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

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!
  • camo556

    Active Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,635
    Cannot active / retired police carry widely without knowing the particular carry restrictions of the states they are transiting? How does the LEOSA address this issue?

    I don't think it does. Anyway, police are presumed to know the law.

    Police get special carve outs for lots of gun laws, including rifle and magazine bans.

    Again, i dont agree with it. There are lots of good counter arguments, but I think that they will fall on deaf ears in the 9th, 2nd, and 3rd circuits.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    this.

    States (and DC) will say that they can require training in the peculiar laws of self defense in that jurisdiction, along with training on where the sensitive places are. What you are allowed to do in FL and TX is not the same as what you can lawfully do in a duty to retreat state like MD. The counter argument of course is that hunting training is almost universally recognized, for example the TX online course counts to a MD hunting license (and apparently HQL), while hunting and game laws are completely different. A lot of reciprocity we see (like Drivers licenses) is not through courts forcing the issue, its through state compacts and uniform agreement on training standards. Congress could impose universal training requirements, but would we really want that? I cant see any state thats now constitutional carry wanting Congress to impose standards.

    States may be forced to offer non resident permits, and also be forced to cut training some like 4 hours, but I am skeptical courts will force full reciprocity. If you want to carry in NYC, the 2nd circuit will say "gee we dont want a lot of vigilantes from the south, you need to prove you know the law before you carry" and allow NYC specific training. And btw NY gun laws are byzantine, so 16 hours seems appropriate. :lol2:

    I am not saying i agree with this, but asking CCW permit holders to know the law before they carry seems like an ask a judge will have a hard time turning down.

    All very good points. It is exactly the reason why I think the courts will say that a state has the option. They (The state) can opt for one of three choices. They can go With Permitless Constitutional Carry, they can do reciprocity for all States, or they can issue NR permits. I spose they could do a combination of the last two, in that they would recognize some state permits and require residents of those states they don’t recognize to get a NR permit. However I would see that being challenged in the courts for 14A rights and discrimination. So I think a state will go one of those three ways.

    It goes along the lines of what the Georgia Supreme Court did many many years ago and told the state that it was unconstitutional to ban both open and conceal carry. That the state could ban one or the other but not both. So GA went for open carry. As of today, GA has Permitless open carry, but a shall issue permit for conceal carry. Louisiana Is the same way.

    As an Instructor I will agree with you when it comes to training, and what laws a “problem” state might implement when it comes to training.

    They might require more hours of training.

    Texas for being a constitutional carry state is only one of a few states that require state specific specialized training.

    Most other states only require NRA Basic Pistol or similar. No training on the laws, other then signing a statement that you understand the state laws.

    Texas though you can take the course online, then seek out an instructor for shooting qualification.

    Legal laws training can easily be done online.

    If states would allow NRA/USCCA courses with legal online trading in to suffice. That would NOT be a bad thing.

    Of the 11 LTC’s I have. Only 3 required State specific training. Utah, Illinois, and Texas. Everyone else accepted NRA basic Pistol Instructor as being enough. i am an NRA, Illinois & Maryland Instructor, and within the next 90 days I will be a Utah and Texas Instructor as well.

    What’s crazy are the states that still want an instructor to take the course that they teach to get a permit., and to retake for renewal!

    I know of instructors that are just signing off on each other’s trainings along with doing actual live fire qualification if needed. Crazy and stupid. At least for Illinois, which requires a 3hr renewal class every 5 years, is not required of instructors. The whole purpose of the 3 hr renewal is to update permit holders on new laws and to do a live fire requalification of their shooting.
     

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    6,846
    WV
    Heck how much for the Oregon case? I have relatives in Oregon and I do travel out that way to visit my aunt and my first cousin as well. I have my Utah and would like to be able to carry concealed but alas no joy..

    I would point out most of Oregon is unlicensed open carry. The plaintiff would probably need to be someone who visits the several cities with open carry bans or else they'll tell you you can just OC when you're here.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    I would point out most of Oregon is unlicensed open carry. The plaintiff would probably need to be someone who visits the several cities with open carry bans or else they'll tell you you can just OC when you're here.

    I thought of that as well. But if you take a look at a map of where OC is banned. It makes it hard to get some places. It’s not just some cities that ban OC. But if I am correct at least 1 maybe 2 complete counties have banned OC as well.

    But your correct, the plaintiff would have to travel to a city, or need to go to an area that OC is not allowed.

    However also keep in mind, that the 9th circuit for California and Hawaii also cover Oregon. So all it takes is one of those three cases to win, to make it effective for all three states.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,113
    That would be challenged under the HIPPA act.

    If Doctors started to be required to report my medical health condition to the state. I would stop seeing the doctor, or go to one in a different state.

    There would be many doctors, making money under the table for seeing patients “ anonymously“

    The way the system is now, many people aren’t getting th mental healthcare treatment they need because they are afraid the state will somehow find out and revoke, suspend or not issue them their LTC. Even though their condition isn’t or won’t be an issue.

    We don’t want those to far gone from having firearms, but on the other hand we want people to get the help they need too.

    At least in Texas… if you get mental health care voluntarily. No one knows. Records are sealed and destroyed. And you can keep your firearms and your LTC.

    If you get mental healthcare involuntary by being legally committed that’s another story.

    So it becomes an an incentive to get help and treatment before it is to late and becomes an issue where someone else steps in and forces the issue.

    If it is required by a state law, it likely wouldn't violate HIPAA. There are already carve outs in the law relating to protecting health and safety of others as well as disclosures to police for law enforcement related activities (such as reporting to police someone with a gunshot wound, or reporting to affected individuals someone who exposed them to an STI or other communicable disease).

    A state could likely argue pretty successfully that a requirement for doctors to report if a patient had a health condition making it unsafe for them to drive would pretty likely be held not to violate HIPAA. That being said, I'd rather that not happen. But it probably would be legal.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 22, 2009
    50,421
    Bel Air
    If it is required by a state law, it likely wouldn't violate HIPAA. There are already carve outs in the law relating to protecting health and safety of others as well as disclosures to police for law enforcement related activities (such as reporting to police someone with a gunshot wound, or reporting to affected individuals someone who exposed them to an STI or other communicable disease).

    A state could likely argue pretty successfully that a requirement for doctors to report if a patient had a health condition making it unsafe for them to drive would pretty likely be held not to violate HIPAA.

    There is precedent for reporting certain health conditions and still being HIPPA compliant. Not an issue. BTW, MD does not require docs to report when we instruct a patient not to drive. Just document it.
     

    777GSOTB

    Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    It goes along the lines of what the Georgia Supreme Court did many many years ago and told the state that it was unconstitutional to ban both open and conceal carry. That the state could ban one or the other but not both. So GA went for open carry. As of today, GA has Permitless open carry, but a shall issue permit for conceal carry. Louisiana Is the same way.

    You should go and read that Nunn case that you refer to here, as they never said that...If so, post that legal determination up, would love to see it. In reality it's just the wishful thinking of the gun clubs that want to see the right to open carry without a license subverted through the requirement of a license.

    Looks like I've got one SCOTUS Chief Justice who understands that point of view...Been sayin' it since the 2008 Heller case.

    New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen
    From oral arguments:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I'm not sure that's right. I mean, you would --regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.
     

    rascal

    Active Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,238
    Look at having a Washington DC LTC. If you don’t live there where can you carry it? Not in federal or public buildings. D.C. isn’t very big. Most private businesses don’t let you carry. So in D.C. it’s basically your home and your car. You can’t carry on public transportation either.

    Only a very tiny portion of businesses in DC forbid carrying on their property. And you can't carry in federal buildings anywhere in the US
     

    steveh326

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2012
    1,459
    Mt. Airy
    OK I freely admit I am ignorant in these matters, but can someone help me understand how the case has been heard, but no decision will be rendered until June 2022? How/why is this possible? Does the SC not work year round? how much do we pay these people anyway and how long to they need to debate something? what if a jury took 8 months to deliberate a case?

    I have no clue on this stuff but it just doesn't seem right.
     

    Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    14,167
    White Marsh, MD
    OK I freely admit I am ignorant in these matters, but can someone help me understand how the case has been heard, but no decision will be rendered until June 2022? How/why is this possible? Does the SC not work year round? how much do we pay these people anyway and how long to they need to debate something? what if a jury took 8 months to deliberate a case?

    I have no clue on this stuff but it just doesn't seem right.

    They deliberate and write lengthy opinions

    Courts in general aren't quick and this is on par with other major SCOTUS cases I can recall on this topic
     

    Off_paper

    Junior Member
    Apr 30, 2021
    70
    AACo
    They deliberate and write lengthy opinions

    Courts in general aren't quick and this is on par with other major SCOTUS cases I can recall on this topic

    Yup, gotta take their time to talk it through, look up relevant case law, etc. I'd rather justice be "right" than quick, though "right" is obviously in the eye of the beholder with many of the divisive cases these days.
     

    camo556

    Active Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,635
    The average time from argument to opinion last year was 110 days. That would be mid Feb 2022. June 2022 is the latest when we will see an opinion. Barrett and Thomas are quickest to write an opinion. So is either of them are writing it, we could see one a lot sooner.
     

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    6,846
    WV
    You should go and read that Nunn case that you refer to here, as they never said that...If so, post that legal determination up, would love to see it. In reality it's just the wishful thinking of the gun clubs that want to see the right to open carry without a license subverted through the requirement of a license.

    Looks like I've got one SCOTUS Chief Justice who understands that point of view...Been sayin' it since the 2008 Heller case.

    New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen
    From oral arguments:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I'm not sure that's right. I mean, you would --regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.

    While you’re correct here keep in mind the court passed on numerous low hanging fruit 2A cases for years. Going after licensing in total is a huge step which could lead to bad law.
     

    jcutonilli

    Active Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,135
    The average time from argument to opinion last year was 110 days. That would be mid Feb 2022. June 2022 is the latest when we will see an opinion. Barrett and Thomas are quickest to write an opinion. So is either of them are writing it, we could see one a lot sooner.

    If it were a non controversial opinion, it would likely come out closer to the average. I would suspect the opinion will be release in June given the controversial nature of the issue.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    23,207
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    If I didn’t allready know of at least 4 suits getting readied to be filed once this opinion on this case is released I would agree with you.

    However, These 4 suits will be directed at Hawaii, California, New York, and Oregon. Those 4 states neither allow you to apply for a non resident, nor do they have reciprocity for any other states.

    One may also be filed against Illinois as well.

    Maryland is also guilty of this. Care to bring a suit?
     

    ed bernay

    Member
    Feb 18, 2011
    184
    While you’re correct here keep in mind the court passed on numerous low hanging fruit 2A cases for years. Going after licensing in total is a huge step which could lead to bad law.

    I will never understand why the pro 2A team never went after the permit requirement to even own in your own home. They could have went after the permit requirement to own a pistol in NY state or the requirement to have a permit for all types of guns in NYC. The permit requirement itself, the process, the cost, the extra steps, the references, all unconstitutional if someone can pass a NICS check at the gun store. They have turned a right into a privilege in NYC.

    The reason why NYC is so anti gun is because most of the residents never experienced the freedom to own firearms like the majority of the country. Once that nut is cracked and people experience freedom, Democrats would have a harder time winning elections on the 2A issue.
     

    rascal

    Active Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,238
    Also, driving is a privilege, not a right.
    while I agree with the sentiments, I believe there is case law establishing driving and obtaining a license to do so as a constitutionally protected right.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    261,313
    Messages
    6,660,292
    Members
    30,448
    Latest member
    zuckerpr

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom