NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    They signed an application to carry concealed firearms, which isn't the protected right. So in essence, they waived their right to challenge them on open carry, which is the protected right.




    You need to go study some more. Certain rights are most definitely waived when that application for, ANY license, is signed on the dotted line.



    Funny thing is, even if financed by someone else, you certainly wouldn't do that. I actually told Alan Korwin at a Phoenix gun show that I would do just that back in the mid 90's. He had just told me he was rubbing elbows with Justice Thomas at some event in DC. Yet, when I told him, I would go anywhere and open carry without a license if he could set it up with one of the big gun clubs, he went directly to, oh, well, yeah, I can't really help you with that. I was living in my truck back then, so no need for financing for my living expenses. You can't even get retired chest pounding gun rights guys, who could spend 10yrs in jail without worry of their finances, to ever do that. Had someone with kahuna's taken a machine gun case soon after the Miller case, we wouldn't be where we're at with semi-auto's. But if you finance me $3000 a month while I'm sitting in jail on an open carry charge, and finance the case all the way to the SCOTUS, I'll walk down the middle of Time Square open carrying a, home built holstered handgun.

    This case is about whether concealed carry is really part of the right. I suspect that SCOTUS will state that it is part of the right, but it is difficult to tell given the arguments that have been presented.

    I don't seem to recall where the respondents (Bruen) claim that certain rights have been waived due to the application. Can you point out where they argue that point.

    I don't know where to study something that is not true. Since you raised the issue about rights being waived based on an application for a license you should provide a basis for your claim.

    It sounds like you are blaming other people for not having "any kahuna's to open carry without a license". If what you are claiming is true, you should not have any problems.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Plaintiff's sought and signed an application for a license to carry concealed firearms, so open carry is off the table.


    Says who? And on what basis? Applying for a permit to march in the street does not eliminate your right to other speech in public. Why in the world should applying for a permit to carry in one manner foreclose the other manner in any way???

    Name one other fundamental right that you give up in order to be allowed by the government to do something in public as an ordinary citizen. Bet you can’t.

    This sounds like a ludicrous and indefensible position. So you’re going to have to use a really persuasive argument to get this claim of yours to pass muster. The only one I could think of is if the application explicitly states that you’re waiving that right. I’m quite skeptical that it does here and especially that it did in Norman.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited:

    Cal68

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 4, 2014
    1,978
    Montgomery County
    Hi All

    I know that this thread is about the NY carry law, but is there another case at SCOTUS this term about the legality of states banning standard capacity magazines as well? A friend said that such a case was on the SCOTUS docket so I thought that this Forum would be a great place to find out if he was right. Thanks for your help.

    Cal68
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Hi All

    I know that this thread is about the NY carry law, but is there another case at SCOTUS this term about the legality of states banning standard capacity magazines as well? A friend said that such a case was on the SCOTUS docket so I thought that this Forum would be a great place to find out if he was right. Thanks for your help.

    Cal68

    There is, and its on hold, presumably waiting for this case outcome.

    https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/counselor-s-corner/natl-litigation-trk

    scroll down the tracker to the two on hold: Young v Hawaii (also carry) and ANJRPC v Bruck
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Maybe y'all should go back and read the Peruta dissent:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-894
    The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.

    This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting);

    The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant history in detail);

    Replace "California" with New York.

    New York isn't even making the argument that petitioners should have challenged open carry. The scheme "as a whole" has been challenged.
     

    Cal68

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 4, 2014
    1,978
    Montgomery County

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan

    To me a very good reply brief. A couple things first. That's the to be consistent with the Principle that the Right has a transcendent origin which pre-exists and pre-dates our Constitution.
    Our Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding and part of the Organic Law of our Land and recognizes that our Rights come from the Creator God;
    and that among these Rights is the Right of self-defense and our Declaration of Independence recognizes that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and

    the Constitution of the United States is one of enumerated powers only; and WE THE PEOPLE did not grant to the federal government any power whatsoever over the Country at Large to restrict our arms; and

    the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States acknowledges: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    To Start reading from pages 3-14; Text, History, And Tradition Confirm That
    The Second Amendment Guarantees A Right To Carry Handguns Outside The Home For Self-Defense.

    The state begins by trying to reconceptualize Northampton-style laws as virtually complete bans on carrying firearms anywhere outside the unsettled frontier. But that claim is squarely refuted by text,
    history, and tradition. Indeed, across centuries of history pre- and post-dating the Second Amendment, the state cannot identify a single case in which
    Northampton or its progeny was successfully invoked to prosecute someone for the bare act of carrying a common firearm in public for self-defense.\
    Not one. That is unsurprising since the King’s Bench
    authoritatively interpreted Northampton to prohibit only going armed “to terrify the King’s subjects” just before the English Bill of Rights was adopted.
    Sir John Knight’s Case, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 76 (K.B. 1686);
    Rex v. Sir John Knight, 90 Eng. Rep. 330, 330 (K.B. 1686).

    Even if the state could cobble together some modicum of support among obscure English barristers, the relevant question is how Northampton
    and the right to keep and bear arms were understood in early America. And early American sources uniformly shared the view espoused by (among others) the King’s Bench, Hawkins, and Blackstone (all of
    whom, unlike Dalton and Keble, were familiar names in early America). James Wilson explained that wearing arms could be prohibited only if the arms
    were “dangerous and unusual.”
    2 The Works of James Wilson 399-400 (James DeWitt Andrews ed. 1896). So
    too did Tucker, and Humphreys, and virtually every other authoritative source to address the question.
    See, e.g., 5 St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 149 (William Young Birch & Abraham Small eds. 1803); Charles Humphreys, Compendium
    of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); Eugene Volokh, The First and Second Amendments, 109 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 97, 101-02 (2009) (collecting sources); Leider Amicus Br.2-4, 8-19; Professors of Second Amendment Law Amicus Br.14-16, 24-25. Early American cases discussed in Heller likewise confirm that the founding generation understood Northampton to prohibit only the carrying of a “weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm, a peaceful people.” State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 422-23 (1843);
    see also Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, 359-60 (1833);

    If the surety laws resembled the state’s description or were even routinely enforced, let alone enforced to restrict the use of firearms for self-defense, then surely they would have merited at least a mention in Heller. After all, the Heller Court did not confine its historical survey to laws addressing keeping firearms in the home. Heller discussed, at great length, a series of nineteenth-century restrictions on the public carrying of firearms and extolled the decisions vindicating the right to carry common arms for self-defense (and not just in rural backwaters). See, e.g., Bliss vs. .Commonwealth, 12 Ky.
    90, 92 (1822); Simpson, 13 Tenn. at 359-60; Reid, 1 Ala. at 619;
    Aymette, 21 Tenn. at 155; Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422-23; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850); Andrews, 50
    Tenn. at 187. While the state derides these cases as “from the Antebellum south,” Heller treated them as evidence of “a national consensus on the meaning of the Second Amendment,” Resp.Br.27. See 554 U.S. at
    585 & n.9, 629. 2

    See note of 2 bottom of page 13 1st Sentence ....
    The United States tries to distinguish these cases as “disapprov[ing] restrictions on openly carrying long guns,” not handguns. U.S. Amicus. Br.29.

    Last but NOT least.....
    II. New York’s Restrictive Carry Regime Violates The Second Amendment.

    The state mistakenly attributes to petitioners the extreme position of insisting on a right to carry anywhere and everywhere. In reality, it is not petitioners, but the state that stakes out an extreme position,
    and it does so out of necessity, for the Sullivan Law is an extreme law. It creates a baseline assumption that carrying handguns for self-defense is a crime, puts the burden on law-abiding citizens to prove that they are “‘distinguishable from ... the general community’”

    EDIT. I have not seen anything; other than on mdshooters about this ..... It is sure history no doubt.
    • Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897)
    • “keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons”
    It is antithetical to current supreme court current law and state laws.
     
    Last edited:

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Maybe y'all should go back and read the Peruta dissent:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-894






    Replace "California" with New York.

    New York isn't even making the argument that petitioners should have challenged open carry. The scheme "as a whole" has been challenged.

    Peruta was extensively discussed
    https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=194716

    One of the problems with Peruta was that they never really addressed the historical prohibitions on concealed carry. They have not done a good job in this case either. I believe the dissent in Young may have provided an answer to these historical prohibitions.

    SCOTUS has limited the question to concealed carry so NY does not really need to make that argument.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Peruta was extensively discussed
    https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=194716

    One of the problems with Peruta was that they never really addressed the historical prohibitions on concealed carry. They have not done a good job in this case either. I believe the dissent in Young may have provided an answer to these historical prohibitions.

    SCOTUS has limited the question to concealed carry so NY does not really need to make that argument.

    Thomas & Gorsuch > Clement and Gura > internet
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Peruta was extensively discussed
    https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=194716

    One of the problems with Peruta was that they never really addressed the historical prohibitions on concealed carry. They have not done a good job in this case either. I believe the dissent in Young may have provided an answer to these historical prohibitions.

    SCOTUS has limited the question to concealed carry so NY does not really need to make that argument.

    Let’s get one thing straight. CA9 (as a whole) was not interested in setting the record straight on open carry vs concealed carry. They wanted to stall the process and simply rule on CCW in a vacuum, knowing full well when an open carry case got to them, they would find a way to rule against that too, which they did.

    We have 2 justices on record slamming this approach. Just need three more, one of which quite likely is Kavanaugh through his Rogers dissent. Now you just need 2 more. Do you see it more likely for Barrett and Alito to follow Thomas’ reasoning in the Peruta dissent or go down the open carry path?
    Keep in mind at least 4 justices voted to hear this case.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Plaintiff's sought and signed an application for a license to carry concealed firearms, so open carry is off the table.

    You open carry guys just don’t want to answer the question!
    Which judges (non libs) will rule against plaintiffs in this case and pull a Peruta on us?
    Or are you saying what the court should do (in your opinion) is not what they WILL do?
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    The fact that the case was taken means there are 5+ justices on our side.

    I am not weighing an internet thread against petitioner and amicus briefs. Not once has an opinion on a forum ever favorably been cited by an appellate court.

    The first question should be "so if we rule the 2nd amendment protects open carry, NY is prepared to allow open carry of rifles in NYC" and watch them panic and pass out :lol2: "Nope we are good with concealed carry... " Edit: in fact maybe SC took this case precisely because NY would see open carry as a disaster. But in case you open carry idiots are right, i do have a rifle handy.

    Young is on hold btw, it was not consolidated. Which means the court thinks this case will resolve that one.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    This certainly seems like one of the reasons cited as to why public carry was not part of the "core" and therefore could be heavily regulated.



    It seems like they are arguing that concealed carry is not part of the right.

    I think it is a big issue because of the question presented.
    It was specifically changed to address concealed carry. I believe you need to actually answer the question presented and not talk around the question.

    They are talking in circles. This argument might work if they said the right doesn’t extend past the home. However they say that their system of concealed carry only allows people to exercise their 2A right of self defense outside the home (with proper cause of course). So this is a complete contradiction. Can’t say concealed carry isn’t protected at all but at the same time it satisfies the 2A right when we give it to people with proper cause
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Let’s get one thing straight. CA9 (as a whole) was not interested in setting the record straight on open carry vs concealed carry. They wanted to stall the process and simply rule on CCW in a vacuum, knowing full well when an open carry case got to them, they would find a way to rule against that too, which they did.

    We have 2 justices on record slamming this approach. Just need three more, one of which quite likely is Kavanaugh through his Rogers dissent. Now you just need 2 more. Do you see it more likely for Barrett and Alito to follow Thomas’ reasoning in the Peruta dissent or go down the open carry path?
    Keep in mind at least 4 justices voted to hear this case.

    I do not know how this case will be resolved. If you follow the precedent, you would be led down the open carry path. The briefs indicate that laws were to prevent misuse of the firearms, but do not direct address the reasons for the historical prohibitions on concealed carry.

    Given the makeup of the court they may to lean towards accepting some form of concealed carry. I don't believe they will follow Thomas' reasoning. The reasoning will likely be more muddled than it should be which will allow courts like the CA9 to rule against the 2A more than they should.

    The sad part is that a lot of this is self imposed. When you know that courts like the CA9 are willing to accept the other sides arguments, you cannot make mediocre arguments. Every argument you make needs to obliviate the other sides arguments. Yet even in the reply brief the NYCRPA fail to explain the reasoning behind historical prohibition on concealed carry. It is not really hard, the dissent in Young was able to do it.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The fact that the case was taken means there are 5+ justices on our side.

    I am not weighing an internet thread against petitioner and amicus briefs. Not once has an opinion on a forum ever favorably been cited by an appellate court.

    The first question should be "so if we rule the 2nd amendment protects open carry, NY is prepared to allow open carry of rifles in NYC" and watch them panic and pass out :lol2: "Nope we are good with concealed carry... " Edit: in fact maybe SC took this case precisely because NY would see open carry as a disaster. But in case you open carry idiots are right, i do have a rifle handy.

    Young is on hold btw, it was not consolidated. Which means the court thinks this case will resolve that one.

    Technically all we really know is that at least 4 justices have voted to take this case. While there may be 5+ justices that are likely to vote favorably, we won't really know until the opinion is released, which is expected in June 2022.

    I am not basing my opinion on the internet, I am basing it on the only opinions that really count, the 9 justices. There is a long list of cases that that have been rejected by the court including ones that are essentially the same as those that have been granted. This list includes Jackson, Peruta, and Rogers. The arguments for the lawyers for the petitioners and amici have been rejected multiple times.

    What I am weighing is the arguments against those that have been accepted and those that were rejected. I am also weighing how the court has decided other related issues in the past. There certainly are a lot of unknowns also. I certainly don't get everything correct, but it seems to me that I am right more much more often than I am wrong.

    The fact that they are holding Young does not mean that the court thinks this case will resolve that one. The court held 10 2A cases when it took the previous NYSRPA case (v NYC) and rejected all of them. They also do not need to accept the case to incorporate the dissent's reasoning into their opinion.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    They are talking in circles. This argument might work if they said the right doesn’t extend past the home. However they say that their system of concealed carry only allows people to exercise their 2A right of self defense outside the home (with proper cause of course). So this is a complete contradiction. Can’t say concealed carry isn’t protected at all but at the same time it satisfies the 2A right when we give it to people with proper cause

    They are not really talking in circles, they are equating carrying in general with the fact that carrying is typically done with concealable arms. They are using the historical prohibitions on concealed carry to demonstrate that carry outside the home can be heavily regulated. They are not infringing on the right because they allow it for everyone with proper cause. They are actually exceeding the right by allowing concealed carry rather than limiting it to open carry.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    They are not really talking in circles, they are equating carrying in general with the fact that carrying is typically done with concealable arms. They are using the historical prohibitions on concealed carry to demonstrate that carry outside the home can be heavily regulated. They are not infringing on the right because they allow it for everyone with proper cause. They are actually exceeding the right by allowing concealed carry rather than limiting it to open carry.

    How? They don't allow for open carry. And if they want to go with the Statute of Northampton as far as "terrorizing" subjects, how do you terrorize people with concealed arms?
    Their whole reasoning is contradictory. Ours is simple-the state may regulate the MANNER of carry but may not to so in an arbitrary or capricious manner and it must be available to law abiding citizens, not just a small subset of the public.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,367
    SoMD / West PA
    They are not really talking in circles, they are equating carrying in general with the fact that carrying is typically done with concealable arms. They are using the historical prohibitions on concealed carry to demonstrate that carry outside the home can be heavily regulated. They are not infringing on the right because they allow it for everyone with proper cause. They are actually exceeding the right by allowing concealed carry rather than limiting it to open carry.

    You are getting technical OC versus CC. The case is about "bear", to get the right recognized outside of one's doorstep.

    It is only a coincidence that the manner is concealed carry. The case on hold, Young has the open carry covered.

    If the court rules in favor of the common meaning of bear, both forms of carry will be recognized as part of the right. Concealed may be more heavily regulated than open, but allowed none the less. That is a conversation after a SCOTUS win.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,940
    Messages
    7,259,701
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom