Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 07-20-2021, 12:45 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default It warms my heart...

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
gEEZ..
Ha ha - I know right?

I was puzzled that 175 Republican congresscritters filed a brief with zero Senators. Glad to see some Senators filing separately.

There's some other good ones referencing how critical the right to carry outside the home is critical for the self-defense of marginalized communities such as women and religious minorities in New York City. It was a nice touch pointing out how unsafe NYC is when people can't defend themselves.

I'm glad that Young filed his own brief, but wish he had answered the question directly since carry permit reasons apply to his case specifically and how the 9th treated him.
  #762  
Old 07-20-2021, 1:11 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Finally, the Senators answered the question. Thank you Ted Cruz!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...20SENATORS.pdf
  #763  
Old 07-20-2021, 1:16 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,718
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Inside
Amicus brief of California Gun Rights Foundation

I found this paper quoted,

"Concealed Carry Through Common Use: Extending Heller’s Constitutional Construction"
Here http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploa....-Rev.-284.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concealed Carry Through Common Use: Extending Heller’s Constitutional Construction
This Note argues that the correct understanding of Heller’s cate-gorical standard of review leads to a Second Amendment right to con-cealed carry a handgun in public. When reviewing its next Second Amendment case, the Court should mirror its approach in Heller and engage in the process of constitutional construction to extend the“common use” test for “arms” to the question of “bearing” arms through the mode of concealed carry.

I haven't read the amici completely , but it may use some the argument.

EDIT: they didn't argue common use in that amici.

Last edited by abinsinia; 07-20-2021 at 1:49 PM..
  #764  
Old 07-20-2021, 2:14 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
Ha ha - I know right?

I was puzzled that 175 Republican congresscritters filed a brief with zero Senators. Glad to see some Senators filing separately.

There's some other good ones referencing how critical the right to carry outside the home is critical for the self-defense of marginalized communities such as women and religious minorities in New York City. It was a nice touch pointing out how unsafe NYC is when people can't defend themselves.

I'm glad that Young filed his own brief, but wish he had answered the question directly since carry permit reasons apply to his case specifically and how the 9th treated him.
Take a look at: Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc

They squarely address the absurdity of CA9 En Banc in their treatment of both Young and Peruta, in avoiding the question.

Quote:
In sum, the Ninth Circuit has artificially construed carry-restriction challenges as narrowly requesting a specific form of carry, then analyzed each form of carry in a vacuum, and found no right to any specific form of carry. This piecemeal approach has allowed the Ninth Circuit to dodge the actual question presented in these cases: Does the Second Amendment protect some form of public carry? As a result, the Ninth Circuit’s holdings effectively mean that “while the Second Amendment may guarantee
the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.” Id. at 829 (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting). “In so holding, the [Ninth Circuit] reduces the right to ‘bear Arms’ to a mere inkblot.” Id.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
  #765  
Old 07-21-2021, 5:31 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reading the briefs filed in the past few days I would hope the justices take great care to note the efforts used by lower courts to subvert the language in Heller and the efforts to limit second amendment questions to Rational Basis masquerading as Intermediate Scrutiny. The Supreme Court must create a hardline test for second amendment cases or the uniform disregard for the right will continue for another decade at minimum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #766  
Old 07-21-2021, 6:01 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Take a look at: Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc

They squarely address the absurdity of CA9 En Banc in their treatment of both Young and Peruta, in avoiding the question.
This amicus brief actually responds to the question in the same way the question was presented.

Heller says that the founders didn't mention "bearing arms" just to protect the carrying of a pistol from the bedroom to the kitchen. They also distinctly defined "bear", in part, as being in a pocket. (Which means CONCEALED in case you couldn't figure that out on your own even though they didn't use those "exact words.")

So really the reformulated question asks if a State can reduce the bearing of arms to a single mode or manner and then get to arbitrarily pick and choose who gets to exercise their rights via that mode or manner, and if doing that violates the 2A.

I think the answer is pretty clear even without wishful thinking on our parts. I also think this decision is going to lead to a lot of problems for big city cops in the area of Terry v. Ohio.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
  #767  
Old 07-21-2021, 7:36 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
This amicus brief actually responds to the question in the same way the question was presented.

Heller says that the founders didn't mention "bearing arms" just to protect the carrying of a pistol from the bedroom to the kitchen. They also distinctly defined "bear", in part, as being in a pocket. (Which means CONCEALED in case you couldn't figure that out on your own even though they didn't use those "exact words.")

So really the reformulated question asks if a State can reduce the bearing of arms to a single mode or manner and then get to arbitrarily pick and choose who gets to exercise their rights via that mode or manner, and if doing that violates the 2A.

I think the answer is pretty clear even without wishful thinking on our parts. I also think this decision is going to lead to a lot of problems for big city cops in the area of Terry v. Ohio.

If the supreme court rules on both bearing of arms and the question of standard of review for all 2A cases that will reduce many of the headaches we endure in the future. They need to give activist judges in the lower courts as little wiggle room as possible. The only issue I see with that hope is that Kavanaugh and Barrett were big fans of incrementalism during the October 2020 term. They might try to slow walk these 2A cases and that would be bad news for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #768  
Old 07-21-2021, 8:15 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Quite the history...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Take a look at: Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc

They squarely address the absurdity of CA9 En Banc in their treatment of both Young and Peruta, in avoiding the question.
There’s a whole lot of “evading review” going on.

And interesting approach suggesting ways they can reduce the workload so Breyer can take it easy for a few more years.
  #769  
Old 07-21-2021, 9:03 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 477
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Another good brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...No._20-843.pdf

Quote:
“The list of permit holders in New York City … strongly suggests that the Sullivan Law [and current § 400.00(2)(f)] has been applied on the basis of wealth, celebrity status, political influence, and favoritism.”
Quote:
In discussing California’s near identical law, a dissenting opinion by Judge Callahan of the Ninth Circuit observed, “a discretionary licensing scheme that grants concealed weapons permits to only privileged individuals would be troubling.” Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego

Last edited by cyphr02; 07-21-2021 at 9:04 AM.. Reason: removing line breaks
  #770  
Old 07-21-2021, 5:07 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If Mr. Rabbit is indeed right, and the Supreme Court in Heller only intended to recognize "open carry" as a right in Heller, the Amicus Curiae brief of the Independent Women's Law Center was a missed opportunity. The brief focuses on the need for a right to carry from the perspective of women. However, the brief did not specifically address concealed carry as a right.

When the authorities cited in Heller discussing the right to open carry were issued, it was a much different world. It was well accepted women did not have the same rights as men (e.g., the right to vote). As such, the view that the right to carry was limited to open carry would have been viewed from a man's perspective.

Concealed carry, in particular, is more important to women than men. A risk of open carry always prevalent is that a predator will seek the disarm the person carrying a firearm. As a general rule, men are physically stronger than women, and this puts women at a disadvantage vis-*-vis men.

In addition, women's clothing and accessories, which include dresses and purses, is much better suited to concealed carry than open carry vis-*-vis men. So, failing to recognize concealed carry as a right particularly infringes upon women's second amendment protections.

It is disappointing this brief did not point this out.
  #771  
Old 07-22-2021, 2:26 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I do appreciate the Black Guns Matter et al brief. There are now plenty of briefs to set up a good oral arguments session with a discussion about how NY’s scheme protects or disadvantages marginalized groups. If NY claims the police will protect them, I hope that one of the justices asks, “But didn’t you defund the police? Isn’t that contributing to the rise in hate crimes?”

And with equal protection concerns, once self defense for marginalized groups must be allowed as adequate cause, then everyone else would need it, too.

Do any of the anti 2A briefs address the racist history of NY’s law and the need for marginalized people groups to defend themselves?
  #772  
Old 07-22-2021, 3:40 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
I do appreciate the Black Guns Matter et al brief. There are now plenty of briefs to set up a good oral arguments session with a discussion about how NY’s scheme protects or disadvantages marginalized groups. If NY claims the police will protect them, I hope that one of the justices asks, “But didn’t you defund the police? Isn’t that contributing to the rise in hate crimes?”

And with equal protection concerns, once self defense for marginalized groups must be allowed as adequate cause, then everyone else would need it, too.

Do any of the anti 2A briefs address the racist history of NY’s law and the need for marginalized people groups to defend themselves?
The SAF brief talks all about the Sullivan Act. Well written too.
There is a better argument with respect to the argument that the police are there to protect you (as posited by the Ninth in Young); the courts have long held that police only have a general duty to protect "the public" and maintain order, but not a duty to any individual member of society. As to that, you are on your own. As many have said, the police are there after the fact to take pictures, obtain evidence, and clean up the mess, and maybe track down the person or persons responsible. The police have no duty to (and realistically cannot) prevent crime.
  #773  
Old 07-22-2021, 4:10 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
On the other hand, I am not sure that it is proper to use the experience of shall issue and CC states to predict how police officers in previously no issue areas will react when faced with large numbers of armed citizens.
Many states that are now "shale issue" were "no issue" before they changed the laws. The police somehow did not mass murder the citizens, nor was there any sort of mass murder. Except maybe for preconceived notions, that died a nasty death.
  #774  
Old 07-22-2021, 4:15 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
I do appreciate the Black Guns Matter et al brief. There are now plenty of briefs to set up a good oral arguments session with a discussion about how NY’s scheme protects or disadvantages marginalized groups. If NY claims the police will protect them, I hope that one of the justices asks, “But didn’t you defund the police? Isn’t that contributing to the rise in hate crimes?”

And with equal protection concerns, once self defense for marginalized groups must be allowed as adequate cause, then everyone else would need it, too.

Do any of the anti 2A briefs address the racist history of NY’s law and the need for marginalized people groups to defend themselves?
ALL Gov CCW permit schemes [not just NY] are disadvantageous for "marginalized" groups. Especially ALL LOW INCOME individuals.

There have historically NEVER been any "equal protection concerns", where oppressive 2A laws are concerned. How much do retired LE PAY IN FEES for their COAST TO COAST LEOSA permits?

The RIGHT TO VOTE. Is not enumerated in the BoR. Or even mentioned in the Constitution. Yet POLL TAXES or ANY FEES associated with the Right to Vote are ILLEGAL.

The 2A has never been treated AS A RIGHT. But as a privilege to be parsed, and doled out to the advantage of political groups. WHO GREATLY PROFIT FROM IT!.

I've always used the default example of;

A law abiding single Mom with 2 kids and 2 jobs. Trapped in LOW RENT DISTRICTS. [read ghetto] By financial restraints. As a US CITIZEN. Wants the ability to defend herself/family/ and property. Which was GUARENTEED IN THE B of R.

But she can't afford the exorbitant TAXES associated with the right to self defense. Even if "SHALL ISSUE". Is mandated by SCOTUS

ETA................. IMHO, if ConCarry is not recognized as the LAW OF THE LAND. Due to the 2A. And the Gov in any form, is ALLOWED to levy financial requirements before a CITIZEN can exercise their 2A RIGHT. THEN THAT GOV SHOULD FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR REQUIREMENT.

Last edited by pacrat; 07-22-2021 at 7:57 PM..
  #775  
Old 07-22-2021, 8:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Try not to get lost with the "carry" arguments folks...focus on the actual question.

=8-|
Your narrow focus skips over the logical predicates necessary to determine the "actual" question posed. One cannot decide if discretionary issuance is constitutional until one first decides: 1) there is a right to bear outside the home; 2) that the right to bear is available equally to all citizens, and 3) only then whether the government in the context of an enumerated right can deny the right to some (or most) but grant it to others merely on the whim of a governmental functionary. If the court were to agree with the Ninth that there is no right to bear outside the home, the case ends at the first step, and so forth. When viewed against the backdrop that discretionary issuance has a long history of invidious discrimination against racial and immigrant groups, there is a powerful argument that discretionary issuance of a permit is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, separate and apart from the issue of whether the government can limit/control the presence of firearms in the community at large.
  #776  
Old 07-23-2021, 6:46 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default They did narrow it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
If the supreme court rules on both bearing of arms and the question of standard of review for all 2A cases that will reduce many of the headaches we endure in the future. They need to give activist judges in the lower courts as little wiggle room as possible. The only issue I see with that hope is that Kavanaugh and Barrett were big fans of incrementalism during the October 2020 term. They might try to slow walk these 2A cases and that would be bad news for us.
By reformatting the question they did narrow the case to an incremental change. I don’t see them jumping to Constitutional Carry for every state.

But after reading all these briefs, I can see them raking NY attorneys over the coals on hate crimes and demanding to know how NY will protect people. Their current policies are detrimental. So they can write an opinion that cites hate crimes in NY as a reason that all jurisdictions accept “self defense” as an adequate reason for everyone.

That doesn’t disrupt any of the months-long background checks, interviews, fee structure, etc.

In places like California this will still limit permits to the affluent who can navigate the bureaucracy.

The cities will do other things to resist of course. Cities like NY that rely on public transit will likely ban carry on the Subway if they haven’t already. But maybe it will help people who walk places.

In any case it will be an incremental change that may shock the system in certain states but won’t disrupt most of the country.

It wasn’t that long ago when Texas was against concealed carry. So this is a process that takes time to change attitudes.

I’m almost certain that the Court will use hate crime risk combined with equal protection to rule that self-defense is an adequate reason for every non-felon.
  #777  
Old 07-23-2021, 6:55 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
You can spend all day arguing buts, exceptions, alternatives, contrasts, conflicts, alternative, balances, animus, history, etc . . .

. . . but at some point you have to specifically answer the question posed by the judge or the court.

The question is whether a denial for a concealed carry permit for self-defense in NYC/NYS is a constitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment....
I think you're skipping over that part in your analysis and are stuck on concealed permits.


You don't get to permits without first acknowledging that they involve the bearing of arms and whether the State has the authority to regulate or limit the bearing of arms.


If the State's permits involve the bearing of arms and is subject to denial at whim; then the question arises on whether said bearing of arms is a Right of the people, or merely a privilege being awarded via a permit to the deserving.


The question even sets this up.

1. Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications...

2. for concealed-carry licenses...

3. violated the Second Amendment.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
  #778  
Old 07-23-2021, 9:49 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
By reformatting the question they did narrow the case to an incremental change. I don’t see them jumping to Constitutional Carry for every state.

But after reading all these briefs, I can see them raking NY attorneys over the coals on hate crimes and demanding to know how NY will protect people. Their current policies are detrimental. So they can write an opinion that cites hate crimes in NY as a reason that all jurisdictions accept “self defense” as an adequate reason for everyone.

That doesn’t disrupt any of the months-long background checks, interviews, fee structure, etc.

In places like California this will still limit permits to the affluent who can navigate the bureaucracy.

The cities will do other things to resist of course. Cities like NY that rely on public transit will likely ban carry on the Subway if they haven’t already. But maybe it will help people who walk places.

In any case it will be an incremental change that may shock the system in certain states but won’t disrupt most of the country.

It wasn’t that long ago when Texas was against concealed carry. So this is a process that takes time to change attitudes.

I’m almost certain that the Court will use hate crime risk combined with equal protection to rule that self-defense is an adequate reason for every non-felon.
To me, the question of increments is determined entirely on whether they define a solid test for 2A cases or not. They certainly won't be ruling for constitutional carry with NYSRPA, that's not even in question. But whether Kavanaugh and Barrett refuse to take part in adding a standard of scrutiny for 2A related cases as a whole is what really matters here. If the justices rule only on the issue of carrying we will continue to have the same gamesmanship and outright dishonesty from the lower courts. Don't get me wrong I would like to have shall-issue. But I would love watching the justices take a baseball bat to the knees of these activist rulings we see from the likes of the 2nd, 3rd, and 9th circuits.
  #779  
Old 07-23-2021, 11:48 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This was not something I expected to read in MSM. I think the title is misleading.

Quote:
New York gun rights case before Supreme Court with massive consequences

...That means New Yorkers must distinguish themselves from their fellow citizens and be rationed a constitutional right by bureaucrats. In New York, gun licenses are restricted, expensive and the process is riddled with politics and bribery, making licenses inaccessible to most. This led to the judicial saga now before the U.S. Supreme Court of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Corlett and a fundamental question for the Court to answer — is the Second Amendment a right of the people, or a privilege of the elite?...
New York gun rights case before Supreme Court with massive consequences
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
  #780  
Old 07-23-2021, 2:18 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
SCOTUS changed the question from carry to concealed carry.

Not I.

=8-|
Is that the fact that the petitioners are prohibited by law from being able to open carry not relevant to that question?
  #781  
Old 07-23-2021, 2:29 PM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
SCOTUS changed the question from carry to concealed carry.

Not I.

=8-|
Dude, calm down. I'm on your side.

I just think you're missing something in the overall picture, that's all.

You don't get to "concealed carry" without "carry" in the first place. You also don't get to "carry" a firearm "concealed" without "permit" and the petitioners don't get a permit because it was denied and they have no other option for "carry." Further, the current question more closely fits the facts than the looser "carry only" originally presented and puts this squarely in conflict Constitutionally with Blue States which have onerous gun laws and bans, defacto or otherwise, against carrying them. States where this issue keeps cropping up and which have appellate courts which aren't following Heller.

You can say this is a concealed carry case all you wish, but it BEGINS with "carry" and progresses from there to answering the certified question. The reformation of the question could also be a signal that "this court" is willing to take on the issues presented in Peruta and possibly be dispositive of Nichols/Young/et al at the same time. We can hope this is so and also hope that the Supremes will finally get off their comfy benches and add some much needed clarity and firm instruction to the lower courts.

In the end, none of us know and all of this hot air (and electrons) is meaningless and it's not worth giving yourself a stroke or alienating friends over.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery

Last edited by rplaw; 07-23-2021 at 2:39 PM..
  #782  
Old 07-23-2021, 2:43 PM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Is that the fact that the petitioners are prohibited by law from being able to open carry not relevant to that question?
It's not relevant to the certified question, but it is relevant to any decision on the merits for the certified question.


Just as Heller had to discuss the prefactory clause in order to determine the intent and meaning of "keep" at the time of ratifying the 2nd Amendment, so too will this court have to discuss whether there's a RTBA at all before it can get to deciding what to do about petitioners' permit denials.

My best guess is that the SCOTUS will go with the minimal infringement on States' Rights and toss the ball back to them to decide which manner of "bear" is acceptable to their citizens and legislatures. That will lead to different schemes in different States, but as long as they allow the people to bear arms in some manner, there is no Constitutional infringement.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery

Last edited by rplaw; 07-23-2021 at 2:49 PM..
  #783  
Old 07-23-2021, 3:25 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is what happened in the Wrenn case. The court did not get into the mode of carry since neither side made an issue of it. Just like here.
  #784  
Old 07-23-2021, 3:40 PM
NATO762's Avatar
NATO762 NATO762 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SF Bay-ish Area
Posts: 396
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
This was not something I expected to read in MSM. I think the title is misleading.



New York gun rights case before Supreme Court with massive consequences
About the Author:

Stephen P. Halbrook is a senior fellow with the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and the author of 10 books, including the recently released, “The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?” His work was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
__________________
"Never! Jesus Christ, what dont you understand about never?"

-Sen. Joe Manchin on eliminating the filibuster
  #785  
Old 07-23-2021, 4:12 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
DC v. Heller already covered the right to bear....

...and consistently, precedents reference by SCOTUS made it clear:

1. Convictions for open carrying OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were overturned or remanded.

2. Convictions for conceal carrying and possessing concealable arms OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were upheld.

There was even one person who was carrying CONCEALED ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY whose convictions was upheld!!!

And Jamie Caetano as a homeless person was carrying concealed without a permit OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC 100% OF THE TIME and SCOTUS didn't bat an eye examination wise as to the carry question.


SCOTUS has taken the general carry claim by the petitioner in this case and narrowed it down to a concealed carry question upon cert.


And what are all the PRO-CCW parties and lawyers doing that have been CRYING OR BEGGING FOR A CHANCE FOR A SHOT BEFORE SCOTUS SINCE TWO THOUSAND AND FRICKING EIGHT???


Ducking . . . literally ducking . . . straight up refusing to answer the question and instead running with the pre-cert "carry" arguments and briefs.


SCOTUS has given these PRO-CCW parties exactly the toilet that they want - and they refuse to sit on it and actually crap in it.


You know what, I'm tired of all this bull****...I'm going to stop being all diplomatic about it and come right out and say it:

The real reason this crap is happening is because they know that if they make the actual arguments they need to make to get some kind of win for concealed carry - they will have to argue for in favor of open carry to do so.

That is exactly what they DON'T WANT...they don't want a repeat of DC v. Heller.

=8-|
OK, so if you were on the Supreme Court, how would you write the opinion?

Concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. Petitioners should have challenged New York's prohibition on open carry instead. You lose, so sorry, too bad.

Last edited by LonghornBob; 07-23-2021 at 4:19 PM..
  #786  
Old 07-24-2021, 3:49 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Buckeye didn't answer the question . . .

Claudia Tenney et. al. ALMOST answered the question . . .

Law Enforcement group brief did not answer the question . . .

CCRKBA did not answer the question . . .

Pink Pistols kinds heads in the equal protection direct a little bit , but didn't answer the question . . .


In other words, more "carry" briefs instead of briefs specifically answering directly SCOTUS question.

Ugh...

=8-|
The SCOTUS question is just a straight forward question based on the facts. Petitioners were denied a CCW, they applied for the permit using self defense as a reason, and does this violate the 2A? You may be reading way too much into them changing the question which they do quite frequently.

It may be helpful to see what SCOTUS did in some other cases that were also granted cert for the upcoming term. Were questions re-written into the bare facts or did they allow them to stand as extremely broad?
And this may be in the weeds but who re-writes the questions? The whole court? A majority of the court? A clerk?
  #787  
Old 07-24-2021, 5:40 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Weeding...

