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!
  • 6-Pack

    NRA Life Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 17, 2013
    4,643
    ☭ Maryland ☭
    https://apnews.com/article/us-supre...kathy-hochul-7df2c33a805cc1d99b2dd430675d3d53

    New York State appears poised to go forward with its plan to make all businesses off limits to concealed carry by default.

    We'll see how long the courts allow that and if any other states follow suit.
    I just had a thought about this. A business has to post a sign saying you can (as opposed to "cannot") carry a firearm. However, carrying a firearm is now a civil right (Bruen). If you have to post a sign to exercise a civil right, I believe that fails under 1A as compelled speech (as the government cannot force you to speak). Thoughts?
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    11,122
    How can we thank him for taking his oath of office to uphold our constitutional rights? Maybe sending a bunch of mini booklets on the constitution to his office might be a thankful gesture. He definitely deserves some token of our appreciation for his role in firmly establishing these rights.
    With the 2nd Amendment prominently highlighted.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    11,122
    Yes and No.

    I would not risk it and go out and get arrested for having a mag, or AW.

    however IF you did.

    Any lawyer worth his salt, would have your case “stayed in abeyance” in light of Bruen and awaiting final decisions of Bianchi v Frosh, Duncan v Bonta, ANJRPC v Platkin

    The reason I would not carry a AW or a High capacity Mag yet, is that it would cost you an arrest on your record, and hurt your pocketbook in hiring a lawyer.

    You would still eventually get the case dismissed, and maybe even the arrest record wiped, but it would still cost you many $$$$$$
    "large capacity" magazine are LEGAL to own/carry/use in Maryland, you can't transfer/manufacture/but them in Maryland. No reason to be arrested for legally using them.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    11,122
    If a MD resident can travel to VA and come home with 10+ mags, is it the consensus here that a MD resident with a CCW cannot legally carry a firearm that is designed for one?
    Perfectly legal to carry a standard capacity magazine when carrying concealed. I do all the time.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,030
    I just had a thought about this. A business has to post a sign saying you can (as opposed to "cannot") carry a firearm. However, carrying a firearm is now a civil right (Bruen). If you have to post a sign to exercise a civil right, I believe that fails under 1A as compelled speech (as the government cannot force you to speak). Thoughts?
    Yes I think it’ll fail. I do think private property owners could ban. But as a constitutional right, I think the Thomas court would frown on a proactive ban that businesses would have to opt in.
     

    Jaybeez

    Active Member
    Industry Partner
    Patriot Picket
    May 30, 2006
    6,345
    Darlington MD
    Yes I think it’ll fail. I do think private property owners could ban. But as a constitutional right, I think the Thomas court would frown on a proactive ban that businesses would have to opt in.
    They are calling it the vampire clause on Twitter. You have to invite them in.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,030
    They are calling it the vampire clause on Twitter. You have to invite them in.
    Maybe they can just come in anyway. I feel like the invitation thing is a myth. Business owners should put up some strings of garlic to see if it wards off concealed carriers instead.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,371
    Procedural question for @jcutonilli (or anyone else who knows the answer) :

    When a case is GVRed, and the case in question was decided en banc by the appellate court, is it the en banc panel that has to rewrite its opinion, or is it the original 3 judge panel that has to do so?
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Procedural question for @jcutonilli (or anyone else who knows the answer) :

    When a case is GVRed, and the case in question was decided en banc by the appellate court, is it the en banc panel that has to rewrite its opinion, or is it the original 3 judge panel that has to do so?
    The En Banc Panel, and the exact same 11 justices as well.

    if no En Banc then the original 3 justices.
     

    Mike OTDP

    Active Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,141
    It's not unusual for en bancs to take the lazy way out, and kick is back down to the appeals court with "see new guidance".

    The 9th has been known to use the tactic.
    Except that in several of these cases, the original appellate judge had been reversed by the en banc body.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    It's not unusual for en bancs to take the lazy way out, and kick is back down to the appeals court with "see new guidance".

    The 9th has been known to use the tactic.

    Except that in several of these cases, the original appellate judge had been reversed by the en banc body.

    Yes, you are both right.

    However, for the most part their hands are pretty ouch tied. If they don’t do what they are suppose too, in Duncan v Bonta, then Duncan can file another petition for Cert… in which case the Supreme Court will issue the mandate.

    Usually what is done though, is the circuit court being that of the 3 justices or 11 justices issue an opinion an opinion and a mandate and then send it back to the district court to follow that mandate and issue the judgment, and the enjoinment. The district court then proceeds with hearings on who is paying what fees, expenses and how much.

    Same thing applies to the 3rd circuit for MD and Bianchi, 4th circuit for ANJRPC.

    Now keep in mind several other factors.

    Normally a decision in one circuit doesn’t have a legal binding hold on another circuit. However, when a case is GVR’d by SCOTUS it does.

    Also keep in mind, that since June 23rd, as well as previously filed cases. There are many other magazine ban cases, and AWB cases pending in the same circuits, different states. As well as many new cases filed on June 30th. 2 in D.C. All these cases will eventually have nationwide impact.

    As more cases get settled and judgments given, more cases will be filed. As reimbursement money starts getting paid for all the present cases. That money will go on to support and pay for new cases filed. Now that we have a real basis to start winning, and know we can recoup funds. More suits will be filed.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    One other interesting note. The three Justice panel on the 9th circuit with Justice Bumatay, have already reopened and started final proceedings on at least two cases.

    Rupp v Bonta, and Miller V Bonta. Both AWB cases.

    Miller “won” win Benitez found it unconstitutional, 3 justices upheld it and now sent it back to district.

    Rupp ”lost” and the three Justice ppanel with Bumatay on it, vacated and remanded back to district in light of Miller and Bruen

    Scheduling is setup to be complete in 90 days.
     

    Bob A

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    23,417
    One other interesting note. The three Justice panel on the 9th circuit with Justice Bumatay, have already reopened and started final proceedings on at least two cases.

    Rupp v Bonta, and Miller V Bonta. Both AWB cases.

    Miller “won” win Benitez found it unconstitutional, 3 justices upheld it and now sent it back to district.

    Rupp ”lost” and the three Justice ppanel with Bumatay on it, vacated and remanded back to district in light of Miller and Bruen

    Scheduling is setup to be complete in 90 days.


    That's inflation for you. Maryland's "two weeks" has expanded to "three months"

    "Antimony" may be replaced by "Antinomian".



    {The distinction between antinomian and other Christian views on moral law is that antinomians believe that obedience to the law is motivated by an internal principle flowing from belief rather than from any external compulsion. Thus following one's personal belief that natural law insists that the organism may, indeed ought to defend its existence would take precedence over laws which deny such a right for the sake of the "greater good" of the community, or, more likely, of its leaders.)

    Sorry about that, if you actually read it. Sometimes I can't help myself; I get trapped in a mental cul-de-sac, and have to write myself out.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Active Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    25,888
    Once upon a time, I lived in New York and was a holder of an unrestricted carry license. With that unrestricted carry license I was able to carry in bars, movie theaters, sporting events, hospitals and on mass transit. Schools, jails, courts and airports were the only off limits locations.

    NY (and MD) are not going to be able to get away with the "sensitive place" restrictions they are proposing. If these areas were truly sensitive, they would have been off limits for decades.

    States are not going to be able to ban carry on mass transit because:

    a) there is an acute need for self defense there as anyone who has ridden on a NYC subway or MD metro subway knows and

    b) prohibiting carry on mass transit discriminates against those who can't afford a car and has a racially disparate impact.

    It will be similar for restaurant carry. A prohibition on carrying firearms while drinking and/or intoxicated can survive strict scrutiny. A prohibition on carrying firearms just because the restaurant you're eating at has a drink menu will not.
    Bernard Getz approves !

    FWIW , due to the lack of parking/ garaging , insurance rates , and overlapping transportation networks in NYC , subways there are frequently used by people from all walks of life , not just a last resort as in many other areas .
     

    Biggfoot44

    Active Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    25,888
    Totally agree with your post. They will not be able to ban carry at all these places, no way.

    For the bar/restaurant alcohol issue……Florida does it like this. You CAN carry into any establishment however you cannot be in the “bar area”. If you walk into a Chilis you must go sit in the restaurant part, not the bar part. It’s really dumb imo but I guess it works we really don’t have many shootings from CCW’s in bars down here.

    There was a shooting outside at an indoor/outdoor establishment in Saint Augustine, FL two years ago. Apparently a drunk bar patron came out to the patio area, slapped some random guys wife, then punched the husband in the face and told him he was “going to kill him” …..the husband pulled his pistol and shot the guy in the outside patio portion of the establishment. No arrest, no charges, he did have a FL CCW permit

    We don't need to wonder about CCW & alcohol establishment policies , we already know !

    Currently states are split roughly 1/3 . 1/3 , 1/3 between total prohibition , no restrictions , and some sort of intermediate requirements .

    Just like " Blood in the Streets" generally , there's no identifiable correlation , and most drunken barroom shoot outs are by the already Prohibited , making Permit holders moot factor .
     

    Biggfoot44

    Active Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    25,888
    That's inflation for you. Maryland's "two weeks" has expanded to "three months"

    "Antimony" may be replaced by "Antinomian".



    {The distinction between antinomian and other Christian views on moral law is that antinomians believe that obedience to the law is motivated by an internal principle flowing from belief rather than from any external compulsion. Thus following one's personal belief that natural law insists that the organism may, indeed ought to defend its existence would take precedence over laws which deny such a right for the sake of the "greater good" of the community, or, more likely, of its leaders.)

    Sorry about that, if you actually read it. Sometimes I can't help myself; I get trapped in a mental cul-de-sac, and have to write myself out.


    But is it still 3% ?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    261,212
    Messages
    6,655,060
    Members
    30,408
    Latest member
    Delise

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom