NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[press1280]

NY state is still criminalizing possession of an unregistered handgun. Unless SCOTUS seriously revises absolute and qualified immunity, politicians will never stop with this nonsense. Sponsoring politicians should be held liable for 10% of damages for their laws that are held unconstitutional by SCOTUS. They need to have skin in the game.

Someone will have to sue the state over this. I'm not sure how that would turn out right now. For example, does NY require training for even a premises permit? If so, then I don't know that the courts strike it down.
SCOTUS passed a few years ago on a 340$ fee case a few years ago. Granted it was a different court makeup but if there were any case where you could get liberal support, it would be that one.

 

[Inigoes]

I suppose they could still moot the case if they outright capitulate on the law and pay out plaintiffs' damages but we've already had oral arguments. The previous NYSRPA case saw NY change the law before oral arguments, so likely not going to happen at this point.

The only way NY can get out of this case Scot free now, is if the SCOTUS DIGs the case.

NY is going to pay severely this round, after the shennigans they pulled before.

 

[Allen65]

The only way NY can get out of this case Scot free now, is if the SCOTUS DIGs the case.

NY is going to pay severely this round, after the shennigans they pulled before.

Probably. But will lower courts really get the message? They're where the rubber meets the road in enforcing rights against legislative overreach. After all, the language in Heller seemed pretty clear to us, yet it's been interpreted by many Circuits to mean "any regulation short of an absolute ban on possession in the home is constitutionally acceptable".

 

[press1280]

Probably. But will lower courts really get the message? They're where the rubber meets the road in enforcing rights against legislative overreach. After all, the language in Heller seemed pretty clear to us, yet it's been interpreted by many Circuits to mean "any regulation short of an absolute ban on possession in the home is constitutionally acceptable".

Well see but at least Trump did a good job of filling as many vacancies as possible so our odds are better than before. Plus this opinion may wipe out every single “intermediate scrutiny” losing opinion, which was most of them. So we could get a near clean slate out of it.

 

[teratos]

Well see but at least Trump did a good job of filling as many vacancies as possible so our odds are better than before. Plus this opinion may wipe out every single “intermediate scrutiny” losing opinion, which was most of them. So we could get a near clean slate out of it.

That would be fantastic. That’ll help us in the 4th Circuit with the inevitable TPM restrictions lawsuits vs MD.

 

[Kharn]

That would be fantastic. That’ll help us in the 4th Circuit with the inevitable TPM restrictions lawsuits vs MD.

Especially if MSP suddenly decides to become arbitrary and capricious by inventing new restrictions unsupported by law.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Probably. But will lower courts really get the message? They're where the rubber meets the road in enforcing rights against legislative overreach. After all, the language in Heller seemed pretty clear to us, yet it's been interpreted by many Circuits to mean "any regulation short of an absolute ban on possession in the home is constitutionally acceptable".

This is just MHO…

However from the comments and questions several of the justices said during the arguments. I personally believe they will tighten the scope somewhat on how various rove states have incorrectly implemented Heller.

However that being said…. These rogue states and liberal federal justices will look for whatever holes in the NYSPRA that they can.

Will things be better? IMHO yes they will. Things were definitely better after Heller.

The worst circuit is the 9th. However luckily enough a good portion of those 2A cases in the 9th rest on Saint Benitez district court which is a good thing.

Again like I have said before… it all depends on how the opinion is written.

Like I also said before it will be basically two things. That one has the right to carry in certain non sensitive places with the only reason being self defense. In this case concealed carry.

They will also mention sensitive places, and limit to scope o history and text and or strict scrutiny.

However, the loop hole sadly will how the explain sensitive places.

Since young v Hawaii is “on hold” pending this case. I believe they will use that case to open up and say one has the right to open carry with only self defense needed. Otherwise what’s th point of leaving it on hold.

So where will we get h hardest by anti-gun states is how they define sensitive places.Hopefully scotus will define that more clearly. But if history has shown us anything scotus isn’t always very clear on defining definitions.

 

[Fedora]

So where will we get h hardest by anti-gun states is how they define sensitive places.Hopefully scotus will define that more clearly. But if history has shown us anything scotus isn’t always very clear on defining definitions.

Sensitive places defined by TPM / strict scrutiny should be pretty easy to include in the Bruen opinion, don't you think?

 

[lazarus]

This is just MHO…

However from the comments and questions several of the justices said during the arguments. I personally believe they will tighten the scope somewhat on how various rove states have incorrectly implemented Heller.

However that being said…. These rogue states and liberal federal justices will look for whatever holes in the NYSPRA that they can.

Will things be better? IMHO yes they will. Things were definitely better after Heller.

The worst circuit is the 9th. However luckily enough a good portion of those 2A cases in the 9th rest on Saint Benitez district court which is a good thing.

Again like I have said before… it all depends on how the opinion is written.

Like I also said before it will be basically two things. That one has the right to carry in certain non sensitive places with the only reason being self defense. In this case concealed carry.

They will also mention sensitive places, and limit to scope o history and text and or strict scrutiny.

However, the loop hole sadly will how the explain sensitive places.

Since young v Hawaii is “on hold” pending this case. I believe they will use that case to open up and say one has the right to open carry with only self defense needed. Otherwise what’s th point of leaving it on hold.

So where will we get h hardest by anti-gun states is how they define sensitive places.Hopefully scotus will define that more clearly. But if history has shown us anything scotus isn’t always very clear on defining definitions.

Dunno. Yeah/probably is my gut. I think they will take Young, vs remanding it based on the Bruen decision. And I think they'll then allow open carry also. But I can see them allowing open carry, with a much more relaxed places allowance.

For example, I don't see something like banning concealed carry in a sports stadium as something that might pass the smell test for strict scrutiny. But a more relaxed standard for open carry not allowing OC there? I could see the justices being okay with that.

Hell, I'd argue concealed carry (by an adult) should be just fine in a school. I don't think open carry there would generally be appropriate.

 

[camo556]

For example, I don't see something like banning concealed carry in a sports stadium as something that might pass the smell test for strict scrutiny. .

Alito suggested the standard during orals. If .gov takes responsibility for security (say via metal detectors) then they can restrict carry in those venues. Restricting carry in places like D.C. public transport is a much harder lift than a sports stadium. I don't think anyone will be carrying a gun to Yankees stadium unless your a cop.

 

[ddestruel]

Alito suggested the standard during orals. If .gov takes responsibility for security (say via metal detectors) then they can restrict carry in those venues. Restricting carry in places like D.C. public transport is a much harder lift than a sports stadium. I don't think anyone will be carrying a gun to Yankees stadium unless your a cop.

That has always been my question regarding sensitive places.

If government wants to claim an area is a sensitive place, secure perimeter and providing security would be the prerequisite.

If private business wants to ban CC in a public forum they assume the liability of protecting their customers and the customers assume the choice to frequent the establishment.

claiming a 1000' around a school or claiming the street fair with no fences, porous pedestrian traffic no metal detectors and minimal LEO's is a sensitive place and prohibiting private citizen self defense option defies logic

how SCOTUS narrows or controls the Circuit courts and judge defiance of their previous rulings will be subject of conversations for a decade after they hand down this ruling

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Sensitive places defined by TPM / strict scrutiny should be pretty easy to include in the Bruen opinion, don't you think?

Absolutely, doesn’t mean they will though. Or how narrowly they define it.
P

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Dunno. Yeah/probably is my gut. I think they will take Young, vs remanding it based on the Bruen decision. And I think they'll then allow open carry also. But I can see them allowing open carry, with a much more relaxed places allowance.

For example, I don't see something like banning concealed carry in a sports stadium as something that might pass the smell test for strict scrutiny. But a more relaxed standard for open carry not allowing OC there? I could see the justices being okay with that.

Hell, I'd argue concealed carry (by an adult) should be just fine in a school. I don't think open carry there would generally be appropriate.

Well the thing is with OC/CC is you have two different sets of views.

You have Oregon, as one example of one state that allows Permitless OC but when it comes to concealed they won’t recognize anyones LTC from any state.

Then you have a state like Florida that will recognize a lot of states LTC in reciprocity as well as make it very easy to obtain a non-resident LTC…. Yet still bans OC.

Some are more comfortable with someone concealing and don’t want anyone to OC. And others that are perfectly comfortable with OC yet hardly wants anyone to carry concealed.

Go figure.

 

[TopTechAgent]

I would hope that even the district courts see through this nonsense but a lot depends on how NYSRPA gets worded. The "large gatherings" should be DOA for simply being vague; so you have to count how many people are gathering and base your CCW on that??
On the "Food and drink," establishments, is that "Food establishments" AND "Drink establishments", or Red Lobsters,exc (place that serves food & booze)? In any event these places to my knowledge are all private property so they can ban carry there if they want. The current "Restaurant Carry" map at OCDO shows ZERO states ban carry and only 4 require one mode of carry over another.

This map has at least one error. NC does not allow open carry in establishments that serve alcohol. I use the word establishment because there’s even a grocery store here that has a bar inside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Texasgrillchef]

That has always been my question regarding sensitive places.

If government wants to claim an area is a sensitive place, secure perimeter and providing security would be the prerequisite.

If private business wants to ban CC in a public forum they assume the liability of protecting their customers and the customers assume the choice to frequent the establishment.

claiming a 1000' around a school or claiming the street fair with no fences, porous pedestrian traffic no metal detectors and minimal LEO's is a sensitive place and prohibiting private citizen self defense option defies logic

how SCOTUS narrows or controls the Circuit courts and judge defiance of their previous rulings will be subject of conversations for a decade after they hand down this ruling

Liberals defy logic… LOL

 

[Texasgrillchef]

This map has at least one error. NC does not allow open carry in establishments that serve alcohol. I use the word establishment because there’s even a grocery store here that has a bar inside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Haven’t seen the map…

Texas bans ANY type of carry (LOC, LCC, POC, & PCC) at any 51% business.

51% is any establishment, where 51% or more of the gross receipts are alcohol is consumed.

Liquor Stores don’t count. It’s against the law to consume alcohol where it is sold, other then a restaurant or bar.

 

[DC-W]

That letter filed by Virginia noting a change in their position was rejected by the Court today.

Letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Clerk notifying the Court of the Commonwealth’s change in position of Commonwealth of Virginia not accepted for filing. (February 03, 2022)

I’m guessing they ran afoul of something here or the rules for amici don’t accommodate this kind of letter. Im thinking the latter.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf

 

[Texasgrillchef]

That letter filed by Virginia noting a change in their position was rejected by the Court today.



I’m guessing they ran afoul of something here or the rules for amici don’t accommodate this kind of letter. Im thinking the latter.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf

It’s because the case has allready been heard and put to bed.

To late now to make any kind of influence of any kind on the case by anyone. In any direction.

 

[ironpony]

The libs are getting worried about this. The article sort of lays out possible next steps. All sort of what would be expected from the usual culprits… if they lose.

Just curious, the author says he’s from Maryland. Which one of you is it????

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/national-concealed-carry-it-might-be-sooner-you-think

"Still, the percentage of residents with carrying permits in Maryland is 0.4%,"

From the article, wow, that's pretty low and I like seeing the SHOT show remarks on business gearing up for an explosion in carry sales.

 

[Darkemp]

"Still, the percentage of residents with carrying permits in Maryland is 0.4%,"

From the article, wow, that's pretty low and I like seeing the SHOT show remarks on business gearing up for an explosion in carry sales.

Article compares MD to IN which while population is similar is a drastic difference in numbers. 1,120,000 permits in IN today at 18% compared to roughly 26,000 in MD at 0.4%. I think it would be a long time if ever before MD would grow to that level- I’d look at IL as more of a similar curve to what we would experience, they’ve grown to 3.4% of the population or 435,000 over the 8 years that Shall Issue CCW has existed there. Growth to that rate would be 10x current levels.