NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[Fedora]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/20-843_f2q3.pdf

I did a "search" on the transcript you linked and found 15 specific references to open carry.
Thank you, Camo.

 

[camo556]

I did a "search" on the transcript you linked and found 15 specific references to open carry.
Thank you, Camo.

The critical part though is p 21:

CLEMENT: In fact, the relief we've asked for is to have an unrestricted license because, under New York law as it currently exists, that's the only way that you can have a carry right for a handgun.
But, in framing our relief in the complaint, we, you know, framed it so that there are other relief consistent with the decision. So, if New York really wanted to say, you know, no, we have a particular problem with concealed carry, notwithstanding that traditionally that's the only way we allow people to carry, if they want to shift to an open carry regime, they could do that consistent with everything we've said here.
Now I don't think anybody expects that to happen because, if you look at the New York law specifically, it's a law that prohibits the carrying of handguns except for permit holders, and then its provisions about permit holders speak specifically to concealed carry.
So that's why we've framed our request the way we have. But what we're doing, I think, is completely consistent with the majority decision in Heller's analysis of the historical cases. We've said that those very few states that tried to prohibit both concealed carry and open carry and so gave no outlet for the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, those were the laws that the Heller majority identified as being analogous to the D.C. restriction in Heller that was invalidated.

Will NY go for an open carry regime? Long gun open carry in NYC?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

From oral argument I don't recall hearing a single word about open carry outside Kagan & Sotomayor (who likely won't rule for our side anyway). Maybe someone heard otherwise?

That was my point, we don’t know. However, young v Hawaii is on hold. Cert has neither been granted or denied. It has been in conference twice. They denied cert on at least one other LTC case. Which leaves open the question of why leave Young V Hawaii on hold if they were not at least some point considering open carry.

I would find it hard pressed for them to issue the NY opinion mentioning open carry considering it’s a conceal carry case. They will probably use Young V Hawaii to settle the open carry issue AFTER they issue their NY opinion. JMHO

 

[camo556]

That was my point, we don’t know. However, young v Hawaii is on hold. Cert has neither been granted or denied. It has been in conference twice. They denied cert on at least one other LTC case. Which leaves open the question of why leave Young V Hawaii on hold if they were not at least some point considering open carry.

I would find it hard pressed for them to issue the NY opinion mentioning open carry considering it’s a conceal carry case. They will probably use Young V Hawaii to settle the open carry issue AFTER they issue their NY opinion. JMHO

No, see Clement's response above. Majority will simply frame it the same way he has - you cant ban both. They will remand Young (see: NYSRPA v Bruen) and will leave it up to NY to decide.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

No, see Clement's response above. Majority will simply frame it the same way he has - you cant ban both. They will remand Young (see: NYSRPA v Bruen) and will leave it up to NY to decide.

So In your opinion, you are saying that they will remand young, and make the Hawaii decide to either start issuing LTC’s for either open carry or conceal, hawaiis choice, but won’t require both?

I can see that as happening. But I still believe that they (SCOTUS) is looking for a way to require and allow both open and conceal be required.

 

[camo556]

So In your opinion, you are saying that they will remand young, and make the Hawaii decide to either start issuing LTC’s for either open carry or conceal, hawaiis choice, but won’t require both?

I can see that as happening. But I still believe that they (SCOTUS) is looking for a way to require and allow both open and conceal be required.

Hawaii permit does not specify open or concealed, you can do either.

They won't get into the great internet open vs concealed carry debate. They are already moving on to sensitive places.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Hawaii permit does not specify open or concealed, you can do either.

They won't get into the great internet open vs concealed carry debate. They are already moving on to sensitive places.

If SCOTUS doesn’t make it clear on one or the other or both. Then I can see Hawaii just going with one or the other when they change the law. I still say it depends on what happens with Young v Hawaii.

You are correct, I see these states as quickly reducing the number of places one can carry by calling them sensitive places.

Watch Hawaii ban carry on the Beach.

SC which just passed OC, is now having one city considering banning OC at public events and in city buildings. See time/place restrictions.

Unlike overruling other criminal laws. This law relies on getting the government to issue a license. I doubt SCOTUS wants to issue a ruling in such a way that they create a temporary Permitless carry issue through out the USA like what happened in D.C. for a short time with the wrenn case.

 

[camo556]

If SCOTUS doesn’t make it clear on one or the other or both. Then I can see Hawaii just going with one or the other when they change the law. I still say it depends on what happens with Young v Hawaii.

who said they would pass a new law?

All they need to do is issue licenses under the existing one.

Ppl keep saying MD would need to pass a new law too. Or wait for the 4th circuit. That is simply wrong. All they need to do is issue licenses for "self defense" under the existing one.

 

[Occam]

In keeping with the remarks above about how MD would simply operate under new guidance for the permit process ... who (specifically) interprets the SCOTUS ruling and provides that guidance? What motivates them to do that on any particular expedient schedule? Not sure how that food chain actually works.

 

[teratos]

In keeping with the remarks above about how MD would simply operate under new guidance for the permit process ... who (specifically) interprets the SCOTUS ruling and provides that guidance? What motivates them to do that on any particular expedient schedule? Not sure how that food chain actually works.

Implementation: Governor (declaring self defense is G&S). Licensing division/AG on COMAR
Motivation: They risk further lawsuits. Also, willfully violating people’s constitutional rights opens government officials to PERSONAL lawsuits and I’d imagine potential criminal charges.

 

[Allen65]

Implementation: Governor (declaring self defense is G&S). Licensing division/AG on COMAR
Motivation: They risk further lawsuits. Also, willfully violating people’s constitutional rights opens government officials to PERSONAL lawsuits and I’d imagine potential criminal charges.

I've been waiting for someone to start a civil action under this for deprivation of 2A rights:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

I'd be happy to donate $ towards expenses for a viable case.

 

[Occam]

Motivation: They risk further lawsuits.

Is it just me, or has that not seemed to particularly impacted their behavior in the past? If they have to defend against a suit over the way the state government is doing (nor not doing) something, well, that's just time spent by lawyers already employed to do such things, and tax dollars about which they have a demonstrated history of not giving one single flying f#ck.

Also, willfully violating people’s constitutional rights opens government officials to PERSONAL lawsuits and I’d imagine potential criminal charges.

That seems like a long, steep, protracted hill to climb, during which said state gubmint officials would just cite a "misunderstanding of the SCOTUS ruling's applicability, especially in the context of their passionate dedication to ensuring the safety of Marylanders against the scourge of gun violence caused by the misunderstood Second Amendment blahdittyblahblah."

If the line connecting "we're not in the mood to act quickly or openly or particularly at all about this" and "you're going to jail now" was short and bright, I can see how that would be motivation. But I've watched too much Froshness play out to think that's necessarily what would make the state bureaucracy change its long established stripes in any prompt sort of way. We'll see.

 

[Bertfish]

Maryland doesn't care about wasting tax dollars on lawsuits. Baron Mustache loves it in fact

 

[delaware_export]

I may be mistaken. I’ll defer to wolfwood. The lawyer from the case and member here…

Iirc Hawaii has two different permits. One for open and one for concealed. Either way, they don’t issue either to average citizens.

Based on my reading of the young vs Hawaii case.

Hawaii permit does not specify open or concealed, you can do either.

They won't get into the great internet open vs concealed carry debate. They are already moving on to sensitive places.

 

[Fedora]

I can see that as happening. But I still believe that they (SCOTUS) is looking for a way to require and allow both open and conceal be required.

How about, "The Right is open carry. But should a state balk at that, concealed carry is a permissible alternative as long as the fees and costs do not exceed those associated with open carry"?

And it would be nice, if the opinion favors licensed carry, that any concealed carry license, whether resident or non-resident, would satisfy the requirement.

 

[jcutonilli]

I've been waiting for someone to start a civil action under this for deprivation of 2A rights:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

I'd be happy to donate $ towards expenses for a viable case.

42 USC 1983 is typically cited in 2A cases.

for example see complaint
FPC 2A Challenge to Maryland's Handgun Carry Ban
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/call
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n.../1605322128/Doc._1_-_Complaint.pdf?1605322128

 

[teratos]

Is it just me, or has that not seemed to particularly impacted their behavior in the past? If they have to defend against a suit over the way the state government is doing (nor not doing) something, well, that's just time spent by lawyers already employed to do such things, and tax dollars about which they have a demonstrated history of not giving one single flying f#ck.



That seems like a long, steep, protracted hill to climb, during which said state gubmint officials would just cite a "misunderstanding of the SCOTUS ruling's applicability, especially in the context of their passionate dedication to ensuring the safety of Marylanders against the scourge of gun violence caused by the misunderstood Second Amendment blahdittyblahblah."

If the line connecting "we're not in the mood to act quickly or openly or particularly at all about this" and "you're going to jail now" was short and bright, I can see how that would be motivation. But I've watched too much Froshness play out to think that's necessarily what would make the state bureaucracy change its long established stripes in any prompt sort of way. We'll see.

People don’t mess around with SCOTUS decisions. There is no “I didn’t understand”. You can file a civil suit against that individual 5 minutes after they obstruct your exercise of a right. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

There will be shenanigans. They won’t be “we are ignoring this decision” level things.

 

[press1280]

I may be mistaken. I’ll defer to wolfwood. The lawyer from the case and member here…

Iirc Hawaii has two different permits. One for open and one for concealed. Either way, they don’t issue either to ANY citizens.

Based on my reading of the young vs Hawaii case.

FIFY

 

[Texasgrillchef]

who said they would pass a new law?

All they need to do is issue licenses under the existing one.

Ppl keep saying MD would need to pass a new law too. Or wait for the 4th circuit. That is simply wrong. All they need to do is issue licenses for "self defense" under the existing one.

They very well could, I just doubt they will though. Once the opinion gets issued, technically they should immediatelay accept self defense as a reason. However, do you honestly believe they would?

I could see people submitting their applications, and where it says why, or show need one could say… self defense, see SCOTUS NYSPRA v Bruen as reference. And see what happens.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Implementation: Governor (declaring self defense is G&S). Licensing division/AG on COMAR
Motivation: They risk further lawsuits. Also, willfully violating people’s constitutional rights opens government officials to PERSONAL lawsuits and I’d imagine potential criminal charges.

Like I said in another post, submit an app, and where your suppose to explain a reason for wanting one, you say self defense, see NYSPRA v Bruen for reference. Then just see if they accept that and issue you your LTC.

Might work in Maryland, and maybe even a couple of other states. If you have ever looked at the Hawaii app, as well as New Jersey submitting that, might not work until Young v Hawaii gets a ruling and the 4 Permit cases pending for NJ get finalized. New Jersey may just deny it and make you file an appeal where the judge would then be forced to approve it. Filing an appeal costs extra money of course.