NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[motorcoachdoug]

I for one wonder if they will allow live audio in real time for this case since there are so many people interested in this case unless they will allow people to be in the court room but I do doubt that with covid still around. If do allow live audio in real time, I for one will be listing ...

 

[pcfixer]

they are equating carrying in general


Deleted....double post.

 

[pcfixer]

They are not really talking in circles, they are equating carrying in general with the fact that carrying is typically done with concealable arms. They are using the historical prohibitions on concealed carry to demonstrate that carry outside the home can be heavily regulated. They are not infringing on the right because they allow it for everyone with proper cause. They are actually exceeding the right by allowing concealed carry rather than limiting it to open carry.

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/concealed-carry-and-the-right-to-bear-arms#_ftn33

Concealable firearms in America date back to the first permanent English settlement. In 1622, “300 short pistolls with fire locks” were delivered to Jamestown Colony.[13] Indeed, it was common practice in the founding era to carry concealed firearms. Historian George C. Neumann explained that “[a]mong eighteenth-century civilians who traveled or lived in large cities, pistols were common weapons. Usually they were made to fit into pockets.”[14] Similarly, in describing founding-era America to his friend in Scotland in 1775, a Virginian wrote, “No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols.”[15]

THE STATE V. REID. 1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly, or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution. The defendant was indicted in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, for carrying concealed...
court of Appeals of Kentucky, in Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90 [13 Am. Dec. 251], attained a conclusion seemingly the opposite of that to which our judgments incline. In that case, the appellant was indicted under a statute which is in these words, "That any person in this commonwealth who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars; which may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of like sums, by action of debt or on the presentment of a grand jury; and a prosecutor in such presentment shall not be necessary. One half of such fine shall be to the use of the informer, and the other to the use of this commonwealth." The twenty-third section of the tenth article of the constitution of Kentucky, provides "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned;" and the question before the court was, did the act of the Legislature impugn the right secured by the constitution?

2 guncite.com/court/state/5la489.html
Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 52 Am. Dec. 599 (1850).] In a trial for murder, evidence that the deceased was a quarrelsome man, of violent temper and dangerous when excited, is inadmissible. The act of 25th of March, 1813 , against carrying concealed weapons is not unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Parker in the celebrated trial of Selfridge. It is strictly the law of self-defence, laid down by Russell, McNally and other elementary writers, and decided in many cases. East in his Pleas of the Crown, lays down the principle in these words:

"A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, habitation or property, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a known felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson and the like, upon either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat but may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from all danger, and, if he kill him in so doing, it is called justifiable self-defence."
"This law became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons."

Edited....So does State v Chandler at that time in history still hold precedence? Especially in view and manner of concealed firearm is in self defense & lawful purposes. Meaning not as offensive characterization but only in defense manner that lawful people use today.
There is room in the scope and manner or 2nd A for concealed carry. Yes for justified self-defense.

 

[Kharn]

In one Forgotten Weapons episode, the host explained that small caliber pocket pistols were extremely common because rabies was a death sentence and feral dogs were frequently encountered.

It was in a video about a pistol with a low bore axis and a notch at the top-front of the slide for your index finger to cycle it. Your finger would pass in front of the loaded muzzle if you weren't careful.

 

[camo556]

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/concealed-carry-and-the-right-to-bear-arms#_ftn33

Concealable firearms in America date back to the first permanent English settlement. In 1622, “300 short pistolls with fire locks” were delivered to Jamestown Colony.[13] Indeed, it was common practice in the founding era to carry concealed firearms. Historian George C. Neumann explained that “[a]mong eighteenth-century civilians who traveled or lived in large cities, pistols were common weapons. Usually they were made to fit into pockets.”[14] Similarly, in describing founding-era America to his friend in Scotland in 1775, a Virginian wrote, “No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols.”[15]

THE STATE V. REID. 1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly, or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution. The defendant was indicted in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, for carrying concealed

2 guncite.com/court/state/5la489.html
Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 52 Am. Dec. 599 (1850).] In a trial for murder, evidence that the deceased was a quarrelsome man, of violent temper and dangerous when excited, is inadmissible. The act of 25th of March, 1813 , against carrying concealed weapons is not unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Parker in the celebrated trial of Selfridge. It is strictly the law of self-defence, laid down by Russell, McNally and other elementary writers, and decided in many cases. East in his Pleas of the Crown, lays down the principle in these words:

"A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, habitation or property, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a known felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson and the like, upon either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat but may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from all danger, and, if he kill him in so doing, it is called justifiable self-defence."

More relevant, the Heller court cited five cases favorably (see footnote 9) including Bliss v. Commonwealth, where prohibition on concealed carry was deemed unconstitutional under the Ky constitution. Of course there was a subsequent uproar and they amended it. There was no legal reason to ban concealed carry. It was considered unmanly and morally repugnant. So was interracial marriage, or Catholics and Protestants getting together. Also, the 1st amendment does not solely apply to printing presses. The Bill of rights is not a moral scheme, its a legal one.

I cant tell if ppl here are being autistic or are Bloomberg trolls. Maybe both. The 2nd amendment reads "bear" arms, which is definitively answered by the (ironically) Ginsburg cite lol.

NY is not going to go in front of a conservative court and say open carry is the true right. They are going to beg for concealed.

 

[Allen65]

NY is not going to go in front of a conservative court and say open carry is the true right. They are going to beg for concealed.

I'll play Devil's Advocate on that statement. In Maryland, it is legal to open carry long weapons except in a few prohibited locations. SO there is a form of lawful carry for the general public. IIRC this is what MDAG argued, successfully I might add, in the Woollard v. Gallagher.

But just actually try and carry a long weapon in public, as an esteemed former member of the Maryland General Assembly did a few years back, and you'll end up with unwanted LE attention for disturbing the peace, or something similar related to others' reaction to your otherwise lawful carry.

NY could go this route, and change their statues to allow open carry, but use other non-firearms statues to make it untenable in practice. Which would require another lawsuit that could take another decade to work its way through the system, to a SCOTUS which would probably have a different makeup by then..

 

[camo556]

I'll play Devil's Advocate on that statement. In Maryland, it is legal to open carry long weapons except in a few prohibited locations. ..

I looked it up and I think someone lied to you. Long gun open carry is illegal anywhere it matters for self defense like Baltimore, PG county, and most of Montgomery County. Maryland may not prohibit it, but most cities/counties do. It seems to be a legendary internet myth not true in reality. Once the Supreme Court declares open carry is the true right, go get harassed and win some nice civil right settlements. In fact, ppl who think its legal in maryland should go do that now. Activists do actually do that in PA and VA to keep police honest.

 

[camo556]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...urt-is-ready-for-showdown-on-second-amendment

It often is difficult to determine which side of the court supplied the votes to grant review in a case. That is not the situation here. The New York case was clearly accepted by conservative justices with a mind toward reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

 

[press1280]

I for one wonder if they will allow live audio in real time for this case since there are so many people interested in this case unless they will allow people to be in the court room but I do doubt that with covid still around. If do allow live audio in real time, I for one will be listing ...

I had heard recently that the public won't be allowed in the courtroom anymore.
Past practice was that oral argument audio would be up on the website later that day.

 

[Fedora]

Hypothesis
Assume five Justices agree on the current NYSRPA case, and that their decision is favorable for our side. Also assume that Chief Justice Roberts joins them so he can appoint himself to write an emasculating decision. Furthermore, assume that none of the original five sign onto Robert's opinion.

Question
What would be the ramifications if the Core-5 Justices write their own opinion and all five sign this "second" opinion?

 

[Allen65]

I looked it up and I think someone lied to you. Long gun open carry is illegal anywhere it matters for self defense like Baltimore, PG county, and most of Montgomery County. Maryland may not prohibit it, but most cities/counties do. It seems to be a legendary internet myth not true in reality. Once the Supreme Court declares open carry is the true right, go get harassed and win some nice civil right settlements. In fact, ppl who think its legal in maryland should go do that now. Activists do actually do that in PA and VA to keep police honest.

I don't spend a lot of time in Baltimore City, PG County, or MoCo. Most of the rest of the state doesn't have specific statutes banning OC.
Here is an article on Delegate Smigel's experiment:
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/03/15/sheriff-lewis-appears-in-open-carry-gun-video/6472493/
Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/GKtkefEcDQY

Anyway, my point was that even though OC is theoretically legal, as MDAG Gansler argued in sworn testimony in Woollard v Gallagher as a reason to be allowed to continue to ban general concealed carry, it's not a practical method for exercising the right. And NY may try to go down that road to keep their defacto CC ban in place by changing their statue in response to a smackdown from SCOTUS.

 

[jcutonilli]

I for one wonder if they will allow live audio in real time for this case since there are so many people interested in this case unless they will allow people to be in the court room but I do doubt that with covid still around. If do allow live audio in real time, I for one will be listing ...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_09-08-21

The Court will hear all oral arguments scheduled for the October, November, and December sessions in the Courtroom. Courtroom access will be limited to the Justices, essential Court personnel, counsel in the scheduled cases, and journalists with full-time press credentials issued by the Supreme Court. Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Courtroom sessions will not be open to the public. The Court will continue to closely monitor public health guidance in determining plans.

The Court anticipates providing a live audio feed of the October, November, and December oral arguments. Additional details regarding the live audio feed will be provided in the coming weeks.

The Court building remains open for official business only and closed to the public until further notice.

 

[jcutonilli]

How? They don't allow for open carry. And if they want to go with the Statute of Northampton as far as "terrorizing" subjects, how do you terrorize people with concealed arms?
Their whole reasoning is contradictory. Ours is simple-the state may regulate the MANNER of carry but may not to so in an arbitrary or capricious manner and it must be available to law abiding citizens, not just a small subset of the public.

I misremembered the reason they thought they exceeded the right. The specific language that they used is as follows

The terms of the individual petitioners’ concealed-carry licenses confirm that New York’s law is less restrictive than its historical antecedents, and thus does not violate any historically rooted constitutional norms. A local licensing officer, acting pursuant to New York law, granted licenses authorizing Nash and Koch to carry handguns for hunting and target practice, but also for self-defense in “back country” areas, where law enforcement officials are not readily available and where the public-safety risks created by handguns are attenuated. J.A. 41, 114. The licensing officer also allowed Koch to carry while commuting. J.A. 114. While many historical public-carry laws would not have permitted even this, no jurisdiction would have allowed what petitioners seek: the right to carry a handgun everywhere (or virtually everywhere)— including the crowded and populous areas of cities and towns—based on speculation that a confrontation warranting the use of deadly force might suddenly arise.

Technically the Statute of Northampton does not talk about "terrorizing". https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html The latter interpretations of the statute determined that it was referring to an affray which included terrorizing the public.

 

[Inigoes]

I don't spend a lot of time in Baltimore City, PG County, or MoCo. Most of the rest of the state doesn't have specific statutes banning OC.
Here is an article on Delegate Smigel's experiment:
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/03/15/sheriff-lewis-appears-in-open-carry-gun-video/6472493/
Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/GKtkefEcDQY

Anyway, my point was that even though OC is theoretically legal, as MDAG Gansler argued in sworn testimony in Woollard v Gallagher as a reason to be allowed to continue to ban general concealed carry, it's not a practical method for exercising the right. And NY may try to go down that road to keep their defacto CC ban in place by changing their statue in response to a smackdown from SCOTUS.

Leonardtown in southern Maryland forbids open carry also. They have a casing ordinance for anything outside, to include bows.

 

[Kharn]

Hypothesis
Assume five Justices agree on the current NYSRPA case, and that their decision is favorable for our side. Also assume that Chief Justice Roberts joins them so he can appoint himself to write an emasculating decision. Furthermore, assume that none of the original five sign onto Robert's opinion.

Question
What would be the ramifications if the Core-5 Justices write their own opinion and all five sign this "second" opinion?

The five that agree become the controlling majority opinion, Roberts is left to concur in the judgment and his writings have no legal precedent.

 

[camo556]

I don't spend a lot of time in Baltimore City, PG County, or MoCo. Most of the rest of the state doesn't have specific statutes banning OC.
.

There is no state pre-emption, so there is no way to verify that without researching every county/city/town ordinance. You could be fine in one place then cross the street where its banned. Ocean City, Annapolis, City of Frederick all have their own ordinances. You could be fine in rural areas but there is no walking around downtown Frederick with firearms.

 

[gamer_jim]

AI: Guns are bad, m'k

"an amicus brief from Amnesty International argues that doing so would violate international law. In this post, I'll examine the arguments in the AI brief."

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/13/amnesty-international-brief-against-right-to-bear-arms/

"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone escalation of the flow of arms to the region." Indeed, "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation." "Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results will be." In sum, "Fighting fire with fire is not the solution to genocide. It is a dangerous proposition to arm the minorities to fight back."

 

[Fedora]

The five that agree become the controlling majority opinion, Roberts is left to concur in the judgment and his writings have no legal precedent.

Thank you.

 

[press1280]

I misremembered the reason they thought they exceeded the right. The specific language that they used is as follows


Technically the Statute of Northampton does not talk about "terrorizing". https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html The latter interpretations of the statute determined that it was referring to an affray which included terrorizing the public.

The language they use puts the nail in their coffin. What they are asking Scotus to do is find for a watered down (or non existent) carry right in urban areas but a robust one in the rural areas. This was sort of like how Chicago wanted a robust federal 2A compared to the states win McDonald. It was rejected.
Also they claim “historical” public carry laws wouldn’t have even allowed the plaintiff to carry to and from work. What carry laws and were those ever challenged in court? And were those laws scrutinized under an individual rights scope? Because if they weren’t, then they are meaningless. As has been pointed out, a law’s mere existence cannot be the source of its constitutionality.

 

[pcfixer]

quoted.. jcutonlli

Originally Posted by Wrenn v DC dissent pg 3 Written by Judge Henderson.
in U.S. history, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public”

Also quoted..

I would join these circuits and find that the “core” Second Amendment right does not extend beyond the home given the history
upholding “public carry” regulations, a history “enshrined with[in] the scope of the Second Amendment when it was adopted.”

No self-defense term here!

To me this is her error in understanding......or at least a direct contradiction! Why?
Read Heller I....

" That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. And with one possible exception that we discuss in Part II–D–2, 19th-century courts and commentators interpreted these state constitutional provisions to protect an individual right to use arms for self-defense. See n. 9, supra; Simpson v. State

JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’”

Interesting? Heller....

holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.

Question? Is self-defense for lawful use of being armed......only apply to "open carry" ?
Or should self-defense also apply to concealed carry"?