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The SCOTUS question is just a straight forward question based on the facts. Petitioners were denied a CCW, they applied for the permit using self defense as a reason, and does this violate the

And this may be in the weeds but who re-writes the questions? The whole court? A majority of the court? A clerk?
I think this is exactly right. When you look at Caetano you see unanimous agreement on the fundamental human right to self defense. And the 9th Circuit explicitly ruling that Young had no right to carry the tools for effective self defense. Meanwhile in the middle of the country many states are switching to Constitutional Carry because they recognize this right to self defense.

So there’s a clear circuit split.

And the Court is trying to get all the interested parties to grapple with the question. And as we can see many of the stakeholders in this policy discussion can’t think outside the box of their pet arguments.

The Black Legal Aid society in the Bronx also filed a brief asserting that the NY law had disparate outcomes when it came to prosecuting gun crimes in NY.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/progres..._copyURL_share

Note that the organization is in the news for other reasons.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-w...2wdewWGNIgE3J0
  #788  
Old 07-24-2021, 5:59 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You know, Missouri’s brief on behalf of several states is very good at answering the question. I like their construction comparing objective-issue to subjective-issue. They have plenty of empirical data to show that objective-issue does not create a public safety risk. That makes it even easier for the Court to find that NY, CA and HI have no data to back of their position that permit holders are extra dangerous.

And they filed their brief back before cert was granted. The case was distributed for conference several times afterward. Now I would conclude that their brief triggered the re-writing of the question, which asked all parties to weigh in on this subjective vs. ibjective issuance idea and, essentially, whether a subjective issuance policy is unconstitutional.

Last edited by Foothills; 07-24-2021 at 6:03 AM.. Reason: Objective vs. Subjective Issuance
  #789  
Old 07-24-2021, 6:02 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
DC v. Heller already covered the right to bear....

...and consistently, precedents reference by SCOTUS made it clear:

1. Convictions for open carrying OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were overturned or remanded.

2. Convictions for conceal carrying and possessing concealable arms OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were upheld.

There was even one person who was carrying CONCEALED ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY whose convictions was upheld!!!

And Jamie Caetano as a homeless person was carrying concealed without a permit OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC 100% OF THE TIME and SCOTUS didn't bat an eye examination wise as to the carry question.


SCOTUS has taken the general carry claim by the petitioner in this case and narrowed it down to a concealed carry question upon cert.


And what are all the PRO-CCW parties and lawyers doing that have been CRYING OR BEGGING FOR A CHANCE FOR A SHOT BEFORE SCOTUS SINCE TWO THOUSAND AND FRICKING EIGHT???


Ducking . . . literally ducking . . . straight up refusing to answer the question and instead running with the pre-cert "carry" arguments and briefs.


SCOTUS has given these PRO-CCW parties exactly the toilet that they want - and they refuse to sit on it and actually crap in it.


You know what, I'm tired of all this bull****...I'm going to stop being all diplomatic about it and come right out and say it:

The real reason this crap is happening is because they know that if they make the actual arguments they need to make to get some kind of win for concealed carry - they will have to argue for in favor of open carry to do so.

That is exactly what they DON'T WANT...they don't want a repeat of DC v. Heller.

=8-|

The problem with your analysis here is that Heller isn't being obeyed by the lower courts because it wasn't clear.

Cataeno is a perfect example of how Heller is being disobeyed and how much the court didn't like it. The thing is, the court still isn't being obeyed even though Cataeno was more than perfectly clear.

The court needs a vehicle to clarify what they meant in Heller and tried to tell the States in Cataeno. Pre ACB, there wasn't enough judicial will to do that in the cases that were being presented to the SCOTUS.

There is now.

Corlett is actually fairly perfect if the intent of the court is to chastise the lower courts and establish that they "mean what they said in Heller."

Which is that the 2a is an individual Right and States don't get to restrict the right without a really, really good reason that's narrowly tailored in the least restrictive manner possible to address the perceived problem. They can also articulate clearly this time that the test isn't the two-step BS that the lower courts are using to rubber stamp Blue State infringements on the 2a.

But you don't get there without actually saying that the people have the Right to bear arms in public. They can't imply it in dictum like they did in Heller, they're going to have to actually come out and say it. Once they do, they can say that the manner of bearing those arms can be left up to the individual States, but they cannot restrict the manner of bearing arms to the point that the people cannot exercise their Right.

This is Corlett.

Interestingly enough, the parties in Corlett may not get what they want even if the decision goes their way. I can see at least 1 scenario where NY gets told to allow it's citizens to bear arms which results in the appellants not getting CCW permits. So a "win" for Corlett isn't necessarily going to get them permits. Not that I believe for a nanosecond that's what appellants really want.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery

Last edited by rplaw; 07-24-2021 at 6:06 AM..
  #790  
Old 07-24-2021, 8:50 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The cases in the Black Public Defenders brief paint a grim picture if the way NYPD applies the licensing laws in a discriminatory way. It actually blends well with the Republican congresscritters who pointed out that NY only grants licenses to the elitists.

By phrasing the question as they did, the Court changes this from a historical 2A case to an equal-protection case. And the remedy for a long history of using discretion in a racially discriminatory way is to take away that discretion and require the issuing agency to change to the objective issuance that so many other states use.

Honestly they’ve done the best job so far of answering the question directly.

Last edited by Foothills; 07-24-2021 at 9:05 AM..
  #791  
Old 07-24-2021, 10:53 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If we get a good decision, and this case equals, or nearly so, the level of historical analysis of Heller, we should expect the following (hopefully not all in dicta):

• Analysis of historical norms of firearms carried outside the home and for what purposes

• Analysis of historical norms of how weapons were carried, what laws were upheld in restricting time, place and manner.

• Analysis of historically prevented groups denied their constitutional rights to carry (in whatever means)

• Analysis of historically sensitive areas that may be denied carry

• Analysis of the near majority of states that have decided to eliminate permitting and proceed to constitutional carry, without significant increase in crime

• And, finally, analysis of how concealed carry has become the dominant mode of carry

A lot of that analysis was already performed in Heller, so can readily be cited. A possible outcome of such a set of analyses, such as above, might deliver:

• A right exists, that can not be legislated to zero

• The right allows individuals to carry outside their home, except in a limited number of sensitive areas, including limited time restrictions for certain events

• The right can not be denied arbitrarily and in violation of the 14th amendment

• The right must encompass open-carry if any curtailment of the right is placed upon concealed-carry, noting that concealed-carry brings with it the inability to identify a weapon and approach a situation differently, such that the state is within means to deny the ability to those that have had their 2A rights removed, which might otherwise be more easily identified with open-carry

• Which then ultimately sets the scene to properly answer the appellant’s question: does the restriction of concealed-carry for self-defense violate 2A.

Fingers crossed for a good read!
  #792  
Old 07-24-2021, 10:54 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,602
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case — NYSRPA v. Corlett — CERT GRANTED, 4-26-21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
The Black Legal Aid society in the Bronx also filed a brief asserting that the NY law had disparate outcomes when it came to prosecuting gun crimes in NY.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/progres..._copyURL_share
The brief from the criminal defense lawyers, which includes the Bronx Defenders and the Brooklyn Defender Services, argues against the state’s gun laws from a progressive position.

“In 2020, while Black people made up 18% of New York’s population, they accounted for 78% of the state’s felony gun possession cases,” the brief says.
It notes that for a defendant, separately having ammunition makes a gun loaded—and that possessing a “loaded” gun without a permit, even if not used, is a “violent felony” that carries a 3.5 to 15-year prison sentence.

While the plaintiffs in the case mainly attack New York’s gun “carry” rules, the defense lawyers also argue that their indigent clients have been wrongfully punished for having guns at home.
__________________


NRA/USCCA/DOJ instructor, NRA CRSO, Journalist
  #793  
Old 07-24-2021, 12:42 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I wish my browser didn’t log me out…

Lagomorph, as ALWAYS, you ignore the purpose of the court and basis of Heller and the role that the court will play.

Only SCOTUS can re-interpret SCOTUS, and they are an end unto themselves in our Constitution.

What you describe as problems are their domain to flesh out how they see it comport with the Constitution. What you cite from Heller is reasoning and not judgement.

Thankfully you are not a Justice, and shall remain on ignore.
  #794  
Old 07-24-2021, 3:32 PM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 666
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
But whether Kavanaugh and Barrett refuse to take part in adding a standard of scrutiny for 2A related cases as a whole is what really matters here.
Speaking of Barrett, I wonder if there is any chance she'd be chosen to write the opinion. Her "virtue limitation" riff in Kanter is an interesting line of reasoning; only the chosen few who convince police that they are good people (who also have good cause) are allowed to bear arms outside of their homes?

Quote:
If the Second Amendment were subject to a virtue limitation, there would be no need for the government to produce—or for the court to assess—evidence that nonviolent felons have a propensity for dangerous behavior. But Heller forecloses the “civic right” argument on which a virtue limitation depends.
__________________
"The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. -- Justice Alito, McDonald v. Chicago

Be sure to add CRPA as your charity in Amazon Smile. $#!thead Bezos canceled it.
  #795  
Old 07-25-2021, 5:14 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
The cases in the Black Public Defenders brief paint a grim picture if the way NYPD applies the licensing laws in a discriminatory way. It actually blends well with the Republican congresscritters who pointed out that NY only grants licenses to the elitists.

By phrasing the question as they did, the Court changes this from a historical 2A case to an equal-protection case. And the remedy for a long history of using discretion in a racially discriminatory way is to take away that discretion and require the issuing agency to change to the objective issuance that so many other states use.

Honestly they’ve done the best job so far of answering the question directly.
The problem with a straight equal protection argument (2A is put aside completely) is then it's a rational basis argument. While it's historically true that blacks were denied based on race, plaintiffs here are not making the case that they were denied based on race.
It only becomes a heightened scrutiny scenario if the equal protection involves a constitutional right. Public carry is either protected under the 2A or it isn't.
There's almost always going to be a rational basis argument for restricting public carry short of accepting only last names beginning with certain letters or only accepting applicants who applied on Tuesday, exc.
  #796  
Old 07-25-2021, 7:02 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Why not both?

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The problem with a straight equal protection argument (2A is put aside completely) is then it's a rational basis argument. While it's historically true that blacks were denied based on race, plaintiffs here are not making the case that they were denied based on race.
It only becomes a heightened scrutiny scenario if the equal protection involves a constitutional right. Public carry is either protected under the 2A or it isn't.
There's almost always going to be a rational basis argument for restricting public carry short of accepting only last names beginning with certain letters or only accepting applicants who applied on Tuesday, exc.
I still suspect that they were persuaded by the objective vs. subjective brief to look closer as to whether there might be an equal protection issue. There is a lot more public support for equal protection claims these days. As they probably suspected, people came out of the woodwork to show how NY’s current system harms all sorts of people. NY can’t “moot” those harms.

They might even get a unanimous decision for equal protection demanding a change to objective issue even if it’s 5-4 for strict scrutiny. I could see Breyer writing a concurring opinion that once a state decides it’s going to issue permits at all, then they need to be objective and not limit it to favored demographic groups/corrupt issuance.
  #797  
Old 07-25-2021, 2:07 PM
DoesItGoBang DoesItGoBang is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ok, not a lawyer but grew up in New York State. (not city)

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

OK, As I understood the law in NYS if you didn't have a Pistol Permit you are not allowed to touch a pistol. Not at the range or have one in your home! If you are denied then you are out of luck and no pistol for you. So looking at the question posed then....a denial of permit then it has violated your right to a pistol. Yes even to touch one. I would take this as a 2nd amendment violation. This single fact should be enough to kill the NY law. In all of the briefs has anyone brought this up?

Doesitgobang
  #798  
Old 07-27-2021, 11:40 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default The 14th Still Matters

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post

And what is the first hurdle?

States may regulate concealed carry, and prohibitions thereon may be upheld.

That's the wall you have to get over, around or bust through first as part of making your case.

You cannot ignore that in your argument.

=8-|
It's standard for equal-protection cases to tie to another amendment, right or power in the Constitution. It can violate their 2nd Amendment rights because the way their permit scheme is implemented, and has historically been implemented, it denies those 2nd Amendment rights to anyone not an elitist. You can always make the equal protection argument that it is the lack of equal protection resulting in a Constitutional right being denied or abridged.
  #799  
Old 07-27-2021, 5:47 PM
LINY's Avatar
LINY LINY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoesItGoBang View Post
Ok, not a lawyer but grew up in New York State. (not city)

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

OK, As I understood the law in NYS if you didn't have a Pistol Permit you are not allowed to touch a pistol. Not at the range or have one in your home! If you are denied then you are out of luck and no pistol for you. So looking at the question posed then....a denial of permit then it has violated your right to a pistol. Yes even to touch one. I would take this as a 2nd amendment violation. This single fact should be enough to kill the NY law. In all of the briefs has anyone brought this up?

Doesitgobang
Yup. Can’t even touch one at the range. And in some counties like on Long Island IF you get one it’s a premise or sporting permit ONLY. Concealed carry like most of the state can get would be next to impossible, but if you moved TO Long Island with your carry permit you can just transfer it to your new address.

Oh, and that premise permit will take you well over a year if not two to get
__________________
When seconds count 1911 > 911 is correct numerically as well

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain
  #800  
Old 07-27-2021, 5:49 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,427
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

mrrabbit, serious question. How do you think SCOTUS will rule in this case?
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:57 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy