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 have already said the oral arguments would be live. There is a link to the live audio on the supremecourt.gov main page in the quick links section. They also seem to be archiving the recordings the same day so you can hear it relatively soon afterward if you miss the live recording.

    This is a link for the audio, from John Josselyn's email:


    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx



    .

    All i want to say is Thank You! There is at least one person in this thread that understands how to use the Gorram Multi-Quote function!

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

    Knowing that the link is on the main supremecourt.gov website seems a whole lot easier to remember than figuring out which post is going to have the link at the time of the oral arguments tomorrow. It is already not the last post of the thread.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Please submit a sample for toxicology testing.

    A win for the state...How is needing to pay a fee for a license, which then requires adhering to a contractual agreement with the state, a win for gun rights? I think maybe you need toxicology test.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Simple - pointing out how this decision could go wrong and be decided against the 2A.

    The best outcome for gun rights, is for the state to win. This case will be decided on the specific question of a denied application, for a LICENSE, to carry CONCEALED FIREARMS for self defense.

    But if you think otherwise, please explain how needing to pay a fee for a license (contract), which binds one to all future regulations passed by the legislature, ie, carry insurance, safe requirements, mental stability testing and so on, just to name a few, is somehow a win for gun rights.


    GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE STATE'S DENIAL OF PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR CONCEALED-CARRY LICENSES FOR SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    The best outcome for gun rights, is for the state to win. This case will be decided on the specific question of a denied application, for a LICENSE, to carry CONCEALED FIREARMS for self defense.

    But if you think otherwise, please explain how needing to pay a fee for a license (contract), which binds one to all future regulations passed by the legislature, ie, carry insurance, safe requirements, mental stability testing and so on, just to name a few, is somehow a win for gun rights.


    GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE STATE'S DENIAL OF PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR CONCEALED-CARRY LICENSES FOR SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT

    Pssssttt, see below

    The question presented is:
    Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    This is a link for the audio, from John Josselyn's email:


    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

    p01h4pakf7x71.png


    (except its actually 10am lol)
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    You should go back and check the accuracy of what you just posted.

    Watch for the supreme court to not delve into the technicalities of concealed carry.

    They will explore the "bear" portion of the 2A and the state's oversight of the fundamental right.

    Young is the mirror case of this one for open carry. Young will get GVR'd after a positive opinion, to account for both open and concealed carry.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Watch for the supreme court to not delve into the technicalities of concealed carry.

    They will explore the "bear" portion of the 2A and the state's oversight of the fundamental right.

    Young is the mirror case of this one for open carry. Young will get GVR'd after a positive opinion, to account for both open and concealed carry.

    We have 3 new conservatives on the court since Heller, so it hard to say if they will follow what Scalia INDICATED in Heller on a majority of 19th-century courts and their conclusion that concealed carry can be prohibited. The jurisprudence in this time period should be followed more so than any other, and no doubt why Scalia mentions that fact. This case should go the way of Peruta.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    We have 3 new conservatives on the court since Heller, so it hard to say if they will follow what Scalia INDICATED in Heller on a majority of 19th-century courts and their conclusion that concealed carry can be prohibited. The jurisprudence in this time period should be followed more so than any other, and no doubt why Scalia mentions that fact. This case should go the way of Peruta.

    At which level the Appeal or the En Banc?

    Again, I do not think the court will get technical. The court will allow the state the flexibility to define the manner of carry (open or concealed) for what is considered acceptable within their jurisdiction.

    I do believe that the ruling will be more instructive, and less wishy-washy than Heller and McDonald for 2 reasons:
    • To perform a smack down for NY's past shenanigan's.
    • To bring the inferior courts in line, who has been cherry picking passages out of Heller for their anti-gun agenda.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Watch for the supreme court to not delve into the technicalities of concealed carry.

    They will explore the "bear" portion of the 2A and the state's oversight of the fundamental right.

    Young is the mirror case of this one for open carry. Young will get GVR'd after a positive opinion, to account for both open and concealed carry.

    This op-ed by a former clerk suggests they might stick to the revised question.

    https://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-did-supreme-court-100058728.html

    I don't believe Young is just open carry. It was about carry. The 9CA opinion focused on open carry because the precedent in Peruta foreclosed concealed carry and that was the only option left.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    This op-ed by a former clerk suggests they might stick to the revised question.

    https://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-did-supreme-court-100058728.html

    I don't believe Young is just open carry. It was about carry. The 9CA opinion focused on open carry because the precedent in Peruta foreclosed concealed carry and that was the only option left.

    Aaron Tang is a law professor at UC Davis and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    Smoking pot and owning guns is still a federal crime.

    Good thing you dont own any guns.


    5sqdxp.jpg
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The best outcome for gun rights, is for the state to win. This case will be decided on the specific question of a denied application, for a LICENSE, to carry CONCEALED FIREARMS for self defense.

    But if you think otherwise, please explain how needing to pay a fee for a license (contract), which binds one to all future regulations passed by the legislature, ie, carry insurance, safe requirements, mental stability testing and so on, just to name a few, is somehow a win for gun rights.

    The best outcome for gun rights is for the Court to recognize the reasoning behind the historic prohibitions and recognize concealed carry is really is part of the right today. It is unclear if that will happen because of the arguments that have been presented.

    I don't believe that the plaintiffs are actually challenging the need for a license. The license tends to be accepted as long as the requirements are reasonable. It certainly does not bind one to all future regulations however.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Smoking pot and owning guns is still a federal crime.

    Good thing you dont own any guns.


    5sqdxp.jpg

    How does who a clerk clerked for impact the observation that the SCOTUS rarely changes the question? How does that change the observation that it tends to stick to the question when they change the question presented?
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    How does who a clerk clerked for impact the observation that the SCOTUS rarely changes the question? How does that change the observation that it tends to stick to the question when they change the question presented?

    Right. I am sure Sotomoyor hires clerks in the Federalist Society. :lol2::lol2:

    Question: Doritos or raw cookie dough for a snack right now?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,650
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom