NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[press1280]

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.

But in that case do they set themselves up for you being able to collect for damages if you were so inclined?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

But in that case do they set themselves up for you being able to collect for damages if you were so inclined?

Problem is what’s called moot. Soon as you file, your LTC gets issued. And then they dismiss for mootness. Damages that’s a lot harder to get. On something like this they will draw it out and claim qualified immunity. You have to show gross negligence. Easier said then done.

 

[Bertfish]

Problem is what’s called moot. Soon as you file, your LTC gets issued. And then they dismiss for mootness. Damages that’s a lot harder to get. On something like this they will draw it out and claim qualified immunity. You have to show gross negligence. Easier said then done.

Not a lawyer but I believe the state will also often win if they can convince the court they're working "in good faith" to get things done. Court says oh well hey they're doing their best!

 

[press1280]

Problem is what’s called moot. Soon as you file, your LTC gets issued. And then they dismiss for mootness. Damages that’s a lot harder to get. On something like this they will draw it out and claim qualified immunity. You have to show gross negligence. Easier said then done.

No I mean in the scenario we are talking about where you apply right before the scotus decision comes out and refer to it in your good cause statement, and they try to basically treat it as they would before and deny for lack of cause.
I mean once Scotus rules then the NYSRPA will be recovering damages for sure.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Not a lawyer but I believe the state will also often win if they can convince the court they're working "in good faith" to get things done. Court says oh well hey they're doing their best!

That has definitely been the case with liberal courts for the last 10 years.

Hopefully, based on comments and questions by Kavanaugh, this opinion will include statements concerning the use of Scrutiny and how it should be properly used. If that’s the case, we might see some changes in how our courts operate.

True the liberal courts look for loop holes. However this will tighten the noose and make finding those loopholes even harder. Hopefully.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

No I mean in the scenario we are talking about where you apply right before the scotus decision comes out and refer to it in your good cause statement, and they try to basically treat it as they would before and deny for lack of cause.
I mean once Scotus rules then the NYSRPA will be recovering damages for sure.

NYSRPA will get reasonable Attorney fees and costs. They won’t get much more then that though.

 

[Inigoes]

NYSRPA will get reasonable Attorney fees and costs. They won’t get much more then that though.

That is why there is always a second court fight. Defining what is reasonable. Each side has their own version.

 

[camo556]

Problem is what’s called moot. Soon as you file, your LTC gets issued. And then they dismiss for mootness. Damages that’s a lot harder to get. On something like this they will draw it out and claim qualified immunity. You have to show gross negligence. Easier said then done.

No, an organization like MSI or SAF will win these suits for classes of members.

As someone pointed out in one of these threads, once the Supreme Court puts ppl on notice what the law is, officials lose their immunity.

The nearest analogous example I can find is in 2013, when the MD GA was rushing to ban guns, apparently there were a lot of purchases, so many that the MDSP could not do the 77r within a week. They got sued, and lost (see here https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140117/maryland-forced-to-clarify-firearm-transfer-rules), because the law clearly says 7 days. Dealers were allowed to release handguns even if the paperwork "not dissapproved" was not back. Looking back at some threads, apparently the wait was 180+ days for paperwork.

Put that in the context of MD CCW, where the law states they must approve within 90 days. If the MDSP drags their feet they run the major risk of the court saying, well now the law is shall issue, and MD law says 90 days, so anyone whose applied can carry even if their card is not returned. That would be the analogous situation to 2013 handgun lawsuit. They wont drag their feet because they are running the major risk of getting sued with the result being de facto constitutional carry. Its a very similar situation to 2013, except they dont have to rely of dealers to release guns ppl can just... carry.

Edit: hmm maybe I should hope that they do drag their feet.

 

[press1280]

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

Only one of those was by one of the 6 justices I predict will rule in our favor. It was from Kavanaugh who implied that an OC scheme (presumably shall issue or non-permit required) would be acceptable OR an OC ban with a shall issue CCW scheme.
So essentially my underlying point still remains. Open carry is not going to factor much into the majority opinion. It was thrown out by Kagan & Sotomayor possibly as an attempt to turn this into another Peruta CA9 opinion.

 

[rbird7282]

I have very little faith that SCOTUS will give us a very favorable ruling on this, I hope I am proven wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teratos]

NYSRPA will get reasonable Attorney fees and costs. They won’t get much more then that though.

I'm going to be sending them a couple hundred bucks....

 

[press1280]

I have very little faith that SCOTUS will give us a very favorable ruling on this, I hope I am proven wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What did you hear from oral arguments that makes you think we'll lose?

 

[Mark75H]

I have very little faith that SCOTUS will give us a very favorable ruling on this, I hope I am proven wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What did you hear from oral arguments that makes you think we'll lose?

"very"

Just because the ruling is favorable, doesn't mean it will be very favorable. Any reasonable pro2A person is holding their breath to see what limits the opinion includes

 

[Texasgrillchef]

No, an organization like MSI or SAF will win these suits for classes of members.

As someone pointed out in one of these threads, once the Supreme Court puts ppl on notice what the law is, officials lose their immunity.

The nearest analogous example I can find is in 2013, when the MD GA was rushing to ban guns, apparently there were a lot of purchases, so many that the MDSP could not do the 77r within a week. They got sued, and lost (see here https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140117/maryland-forced-to-clarify-firearm-transfer-rules), because the law clearly says 7 days. Dealers were allowed to release handguns even if the paperwork "not dissapproved" was not back. Looking back at some threads, apparently the wait was 180+ days for paperwork.

Put that in the context of MD CCW, where the law states they must approve within 90 days. If the MDSP drags their feet they run the major risk of the court saying, well now the law is shall issue, and MD law says 90 days, so anyone whose applied can carry even if their card is not returned. That would be the analogous situation to 2013 handgun lawsuit. They wont drag their feet because they are running the major risk of getting sued with the result being de facto constitutional carry. Its a very similar situation to 2013, except they dont have to rely of dealers to release guns ppl can just... carry.

Edit: hmm maybe I should hope that they do drag their feet.

I agree with you in theory… but if you apply and they drag their feet, and you don’t have it in hand within 90 days. Are you going to risk carrying? Do you think a Leo will be able to verify you applied and it’s been over 90 days? You willing to get arrested, only to get bailed out then a week later the DA drops the case?

I’m not willing to go through that. Not much fun.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Only one of those was by one of the 6 justices I predict will rule in our favor. It was from Kavanaugh who implied that an OC scheme (presumably shall issue or non-permit required) would be acceptable OR an OC ban with a shall issue CCW scheme.
So essentially my underlying point still remains. Open carry is not going to factor much into the majority opinion. It was thrown out by Kagan & Sotomayor possibly as an attempt to turn this into another Peruta CA9 opinion.

I see your point, but if that was the case, why put Young v Hawaii on hold? Why not just deny cert? After they issue the obvious opinion that a state can do one or the other OC or CC as long as the permit is shall issue, or they have Permitless carry on either OC or CC. If that’s how they rule, then why keep Young V Hawaii on hold?

 

[camo556]

I agree with you in theory… but if you apply and they drag their feet, and you don’t have it in hand within 90 days. Are you going to risk carrying? Do you think a Leo will be able to verify you applied and it’s been over 90 days? You willing to get arrested, only to get bailed out then a week later the DA drops the case?

I’m not willing to go through that. Not much fun.

Go back and look at what happened in 2013.

People picked up their gun despite "pressure" from the MDSP. Lots of them. Some people who have applied will carry after the 90 days, and the court will say its the MDSP's problem. Shall issue means that. The state has the burden of proof within 90 days. They cant arrest everyone, and they barely prosecute people now for carrying.

Its a paradigm shift.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

"very"

Just because the ruling is favorable, doesn't mean it will be very favorable. Any reasonable pro2A person is holding their breath to see what limits the opinion includes

Of. Purse there will be limits. There is never an opinion issued on anything without limits of some sort. I think that goes without saying.

They will make a statement about limits about people who should not be issued a license. Same as it basically exists now. They might even word it in a way that will settle most of the “Prohibited Persons” suits currently in the courts, as well as a few of the cases they have allready denied.

They will mention sensitive places/times to some degree. Like was mentioned in Heller, but again will leave that fairly vague.

They will mention the use of Scrutiny, I believe Kavanaugh will insist on that.

Their ruling an opinion on LTC however will remain quite narrow. And other then mentioning prohibited persons, they will keep comments on other aspects of issuing a LTC to not allowing an application to be considered by someone in a discretionary way, or the requirement of a good reason. They will clearly affirm the right to carry outside of one’s home. Because Young V Hawaii has yet to be denied cert, I also believe they won’t be limiting carry to either CC or OC. They may allow the state to choose one or the other to issue a LTC, but can’t deny both.

 

[rbird7282]

What did you hear from oral arguments that makes you think we'll lose?

Honestly I didn’t get a chance to listen to them, I just don’t trust the Court at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[F5guy]

Honestly I didn’t get a chance to listen to them, I just don’t trust the Court at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My biggest concern is if they remand as has been suggested. After listening I’m joining NYRPSA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mark75H]

Of. Purse there will be limits. There is never an opinion issued on anything without limits of some sort. I think that goes without saying.

They will make a statement about limits about people who should not be issued a license. Same as it basically exists now. They might even word it in a way that will settle most of the “Prohibited Persons” suits currently in the courts, as well as a few of the cases they have allready denied.

They will mention sensitive places/times to some degree. Like was mentioned in Heller, but again will leave that fairly vague.

They will mention the use of Scrutiny, I believe Kavanaugh will insist on that.

Their ruling an opinion on LTC however will remain quite narrow. And other then mentioning prohibited persons, they will keep comments on other aspects of issuing a LTC to not allowing an application to be considered by someone in a discretionary way, or the requirement of a good reason. They will clearly affirm the right to carry outside of one’s home. Because Young V Hawaii has yet to be denied cert, I also believe they won’t be limiting carry to either CC or OC. They may allow the state to choose one or the other to issue a LTC, but can’t deny both.

I don't know where you've been but this is the entire case before the court, its not one of the "other aspects", its the aspect to be decided.