New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

[press1280]

In NYSRPA v Bruen orals, Alito quite clearly reaffirmed what I had been saying since the 2008 Heller case, that the right is understood as it was in the 19th-century. Heller indicated that when Justice Scalia said;

"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. "

and other comments made using the Nunn v Georgia case. A no brainer in my opinion, but even Clement, or he's just playin' along for his client, thinks that the tradition can be moved further away from its original understanding, as illustrated by his comments about New York's tradition of licensing concealed carry. Though, that goes completely against the text, history and tradition of the right and why Sotomayor cornered him with her question. I do have to say, these $2000hr attorneys sure do have command of the English language, but his response was all just rebuttal BS.

The question presented was changed by the court to this specific question:

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.

CERT. GRANTED 4/26/2021

Text, history and tradition from the 19-century, says concealed carry can be prohibited all together and therefore, any requirement to get a permit to do just that, can be whatever they choose, so long as it's not capricious and arbitrary. NYSRPA will lose, and any Justice that votes for NYSRPA, is legislating from the bench, as there is no right to carry concealed firearms. It should be an 8-0 decision in favor of Bruen (New York State)

THE RIGHT AS UNDERSTOOD IN THE 19TH-CENTURY
(Just like they said in the Heller case. Woow, imagine that.)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

From Oral Arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and -and I will stop after this - Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.

Neither side (NYSRPA or NY) gives a rats ass about open carry at this point. And from oral arguments neither does Scotus, as those who mentioned it were using it as nothing more than a wedge issue.
The 6 conservatives didn’t take the bait.
NYSRPA wins on shall issue 6-3 with varying opinions on side issues (sensitive zones, scrutiny,exc).

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Neither side (NYSRPA or NY) gives a rats ass about open carry at this point. And from oral arguments neither does Scotus, as those who mentioned it were using it as nothing more than a wedge issue.
The 6 conservatives didn’t take the bait.
NYSRPA wins on shall issue 6-3 with varying opinions on side issues (sensitive zones, scrutiny,exc).

You are correct. But at the time of Oral Arguments A petition for cert from Young v Hawaii had been filed.

Now Young v Hawaii is "on hold". If they were going to deny cert on Young they would have done so allready.
I doubt they will grant cert either. However i beleive they will remand it back to lower court based on the opinion they release on NYSPRA. Otherwise whats the point of keeping this case as well as two others "on hold"

I do believe that something in the Opinion they release will have some effect (hopefully positive) to these three cases. It makes no logical sense to keep three gun rights cases "on hold" if they were going to just deny cert. Something is up. We wont know till they take whatever action they are planning to take.

 

[777GSOTB]

Neither side (NYSRPA or NY) gives a rats ass about open carry at this point. And from oral arguments neither does Scotus, as those who mentioned it were using it as nothing more than a wedge issue.
The 6 conservatives didn’t take the bait.
NYSRPA wins on shall issue 6-3 with varying opinions on side issues (sensitive zones, scrutiny,exc).

Myyyyy, are we salty, and open carry isn't on the table like I've said, MANY, times. And you actually think after what Alito said, he's going to side with NYSRPA?...Really, and what has changed since NYSRPA v Bruen orals or Heller for that matter, that made you come to that conclusion? You forgot that Roberts is with him also, and that's a minimum 5-4 for Bruen...NYSRPA will lose their case, salty one.
You should review what the question is that they will answer, as OPEN CARRY, is nowhere to be found in it...It's about, CONCEALED CARRY, remember, and 19-century 2A stare decisis, doesn't protect that mode of carry.

"Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.."

 

[Occam]

… remember, and 19-century 2A stare decisis …

I seem to recall some other 19th century precedents set at every level including the Supreme Court - that got tossed in the trash by SCOTUS when chewed on by justices coming at them with a different perspective.

 

[777GSOTB]

I seem to recall some other 19th century precedents set at every level including the Supreme Court - that got tossed in the trash by SCOTUS when chewed on by justices coming at them with a different perspective.

Really, from Heller below, that got chewed on?..It actually got reaffirmed by Alito at NYSRPA v Bruen orals. But anyway, I'd like to see the actual chewing on statements, if you could post them up.

DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Quoting Justice Scalia:

"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. "

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Myyyyy, are we salty, and open carry isn't on the table like I've said, MANY, times. And you actually think after what Alito said, he's going to side with NYSRPA?...Really, and what has changed since NYSRPA v Bruen orals or Heller for that matter, that made you come to that conclusion? You forgot that Roberts is with him also, and that's a minimum 5-4 for Bruen...NYSRPA will lose their case, salty one.
You should review what the question is that they will answer, as OPEN CARRY, is nowhere to be found in it...It's about, CONCEALED CARRY, remember, and 19-century 2A stare decisis, doesn't protect that mode of carry.

"Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.."

You really think they will maintain stare decisis and wont overturn Robertson v Baldwin when they are about to overturn roe v wade? Seriously?

Also explain why they would put young v Hawaii on hold? Why grant cert on NYSPRA v Bruen instead of Young v Hawaii? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. If they weren’t allready going to find against Bruen/NY why accept the case in the first place.

 

[Occam]

Really, from Heller below, that got chewed on?

No. Talking about the concept broadly. Precedent doesn't always stand, and good thing, too.

 

[777GSOTB]

You really think they will maintain stare decisis and wont overturn Robertson v Baldwin when they are about to overturn roe v wade? Seriously?

Why would they overturn Robertson v Baldwin, it had nothing to do with firearms. You really think they will overturn Roe v Wade?...Seriously?

Also explain why they would put young v Hawaii on hold? Why grant cert on NYSPRA v Bruen instead of Young v Hawaii? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. If they weren’t allready going to find against Bruen/NY why accept the case in the first place.

So, let me get this straight. You think, JUST, because they put a hold on Young v Hawaii, that they will rule for NYSRPA?...Maaan, that some pretty weak reasoning and you want, ME, to explain why they did that. Who cares why they did that, I don't. If you knew how to follow along, you would know that I already supported my position with sound reasoning. Which is above and beyond what most are doing here.

Watch Hatch beat Young to get granted certiorari.

 

[777GSOTB]

No. Talking about the concept broadly. Precedent doesn't always stand, and good thing, too.

Why would Alito not go with what he said at NYSRPA v Bruen orals concerning the text, history and tradition of 2A rights? Which was just a reaffirmation of what they said in Heller in 2008...I mean, are you not following along or do you just not comprehend any of this?

 

[Occam]

I mean, are you not following along or do you just not comprehend any of this?

You're right. As I demonstrate here regularly, I'm an uninformed moron with no critical thinking skills. I'm shocked I can even conjugate verbs, let alone make note of things like a change in the composition of the court to a more constitutionalist posture less scared of its own shadow by a political left that is now overtly threatening it because they are worried about exactly the same thing. I'm sorry to have spoken out loud before my sharper, more thoughtful superiors. Thanks getting me back where I belong, on the hot water heater and food picture threads.

 

[Bertfish]

Why would Alito not go with what he said at NYSRPA v Bruen orals concerning the text, history and tradition of 2A rights? Which was just a reaffirmation of what they said in Heller in 2008...I mean, are you not following along or do you just not comprehend any of this?

Why are you being so goddamn condescending?

 

[Bob A]

Why are you being so goddamn condescending?

I'd explain it to you, but, you know, apparently you're not smart enough to understand.

 

[Bertfish]

I'd explain it to you, but, you know, apparently you're not smart enough to understand.

Lot of asshats coming out around here lately. I don't know if they're being driven in by the cold or what.

 

[press1280]

Myyyyy, are we salty, and open carry isn't on the table like I've said, MANY, times. And you actually think after what Alito said, he's going to side with NYSRPA?...Really, and what has changed since NYSRPA v Bruen orals or Heller for that matter, that made you come to that conclusion? You forgot that Roberts is with him also, and that's a minimum 5-4 for Bruen...NYSRPA will lose their case, salty one.
You should review what the question is that they will answer, as OPEN CARRY, is nowhere to be found in it...It's about, CONCEALED CARRY, remember, and 19-century 2A stare decisis, doesn't protect that mode of carry.

"Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.."

Yes, absolutely Alito sides with NYSRPA. If he's stuck on open carry why would he get into the back and forth with NY's attorney talking about how criminals are armed on NY subways but people who have to live and work in those neighborhoods don't qualify for a CCW?
Again, Robertson is no impediment here. Paul Clement made it simple for the court. Open carry was the preference at the time. It isn't anymore for both plaintiffs and defendants. The Peruta dissent goes completely contrary to your interpretation of Robertson.

 

[press1280]

Really, from Heller below, that got chewed on?..It actually got reaffirmed by Alito at NYSRPA v Bruen orals. But anyway, I'd like to see the actual chewing on statements, if you could post them up.

DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Quoting Justice Scalia:

"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. "

This has never been explained in detail. Does this mean what Peruta says (CCW isn't the right EVEN if OC is banned), or does it mean CCW can be banned as long as OC is freely available?
Unfortunately there is no 19th or 20th century case I'm aware of (you're free to provide one if you have one) where we have the current scenario (OC banned, CCW available). Instead we have Peruta on one side and Norman on the other. These cases are a few years old and don't hold much original understanding of the right.

 

[camo556]

I cant tell if its been mentioned, but there are now three cases on hold.

Aposhian v Garland appears to be on hold as well, according to MSI litigation tracker.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html

idk what people are arguing about in this thread regarding Alito, he going to rule against NYSRPA.

Over at fantasy scotus, the odd of a 6-3 reversal have only gone up since nov 3rd. The weakest justice remains Roberts not Alito. It will be 5-4 or 6-3 against NYSRPA. I have not heard or read anything that makes me think otherwise. In many ways I'd prefer the strong 5-4 to the watered down 6-3.

But with abortion, SB8, covid mandates, Trump papers, immigration, and a whole lot of other high profile cases this term, gun rights will be the 7th or 8th thing the press complains about from this court. Whatever they do on Dobbs (abortion) will suck most of the oxygen.

https://fantasyscotus.net/case-prediction/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/

 

[777GSOTB]

Why are you being so goddamn condescending?

Well, why don't you go back and look at the pulled quoted words, not even my entire statements made, or previous statements made to support my postion and then look at the nonsensical comments made in response to what he decided to quote from me. Here, I'll give you a hand in following along:

From this:

Myyyyy, are we salty, and open carry isn't on the table like I've said, MANY, times. And you actually think after what Alito said, he's going to side with NYSRPA?...Really, and what has changed since NYSRPA v Bruen orals or Heller for that matter, that made you come to that conclusion? You forgot that Roberts is with him also, and that's a minimum 5-4 for Bruen...NYSRPA will lose their case, salty one.
You should review what the question is that they will answer, as OPEN CARRY, is nowhere to be found in it...It's about, CONCEALED CARRY, remember, and 19-century 2A stare decisis, doesn't protect that mode of carry.

"Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.."

He then quotes this from me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
… remember, and 19-century 2A stare decisis …

Then he responds with this:

I seem to recall some other 19th century precedents set at every level including the Supreme Court - that got tossed in the trash by SCOTUS when chewed on by justices coming at them with a different perspective.

Occam, made that reply from the words he pulled from my reply to press1280 and at this point, he choose to enter the conversation under his own free will. Though other previous comments made by me just a few posts back go into better detail of understood 19-century text, history and tradition of 2A rights, and therefore, the following along statement comes into play. So, lets see, he states, " I seem to recall some other 19 century precedents set at every level including the Supreme Court"..."that got tossed in the trash by SCOTUS when chewed on by justices coming at them with a different perspective."

That's some, REALLY, sound reasoning and evidence right there to rebut the evidence I used to support my position...Yup, sure thing.

I've previously quoted what Alito said at orals concerning 19-century text, history and tradition of 2A rights. Again, thus, are you following along statement. I then state this, just in case he missed something.:

Really, from Heller below, that got chewed on?..It actually got reaffirmed by Alito at NYSRPA v Bruen orals. But anyway, I'd like to see the actual chewing on statements, if you could post them up.

DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Quoting Justice Scalia:

"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. "

From all that, Occam, quotes this out of it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Really, from Heller below, that got chewed on?

Notice he fails to back up his position when asked, with any of the so called, chewed on precedence that got tossed in the trash by the SCOTUS in the 19-century....Zero, zip, notta, nothing. I mean, precedence that gets chewed on by the SCOTUS and tossed in the trash is a big event that doesn't happen very often. Would still love to see that, but, we all know he's just wingin' it, isn't he.

He then states this without supporting his comment:

No. Talking about the concept broadly. Precedent doesn't always stand, and good thing, too.

Now it's a broad concept and he obviously has no case support for what was previously said about recalling such and such precedence getting chewed up and thrown in the trash by the SCOTUS and then states, " precedent doesn't always stand, and good thing, too."

So, it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that he's, MAKING STUFF UP. Kinda like justices do when they want to legislate from the bench, you know, they make it up to get their way. So, then, I state this, without actually saying that.

Why would Alito not go with what he said at NYSRPA v Bruen orals concerning the text, history and tradition of 2A rights? Which was just a reaffirmation of what they said in Heller in 2008...I mean, are you not following along or do you just not comprehend any of this?

So of course, without answering a straight forward question and being the mature adult that he is when confronted with his unsupported nonsense, he replies with this:

You're right. As I demonstrate here regularly, I'm an uninformed moron with no critical thinking skills. I'm shocked I can even conjugate verbs, let alone make note of things like a change in the composition of the court to a more constitutionalist posture less scared of its own shadow by a political left that is now overtly threatening it because they are worried about exactly the same thing. I'm sorry to have spoken out loud before my sharper, more thoughtful superiors. Thanks getting me back where I belong, on the hot water heater and food picture threads.

Now he's a smarty pants and deserves more respect...Nope, sorry, he never should have jumped into the conversation, PERIOD, with those antics.

Hope that clears things up for ya.

 

[Occam]

Hope that clears things up for ya.

What it clears up is that you can’t think of a single 19th century SCOTUS ruling that was reversed later by that court. Not sure why we should defer to your lordly holdings on this topic when that kind of history eludes you. The Supreme Court has overturned earlier rulings more than 200 times. You know this, we know this, and we know you know this.

It’s not ME that needs more respect, it’s everyone who comes across this thread.

 

[boothdoc]

Well, why don't you go back and look at the pulled quoted words, not even my entire statements made, or previous statements made to support my postion and then look at the nonsensical comments made in response to what he decided to quote from me. Here, I'll give you a hand in following along:

From this:


He then quotes this from me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
… remember, and 19-century 2A stare decisis …

Then he responds with this:



Occam, made that reply from the words he pulled from my reply to press1280 and at this point, he choose to enter the conversation under his own free will. Though other previous comments made by me just a few posts back go into better detail of understood 19-century text, history and tradition of 2A rights, and therefore, the following along statement comes into play. So, lets see, he states, " I seem to recall some other 19 century precedents set at every level including the Supreme Court"..."that got tossed in the trash by SCOTUS when chewed on by justices coming at them with a different perspective."

That's some, REALLY, sound reasoning and evidence right there to rebut the evidence I used to support my position...Yup, sure thing.

I've previously quoted what Alito said at orals concerning 19-century text, history and tradition of 2A rights. Again, thus, are you following along statement. I then state this, just in case he missed something.:


From all that, Occam, quotes this out of it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Really, from Heller below, that got chewed on?

Notice he fails to back up his position when asked, with any of the so called, chewed on precedence that got tossed in the trash by the SCOTUS in the 19-century....Zero, zip, notta, nothing. I mean, precedence that gets chewed on by the SCOTUS and tossed in the trash is a big event that doesn't happen very often. Would still love to see that, but, we all know he's just wingin' it, isn't he.

He then states this without supporting his comment:


Now it's a broad concept and he obviously has no case support for what was previously said about recalling such and such precedence getting chewed up and thrown in the trash by the SCOTUS and then states, " precedent doesn't always stand, and good thing, too."

So, it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that he's, MAKING STUFF UP. Kinda like justices do when they want to legislate from the bench, you know, they make it up to get their way. So, then, I state this, without actually saying that.


So of course, without answering a straight forward question and being the mature adult that he is when confronted with his unsupported nonsense, he replies with this:


Now he's a smarty pants and deserves more respect...Nope, sorry, he never should have jumped into the conversation, PERIOD, with those antics.

Hope that clears things up for ya.

Making your point doesn’t require being condescending. It could be made with that. It would lend more credibility to your position that way

 

[Bob A]

I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips, let no dog bark.