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

[Allen65]

OK,
I have been a lic and insured business with a federal TIN for ~30 years.
When did they change that? used to be your life was not worth protecting, but your cash was.

Your life still isn't, but dead sole proprietors pay no taxes.

 

[Darkemp]

OK,
I have been a lic and insured business with a federal TIN for ~30 years.
When did they change that? used to be your life was not worth protecting, but your cash was.

Not necessarily cash, but rather Financial Instruments- cash is only one example. Your business bank account debit/credit card is another.

 

[Occam]

OK,
I have been a lic and insured business with a federal TIN for ~30 years.
When did they change that? used to be your life was not worth protecting, but your cash was.

Well over a year now.

 

[parttimer]

Most likely that's because those receipts (complete with who/where info) would be what they want to see to establish the fact that the business activity is actually happening inside the state. If the instructor's courses are being held at a MD venue, he should produce invoices showing those addresses and how he paid for use of them. If the location doesn't cost anything, he should arrange for some sort of dated use document from whoever owns it (range, etc).

I'm hardly defending the MSP here, trust me - but for all they know all of his students are Virginians and he's renting out a room at the NRA Range across the river, and Maryland's got nothing to do with it. They do seem to err on the side of that kind of thinking.

He has a home based training business. The class room portion is taught in his house and the live fire is done at the range in his back yard.
He provided the bank statements they requested. He was basically told client names and info or no permit. He chose no permit rather than turning over his client list.

 

[Biggfoot44]

The date Slackdaddy is looking for is November 2019 in particular . For a couple years before that , had moved away from strick cash to much broader concepts of financial instruments and of conducting business .

 

[Darkemp]

He has a home based training business. The class room portion is taught in his house and the live fire is done at the range in his back yard.
He provided the bank statements they requested. He was basically told client names and info or no permit. He chose no permit rather than turning over his client list.

These are all odd questions to be asked- I know personally I wasn’t asked any information on customers, nor would I have provided as it’s not spelled out as a requirement. I’m curious what exactly was written as the G&S reason.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Back to the old * Minimum Requirements per SOP vs Investigator requesting additional information in course of their Investigation * .

 

[rambling_one]

OK,
I have been a lic and insured business with a federal TIN for ~30 years.
When did they change that? used to be your life was not worth protecting, but your cash was.

Since Big Bro realized issuing to business owners would suppress the desire of non-business folks in trying to convince BB that their lives are valuable as well.

 

[BeoBill]

But self defense in not of itself is not a Good and Substantial Reason to grant a license, remember?

 

[rambling_one]

But self defense in not of itself is not a Good and Substantial Reason to grant a license, remember?

Hard to forget.

 

[teratos]

But self defense in not of itself is not a Good and Substantial Reason to grant a license, remember?

Neither is being able to prescribe OxyContin from your phone…

 

[777GSOTB]

What's next, after NYSRPA loses their case..At least a 5-4 vote, though it should be 8-0, but we know there's some young blood on the court. I'm guessing to squeeze out more money from the angered gun community, they'll try concealed carry, without a license, and see if they can waste another 13yrs of litigation.

This goes out to the poster that said taking an open carry case without a license would be, too difficult and possibly bring about bad law. Too difficult like in, litigating for 13yrs without a win? Bad law, like requiring a license in the exercise of a fundamental right? I wonder if you folks actually understand what you're posting up...But, do explain yourself.

 

[Occam]

What's next, after NYSRPA loses their case..At least a 5-4 vote, though it should be 8-0

Please type this in a more understandable fashion. Can't make sense of it. You're saying they are going lose by 5-4, but should lose by 8-0? What are you saying?

 

[777GSOTB]

You can't figure that out, can't help ya pal.

 

[Occam]

You can't figure that out, can't help ya pal.

Ok, so you think NYSRP should lose, 8-0. That’s clear. Question is, why do you think that?

 

[777GSOTB]

Ok, so you think NYSRP should lose, 8-0. That’s clear. Question is, why do you think that?

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.

 

[jcutonilli]

It is interesting that this thread active again. The federalist society just published another discussion about this case.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I think I get it . 777GSOTB is expressing Con Carry Absolutism . ( And I'll philosophically agree with you , but reserve realism ) . The objection seems to be the existence of CCW Permits . ( I won't bother at the moment with long observations about step by step litigation .)

Instead , for the dramatic point : If NYSRPA out & out Looses , I'll buy a round at the next MDS get together . The speculating and tea leaf read is about the general effect for the whole country , but at absolute minimum , the Named Plaintiffs will receive will receive their Permits m

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Very Interesting.... hmmmm

 

[delaware_export]

It would be interesting for SCOTUS to become the defacto issuing authority for carry permits in several jurisdictions. (If they Just sent and the only change was that specific plaintiffs got permits)

A good number of states, dem bastions, would jump on that in a heart beat. Illinois and DC would be there in under a week.

Only 6months.. for the tea leaves to be cleaned up and an official ruling.. (appx)

I think I get it . 777GSOTB is expressing Con Carry Absolutism . ( And I'll philosophically agree with you , but reserve realism ) . The objection seems to be the existence of CCW Permits . ( I won't bother at the moment with long observations about step by step litigation .)

Instead , for the dramatic point : If NYSRPA out & out Looses , I'll buy a round at the next MDS get together . The speculating and tea leaf read is about the general effect for the whole country , but at absolute minimum , the Named Plaintiffs will receive will receive their Permits m