they update that part of the application online, how will you enter “Self Defense” as your reason?

Why will one need a reason...

Mark75H · Apr 20, 2022

River02 said:
Why will one need a reason...

Because that is one of the functions of the current MSPLD website. He is correct, its possible that it would take a lawsuit to get the website changed.

Atlasarmory · Apr 20, 2022

What does the state risk by dragging its feet ?

Occam · Apr 20, 2022

Atlasarmory said:
What does the state risk by dragging its feet ?

The state? Nothing. The politicians who run the state? By doing that virtue signaling, they maintain their friendly relationship with Bloomberg and his cash.

slsc98 · Apr 20, 2022

teratos said:
…God, I’d love to have his sobs as a ringtone.

Dr. Hannibal Lecter APPROVES!

camo556 · Apr 20, 2022

Atlasarmory said:
What does the state risk by dragging its feet ?

Damages in a lawsuit.

The idea that they will drag is overwrought. No official wants to be personally liable for denying rights once the court case gets handed down.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Active Member

Throw bread on me

My hair is amazing

Throw bread on me

My hair is amazing

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

AR-15 Savant

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

One Ping Only...

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics