State v. Hatch (MN)- Facial challenge to permit requirement

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...1609&q="bear+arms"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6,49

    Defendant is a former marine who had a pistol in his vehicle but did not have a permit to carry. He is not a prohibited person under state or federal law. He is challenging the permit requirement in its entirety. He could appeal to the MN supremes.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824#

    It appears that a handful of States throughout the country prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “good cause” or a “justifiable need” for doing so. The majority of States, while regulating the carrying of arms to varying degrees, have not imposed such a restriction, which amounts to a “a[n] on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right.” Wrenn, 864 F. 3d, at 666.
    The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous “justifiable need” or “good cause” restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a “good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property” violates the Second Amendment. Wrenn, 864 F. 3d, at 655 (internal quotation marks omitted).7 By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with “justifiable need” or “good reason” requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard. See Gould, 907 F. 3d, at 677; Kachalsky, 701 F. 3d, at 101; Drake, 724 F. 3d, at 440; Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d, at 460.

     “One of this Court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘important matter’ on which the courts of appeals are ‘in conflict.’ ” Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1) (quoting this Court’s Rule 10(a)).
    The question whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter. We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    If this case does get to Scotus, could it be an alternate way to shall issue? (Assuming they OK a permit requirement)
     

    CrueChief

    Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
    Apr 3, 2009
    2,999
    Napolis-ish
    No way SCOTUS does away with permits without a lot of smaller steps. Maybe one day but in any of our life times. Or maybe after we split the country and the leftists have it their way on their side.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    No way SCOTUS does away with permits without a lot of smaller steps. Maybe one day but in any of our life times. Or maybe after we split the country and the leftists have it their way on their side.

    I agree. But perhaps SCOTUS rules a permit scheme is constitutional as long as it’s shall issue
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,154
    Yeah that would be an awesome outcome for sure. And then maybe we can start to determine what "shall" means and what fees and training is too much.

    Just like what to do about poll taxes and literacy tests. That only took 60 to 80 years to resolve.:sad20:
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Hatch lost at the Minnesota Supreme Court. Essentially they said the permit serves a compelling interest of the state and the permit is easy to get.

    He's now got an appeal in to SCOTUS https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-667.html

    However it looks like there may be a problem with his filing-

    Notice of Docketing of Nathan Hatch not accepted for filing. (November 29, 2021 -- Document not of type that is to be electronically filed)
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    No way SCOTUS does away with permits without a lot of smaller steps. Maybe one day but in any of our life times. Or maybe after we split the country and the leftists have it their way on their side.

    Really? What, " smaller steps "? Fundamental rights can't be licensed, and Roberts isn't the only one that, KNOWS, that. He was arrested, and has perfect standing to take the case all the way to the SCOTUS. It would have been better if he was open carrying though, but having a firearm in luggage in a vehicle without a license, is definitely a protected right. Otherwise, how would one get their newly purchased firearm into their home?..By having to get a license first? No way, no how, he'll win his case.

    NO LICENSE
    New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

    From Oral Arguments:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I'm not sure that's right. I mean, you would --regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Hatch lost at the Minnesota Supreme Court. Essentially they said the permit serves a compelling interest of the state and the permit is easy to get.

    He's now got an appeal in to SCOTUS https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-667.html

    However it looks like there may be a problem with his filing-

    Notice of Docketing of Nathan Hatch not accepted for filing. (November 29, 2021 -- Document not of type that is to be electronically filed)

    Geesh, he's got idiots for attorneys..How they fudge that up?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Really? What, " smaller steps "? Fundamental rights can't be licensed, and Roberts isn't the only one that, KNOWS, that. He was arrested, and has perfect standing to take the case all the way to the SCOTUS. It would have been better if he was open carrying though, but having a firearm in luggage in a vehicle without a license, is definitely a protected right. Otherwise, how would one get their newly purchased firearm into their home?..By having to get a license first? No way, no how, he'll win his case.

    NO LICENSE
    New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

    From Oral Arguments:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I'm not sure that's right. I mean, you would --regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.

    Let's see what SCOTUS does after the conference. This appeal is poorly done IMO. There are no cases cited other than a passing reference to Justice Scalia. Heller isn't even mentioned by name.
    I'd say this case will be booted after the first conference with no further comment.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,418
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom