Young just filed cert petition

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!
  • And if SCOTUS decides to hear it and then agrees with the 9th does that mean states that do not have shall issue or constitutional carry are justified in denying people a permit for any reason other than reasons they chose?

    the court has denied to hear a challenge or ruled against the 2A nearly twice as often as they have found for it. While I applaud this guy's reasoning the outcome could be catastrophic. I guess it's not going to matter soon anyway..
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    IF cert is granted and the cases combined then HI would have a major stake in the ruling as well and they might get a phone call from Herr Flush and company saying NOOOOO find a way to win at all and any cost.. plus of SCOTUS does rule against HI it would also be a major smack down of 9CA as well which once again, it has proven to be the bast**d child of the federal circuit and deserves a major spanking .
     

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    6,527
    WV
    IF cert is granted and the cases combined then HI would have a major stake in the ruling as well and they might get a phone call from Herr Flush and company saying NOOOOO find a way to win at all and any cost.. plus of SCOTUS does rule against HI it would also be a major smack down of 9CA as well which once again, it has proven to be the bast**d child of the federal circuit and deserves a major spanking .

    We now have NY, NJ, and CA cases all at SCOTUS. At this point, I just don't see a way out for Herr Frosh and others other than to win at SCOTUS or to do what IL did, and that is to voluntarily change their law to shall issue and try to put in some other burdensome regulations that weren't previously there.
     

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    6,527
    WV
    Can’t find the docket page on Scotus. Even so we would now be waiting on the state to reply, and since this was sped up they’ll likely try to stall and ask for extensions.
     

    wjackcooper

    Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    Young v. Hawaii / reinforcing NYRPA v. Corlett

    From the amicus brief filed by W. Olson in support of the cert petition in Young: “This Court declined to address a broader question raised by NYSRPA” which was: “ Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” *

    Note that Olson is asserting that the court’s question to Clement et al. in NYSRPA v Corlett, i.e., “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment“ does not “address . . . outside the home.”

    Olson has doubled down on “outside” as presented in Corlett and “bear” as defined in Heller. ** “Carry” confined to inside “the home” by default in NYSRPA does not appear (at least to me) to be a significant risk. At any rate, very competent, experienced, Constitutional lawyers are (once again) very carefully, precisely framing and presenting the 2A to the Court.

    Continued support for pro 2A organizations is critical at this juncture.

    Regards
    Jack

    *https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ng v. Hawaii SCOTUS Petition amicus brief.pdf P. 14

    **“At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’. . . When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose – confrontation.”
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/ 10
     

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    6,527
    WV
    From the amicus brief filed by W. Olson in support of the cert petition in Young: “This Court declined to address a broader question raised by NYSRPA” which was: “ Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” *

    Note that Olson is asserting that the court’s question to Clement et al. in NYSRPA v Corlett, i.e., “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment“ does not “address . . . outside the home.”

    Olson has doubled down on “outside” as presented in Corlett and “bear” as defined in Heller. ** “Carry” confined to inside “the home” by default in NYSRPA does not appear (at least to me) to be a significant risk. At any rate, very competent, experienced, Constitutional lawyers are (once again) very carefully, precisely framing and presenting the 2A to the Court.

    Continued support for pro 2A organizations is critical at this juncture.

    Regards
    Jack

    *https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ng v. Hawaii SCOTUS Petition amicus brief.pdf P. 14

    **“At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’. . . When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose – confrontation.”
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/ 10

    I don’t know how the concealed carry license doesn’t address outside the home unless they’re thinking that perhaps the court may try for a out with the equal protection clause?
    IIRC there wasn’t any briefing on equal protection in Corlett although in previous cases that were denied cert there was an equal protection claim.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    258,682
    Messages
    6,537,246
    Members
    29,479
    Latest member
    Surf

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom