NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

777GSOTB said:
I see it as, the Plaintiff's asked a question not on the table, as carrying concealed firearms outside the home in public, which is what they sought to do, CAN be prohibited.

It does not really matter, SCOTUS has accepted and limited the question to concealed carry. You sound like the Caetano Court that SCOTUS smacked down in a per curium opinion. No argument needed to determine how wrong that logic is.

MigraineMan · Apr 26, 2021

press1280 said:
Licensing per se isn’t on the table, merely can it be conditioned upon some kind of need standard which by definition doesn’t include the public at large.

Trying to get my head wrapped around the differences. Gonna put them side-by-side for comparison -
Original:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Narrowed:
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The original seems to challenge the licensing construct. The narrowed question applies focus on the reason for the denial, and not the licensing structure.

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

jcutonilli said:
It does not really matter, SCOTUS has accepted and limited the question to concealed carry. You sound like the Caetano Court that SCOTUS smacked down in a per curium opinion. No argument needed to determine how wrong that logic is.

The Caetano court logic you say??? Not even a close analogy, as the SCOTUS in Heller, clearly indicated that states can prohibit concealed carry. Thus, the application for a concealed carry license, does NOT violate the 2nd Amendment. That's just sound reasoning based upon what the court already said about states prohibiting concealed carry.

Kharn · Apr 26, 2021

777GSOTB said:
I see it as, the Plaintiff's asked a question not on the table, as carrying concealed firearms outside the home in public, which is what they sought to do, CAN be prohibited.

NY doesn't allow widespread open carry, they've chosen concealed as how they want guns in public. Now they're arguing over who can exercise that civil right.

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

Kharn said:
NY doesn't allow widespread open carry, they've chosen concealed as how they want guns in public. Now they're arguing over who can exercise that civil right.

No, they're going to decide if the, application to carry concealed firearms, violates the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't and you should read the Heller case and pay close attention to what they said about states prohibiting concealed firearms.

SWO Daddy · Apr 26, 2021

777GSOTB said:
Interestingly, the court is going to answer their own question, as that wasn't the question asked by the Plaintiff's. Also, no state has to accept a license/permit from another state. My prediction is that the court will reiterate what was said in Heller about states prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. That being, that it is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, by the time the court gets an open carry case to settle the issue of carrying outside the home, the court will be packed with liberals. The possibility of a packed liberal court may be why they're going to answer their own question, but I doubt it will help in the long run once the court is packed.

Why would 4 conservative justices vote to take the case in order to agree with NY?

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

777GSOTB said:
The Caetano court logic you say??? Not even a close analogy, as the SCOTUS in Heller, clearly indicated that states can prohibit concealed carry. Thus, the application for a concealed carry license, does NOT violate the 2nd Amendment. That's just sound reasoning based upon what the court already said about states prohibiting concealed carry.

They said no such thing.

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.

All they really do is acknowledge that "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". When you actually review those cases, like I did and the Young dissent did, you will find what the courts were trying to do was prohibit arms that had no legitimate use in society. That may have been true in the past, but it is not currently the case. You are really arguing from a historical perspective, just like Caetano hence the reference.

MigraineMan · Apr 26, 2021

777GSOTB said:
No, they're going to decide if the, application to carry concealed firearms, violates the 2nd Amendment.

It's not the application for a permit that's at issue, it's the denial ... presumably because it's subjective.

NYSRPA: New York prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS: Hey, New York, what constitutes "proper cause?"

NY: It's whatever we decide it is.

(Brian Frosh: <watching webcast> YEAH!)

frogman68 · Apr 26, 2021

Washington Post has fired the warning shot across the bow

stating Roberts and Kavanaugh (not sure why Goursch and Barrett were excluded) better be careful with taking on gun cases as court stacking (the said Court Reform) is the option if they do

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

SWO Daddy said:
Why would 4 conservative justices vote to take the case in order to agree with NY?

Probably because of the possibility of the court getting packed with liberals and they feel the need to answer a riddle, that is really not a riddle, for the gun community that can't seem to wrap it around their heads, that carrying concealed firearms can be prohibited by the state. Just as they clearly indicated in the Heller decision. Now it's a possibility that the court could determine that a state can require a license application for the concealed carry of firearms but that they can't do that for open carry. There is really nothing stopping them from working in open carry in that way and it would settle the issue before the court packing happens.

bitterkenny · Apr 26, 2021

frogman68 said:
Washington Post has fired the warning shot across the bow

stating Roberts and Kavanaugh (not sure why Goursch and Barrett were excluded) better be careful with taking on gun cases as court stacking (the said Court Reform) is the option if they do

Why did I read the WaPo article and the dumb smug comments...I should know better by now.

Biggfoot44 · Apr 26, 2021

Back @ Post # 282 , and the shorthand summations thereof :

The Original was asking about " Prohibiting * the carry of Arms . That is NOT the same thing as challenging the existence of a Licencing Scheme , but rather a Licencing Scheme that was a De Facto Prohibition of carrying by ordinary Citizens .

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

jcutonilli said:
They said no such thing.

All they really do is acknowledge that "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". When you actually review those cases, like I did and the Young dissent did, you will find what the courts were trying to do was prohibit arms that had no legitimate use in society. That may have been true in the past, but it is not currently the case. You are really arguing from a historical perspective, just like Caetano hence the reference.

You should really look up the LEGAL definition of what a license is. A common law, Constitutional right, no way, no how, falls within that definition. Arms with no legitimate use fall within the " dangerous and unusual ' category of firearms. Pistols were the most legitimate, commonly used firearms to be carried concealed. Sorry, but you've stepped way outside the box on that one. But, hey, we will all see who is correct at some point, won't we. Though I'm not sure how anyone could be so gleeful about having to get a license to exercise a fundamental right...Which the SCOTUS already said can't be done.

jcutonilli · Apr 26, 2021

777GSOTB said:
You should really look up the LEGAL definition of what a license is. A common law, Constitutional right, no way, no how, falls within that definition. Arms with no legitimate use fall within the " dangerous and unusual ' category of firearms. Pistols were the most legitimate, commonly used firearms to be carried concealed. Sorry, but you've stepped way outside the box on that one. But, hey, we will all see who is correct at some point, won't we. Though I'm not sure how anyone could be so gleeful about having to get a license to exercise a fundamental right...Which the SCOTUS already said can't be done.

I don't believe anyone is "gleeful about having to get a license to exercise a fundamental right". I don't believe that the plaintiffs will challenge the requirement to get a license and SCOTUS will not address the issue, just like what happen in Heller.

I believe the entire Young Court (both the majority and dissenting opinions) would disagree with you about whether pistols were commonly carried concealed. If concealed carry is prohibited, as you claim, how can carrying a pistol concealed be common? We will see who is correct.

erwos · Apr 26, 2021

The bigger the scope of the question, the less likely things are to go our way. If the attorneys involved can pull out a win for our side on this, it is HUGE news for gun owners in some big states. Bitching that they should have settled for nothing less than national constitutional carry is either woefully naive or actively dumb.

Uncle Duke · Apr 26, 2021

erwos said:
The bigger the scope of the question, the less likely things are to go our way. If the attorneys involved can pull out a win for our side on this, it is HUGE news for gun owners in some big states. Bitching that they should have settled for nothing less than national constitutional carry is either woefully naive or actively dumb.

How big is the question of whether or not a state can license a right? Seems pretty narrow a question to me. Has a yes or no answer. Ain't no thinkin thing, as the song goes. And if the answer is no, as I for one believe it should be, then all of the other of today's ******** that follows becomes moot.

Freedom of speech? Of the press? Of religion? Against self incrimination? Any
licenses with these?

Do constitutional carry states have it wrong presently? Does a future SCOTUS decision with a starting point that is seemingly accepting of licensing, open the door in today's free states to Pandora's Licensing box tomorrow?

DUMB? I don't think there's anything DUMB about what is being questioned.

Inigoes · Apr 26, 2021

You guys are losing the focus.

The court is going to decide wether the 2A extends beyond ones own doorstep. The manner of carry is not the primary argument.

tjaw · Apr 26, 2021

Some have stated concern that SCOTUS taking this 2A case could push the Progs to pack the court. No. Stop with being fear-driven already. There should be no more decisions on taking cases based on whether there might be riots, there might be court packing. Get a spine, SCROTUS.

erwos · Apr 26, 2021

Uncle Duke said:
How big is the question of whether or not a state can license a right? Seems pretty narrow a question to me. Has a yes or no answer. Ain't no thinkin thing, as the song goes. And if the answer is no, as I for one believe it should be, then all of the other of today's ******** that follows becomes moot.

Freedom of speech? Of the press? Of religion? Against self incrimination? Any
licenses with these?

Do constitutional carry states have it wrong presently? Does a future SCOTUS decision with a starting point that is seemingly accepting of licensing, open the door in today's free states to Pandora's Licensing box tomorrow?

DUMB? I don't think there's anything DUMB about what is being questioned.

I think you're naive about how SCOTUS decides issues. This maximalist all or nothing stuff is not going to work there. If you disagree, well, keep masturbating about that national constitutional carry that no SCOTUS ever would sign off on.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

777GSOTB · Apr 26, 2021

jcutonilli said:
I don't believe anyone is "gleeful about having to get a license to exercise a fundamental right". I don't believe that the plaintiffs will challenge the requirement to get a license and SCOTUS will not address the issue, just like what happen in Heller.

That's funny, everyone seems pretty happy that the SCOTUS is taking this case. The only way it's good for every American's 2nd Amendment rights, is if they give New York the win and say there is no right to conceal carry firearms.

They're not challenging the requirement for a license because, THEY WANT A LICENSE. They didn't address the licensing in Heller, because Petitioner said that he was, OK WITH THE LICENSING, at oral arguments.

jcutonilli said:
I believe the entire Young Court (both the majority and dissenting opinions) would disagree with you about whether pistols were commonly carried concealed. If concealed carry is prohibited, as you claim, how can carrying a pistol concealed be common? We will see who is correct.

That's why the states prohibited them, they were commonly carried concealed. You got it backwards.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

товарищ плачевная

Active Member

Meh

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics