NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

camo556 · Nov 3, 2021

Interesting point from the video: If Roberts peels off, Thomas writes the opinion. Roberts might not want to allow that so he might join and have Barrett write the opinion.

Roberts and Barrett were the most concerned about sensitive places.

Decoy · Nov 3, 2021

camo556 said:
Interesting point from the video: If Roberts peels off, Thomas writes the opinion. Roberts might not want to allow that so he might join and have Barrett write the opinion.

Roberts and Barrett were the most concerned about sensitive places.

or it will be 6-3 and Roberts will just write the (Very Narrow) opinion himself.

teratos · Nov 3, 2021

fidelity said:
Yep, I was thinking that I should probably get that Sig P365XL sooner. There'll be a run on carry guns if there's a favorable ruling

You can also get a regular P365 and use the trigger module in a P365XL.

hodgepodge · Nov 3, 2021

I recognize the signs, and the Patriots, in a photo from this Foxnews story.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...-permit-new-york-lawrictive-ny-gun-permit-law

clandestine · Nov 3, 2021

After listening to everything, I am worried about Barrett and Roberts.

Before I was concerned about Kavanaugh and Roberts. I'm not worried much about Kavanaugh now.

It appeared to me that Barrett is in line with Roberts and that concerns me. I'm thinking it will be a 6-3 very narrow and worthless ruling if Barrett or Roberts writes the majority.

I would rather have a 5-4 win and have Thomas write the majority.

We won't know for a while.

bibitor · Nov 3, 2021

fidelity said:
Yep, I was thinking that I should probably get that Sig P365XL sooner. There'll be a run on carry guns if there's a favorable ruling

I see there's one in the classified with the XL module available as well.

krucam · Nov 3, 2021

Argument Transcript is up
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/20-843_i4dk.pdf

rambling_one · Nov 3, 2021

AKbythebay said:
This woman is unprepared and in WAY over her head. She should be embarrassed at her performance here.

Who is "this woman?"

BartExp · Nov 3, 2021

rambling_one said:
Who is "this woman?"

New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

hdatontodo · Nov 3, 2021

rambling_one said:
Who is "this woman?"

I believe they mean New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

AKbythebay · Nov 3, 2021

rambling_one said:
Who is "this woman?"

Barbara Dale Underwood

NY Solicitor General

Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

xKtF · Nov 3, 2021

River02 · Nov 3, 2021

camo556 said:

Nice post--thanks!

lazarus · Nov 3, 2021

PO2012 said:
I agree that we're going to win.

I do believe, however, that the opinion will be stronger if Roberts votes against us and Thomas writes the majority holding.

So-called good cause permitting schemes are on their last legs. This decision will finally force MD to start issuing unrestricted W&C permits to ordinary citizens. The only question in my mind is what hoops will be added by the legislature. I expect a steep increase in the cost of the permit and an increase in the amount of training required. I also expect nearly every location to be declared a sensitive location to include banks, public transportation and all entertainment venues.

If I am going to be pessimistic about it, you are correct. Realistically? I’d bet they’ll add some places. I can’t imagine them not. But I doubt it’ll be all the things. Not at a state level. I can see them doing bars, maybe public transportation, maybe entertainment venues. I DO see cities and counties trying to ban them in parks, near church’s, etc. like Baltimore city does now.

At a guess, that’ll end up getting litigated too and if it ends up before SCOTUS again in 3-5 years I’d bet they’ll come in with what the standard for “sensitive or special area” actually means.

MD will need to change permitting somehow. Whether it is through the legislature or the executive that updates things. Any bets on a case making it to SCOTUS in this decade the examines what is reasonable or not for permitting schemes once SCOTUS mandates shall issue as it sounds like they will?

I am really, really hoping a shall issue decision is also very clear on what that looks like and what is permitted for requirements. Is a permit allowed at all? If so what is considered reasonable for a state to mandate for approval? What does restricted carry in certain places mean or look like?

Because if the opinion is not pretty air tight, we know states like HI, NY, MD and NJ are just going to F around and find out what they can get away with.

Okay, everyone has to be allowed a permit? Well 4 weeks of training, $5,000 and you can’t carry it on or within 2000ft of these 20 business types, parks, schools, state land, public venues or public transportation.

I am personally hoping the opinion and changes to shall issue also result in MD changing the damned law by legislative action or executive nullification based on the SCOTUS order to allow carry on state lands. Kind of ridiculous you can’t carry a firearm on state lands unless you are hunting. Not even with a W&C permit as far as I am aware.

BartExp · Nov 3, 2021

lazarus said:
I can see them doing bars, maybe public transportation,

I think public transportation is a tough one. Given one of the justices gave the example of a late night worker taking public transportation home late at night. This is exactly the person that needs self protection.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

GolfR · Nov 3, 2021

Assuming a positive ruling, it will be interesting to see how this would affect out of state allowance to carry. If it's determined that carry for self defense is constitutionally protected, how could that be limited simply for being in a different state than where you live?

ed bernay · Nov 3, 2021

Hopefully sensitive places where citizens can't carry will use the same standard that off duty and retired police are subject to. If SCOTUS uses this as part of their guidance, it will be hard for the antis to start infringing on carry but carving out exceptions for off duty and retired LEOs. And this comment is not meant to start or encourage an anti police string of posts. Just hoping that SCOTUS head off what the antis are already plotting.

fidelity · Nov 3, 2021

bibitor said:
I see there's one in the classified with the XL module available as well.

Very nice price by that seller

DoesItGoBang · Nov 3, 2021

NYS has a nice short list of sensitive places: Court House, School House and some govt building. They should not be able to add to the list as it was not part of the question presented. AKA please lock in the short list in the decision. Future case could make it mandatory that security and lock boxes be provided for the few "Sensitive Places" that exist.
Doesitgobang

Kharn · Nov 3, 2021

BartExp said:
I think public transportation is a tough one. Given one of the justices gave the example of a late night worker taking public transportation home late at night. This is exactly the person that needs self protection.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And the reasonable person's next thought could be Central Park as the only greenery that person might see in their daily life.

I liked the mention of mental detectors and guards, transfer it back onto the government or property owner to mitigate the risk before carry can be denied.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Senior Member (Gold)

AR-15 Savant

Kulak

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

One Ping Only...

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

piled higher and deeper

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics