Supreme Court strikes down NY Concealed Gun Law !!

[Robotron2k84]

Originally Posted by gonzo1510

So question.. I read the San Bernardino
County application for CCW. It states that if I have a traffic ticket pending, I'm not eligible for a permit. Does that mean I'm able to Open Carry?

I'm not crazy about the idea but they can't prevent me from exercising 2A one way or the other...or am I wrong ?

The only holding for carry, in this case, is against having an arbitrary good-cause requirement.

It does not say a sheriff can’t have a requirement for no outstanding tickets or other infractions / criminal conduct.

A lot of CA’s CCW policy will have to be re-litigated in light of the ruling.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by CalAlumnus

My read is that the decision protects a right to public carry of handguns for self-defense, period. There is not a right to open carry, nor is there a right to concealed carry. There is just a right to carry. States can decide what makes sense for them to allow. Right now that’s probably concealed, but in the past it would have been open.

States are free to regulate the manner (eg, open vs concealed), can regulate the intention behind carry (eg, enhancing penalties for robbery when a firearm was carried/used), and can prohibit carry in specific sensitive places (like courthouses, but not in the entire island of Manhattan). They can impose a shall issue permitting scheme, so long as it’s based on objective standards and doesn’t have lengthy wait times or exorbitant costs.

Looking forward to future sensitive place cases… My suspicion is that ultimately a designated “sensitive place” must have controlled access with metal detectors—no banning carry at public parks, but you can ban carry at a courthouse. If you’re going to designate a gun-free zone and prohibit lawful carry, you must actually make it gun-free.

You should re-read the opinion because many of the things you say, aren't correct.

Thomas extensively discussed cases regarding laws which purported to regulate concealed carry/open carry and concluded that the 2a guarantees the bearing of arms and that State laws which attempt to regulate the bearing of arms in one way or another are unconstitutional.

Basically, what he left open was the ability of the State to regulate the carrying arms based on the "intent" of the bearer. I would have preferred he used a different word than "manner" but it is what it is. The thrust is that the State cannot regulate how arms are carried unless the intent of the bearer is to violate the law.

At least that's my take on it.



Alito's concurrence is going to be problematic down the road.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

Where does it say that?

No, you cannot open carry.

By denying him the ability to exercise the right contigent upon paying a ticket, they leave him only Open Carry as the manner to exericse his 2nd Amendment right.

It's effectively a ban for him on concealed carry.

Read Page 45, Thomas' instructive point when citing Nunn v. State.

[CalPatriot63]

Wow, I'm not a pessimistic person at all but I honestly thought I'd never live to see this day... Not a 100% unexpected result but I am awestruck and ecstatic nevertheless...

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by rplaw

You should re-read the opinion because many of the things you say, aren't correct.

Thomas extensively discussed cases regarding laws which purported to regulate concealed carry/open carry and concluded that the 2a guarantees the bearing of arms and that State laws which attempt to regulate the bearing of arms in one way or another are unconstitutional.

Basically, what he left open was the ability of the State to regulate the carrying arms based on the "intent" of the bearer. I would have preferred he used a different word than "manner" but it is what it is. The thrust is that the State cannot regulate how arms are carried unless the intent of the bearer is to violate the law.

At least that's my take on it.



Alito's concurrence is going to be problematic down the road.

Thank you for not leaving me to be the only one noting the extensive discussion of INTENT throughout the decision when examining precedent.

[moleculo]

I haven't read the entire ruling yet but have picked up a few excerpts. Here's one Winkler highlighted:

"America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms."

Goodbye to laws prohibiting 18-21 year-olds from purchasing semi auto rifles.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by moleculo

I haven't read the entire ruling yet but have picked up a few excerpts. Here's one Winkler highlighted:

"America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms."

Goodbye to laws prohibiting 18-21 year-olds from purchasing semi auto rifles.

Are you sure your reading the right opinion ?

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by ijustdontknow

Not an attorney, so I'm curious to see how this applies to all the other shenanigans California (and other states) have been pulling. Can California still restrict which handguns are legal to purchase and/or carry? Mag size? This is a great victory but there is still much to do.

Ken doll will do whatever the fuk he wants to do and he will set policy in the current hard to get CCW counties..

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by rplaw

You should re-read the opinion because many of the things you say, aren't correct.

Thomas extensively discussed cases regarding laws which purported to regulate concealed carry/open carry and concluded that the 2a guarantees the bearing of arms and that State laws which attempt to regulate the bearing of arms in one way or another are unconstitutional.

Basically, what he left open was the ability of the State to regulate the carrying arms based on the "intent" of the bearer. I would have preferred he used a different word than "manner" but it is what it is. The thrust is that the State cannot regulate how arms are carried unless the intent of the bearer is to violate the law.

At least that's my take on it.



Alito's concurrence is going to be problematic down the road.

And rplaw...

...under this decision, States are still allowed to regulate concealed carry and concealable arms.

- ban
- shall issue (14th Amendment compliant)
- permitless

That's what they're down to, no more May Issue.

=8-|

[Citizen_B]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

And rplaw...

...under this decision, States are still allowed to regulate concealed carry and concealable arms.

- ban
- shall issue (14th Amendment complaint)
- permitless

That's what they're down to, no more May Issue.

=8-|

NY already had an OC ban in place. Please explain to me how NY can take your Option 1 Ban?? It's a very simple question.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

This decision takes all scrutiny off the table. I've been arguing for years that "scrutiny" is an interest-balancing test, and that Heller explicitly takes interest balancing tests off the table. While this decision doesn't go so far as to classify strict scrutiny as an interest-balancing test, it nonetheless takes it completely off the table:



(bolded emphasis mine)

Strict scrutiny does not invoke any historical analysis whatsoever. It does not show that the law in question "is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation". That is why it is now off the table.

This really is a major game changer. No longer will courts be able to use "scrutiny" to decide 2nd Amendment issues.

It'll be very interesting indeed to see what sort of crazy legal maneuvering the lower courts engage in to get past this decision.

The lower courts will develop a different 2 step. One which involves a question of "core or not core?" and every regulation will be determined to be "not core" thereby giving the lower courts free rein to go back to their interest balancing methodology. For ex:

1. Are AW's "core or not core?" Answer; no because they are weapons of war and Bruen explicitly states that the core purpose of the 2A is self defense. Ergo, go on to step #2:

2. The States have a heightened interest in protecting public safety... blah, blah, blah...



Watch and see if I'm wrong.

[command_liner]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

This decision takes all scrutiny off the table. I've been arguing for years that "scrutiny" is an interest-balancing test, and that Heller explicitly takes interest balancing tests off the table. While this decision doesn't go so far as to classify strict scrutiny as an interest-balancing test, it nonetheless takes it completely off the table:

Yes, as I have pointed out in your defense, the concept of "scrutiny" is completely extra-constitutional nonsense. There is no such thing in the scrutiny in the text of the document. I have used the term "left handed nose picking scrutiny" as an example: why not use that in places of "intermediate scrutiny".

The idea of scrutiny came up as a reaction to the post-Civil War reactions to the actual application of the 14th amendment. Jim Crow was kept alive by the invention of whole pile of BS that surrounded scrutiny.

This opinion is no less than the closing of the Civil War after 150 years. Jim Crow is now dead -- except in the states that will continue to fight to keep it alive. (CA, HI, NY, MA, RI, DE, perhaps OR and WA)

[MolonLabe2008]

We would not have had this favorable ruling if Hillary won in 2016 and appointed three judges.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

I was 99% right.

Did you actually read today's opinion? Need a link?

You had been 100% incessantly wrong about open carry being the right. Justice Thomas has set you straight today. Right thing to say in such a case is touché.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Given NYSRPA v Bruen, it's highly unlikely that they'll deny cert to those cases. There wouldn't have been any point in holding them to begin with if their intent was to deny them even in the face of the kind of decision that NYSRPA v Bruen represents.

I suspect we're going to see, at a minimum, a GVR (Grant, Vacate, Remand) in each of those held cases, given the substantial precedent that NYSRPA v Bruen sets.

I really hope you’re right. That would be just as exciting if not more than Bruen. Given that you have been more right than anyone, I have some faith that’s what will happen.

[fixitquick79]

This is great! A lot of more skeptical persons on here say this just resets for years more litigation on 9th circuit anti-2A decisions are not fully correct imo. This sets up any if not all cases up for cert to be summarily GVR'd "in light of the decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen" and ruled in the manner of St. Benitez. As well as applying for review of denied cert under the new precedence.

[abinsinia]

I think the Young case (En Banc one) is a good example of how the 9th will evade this ruling. In that case they used history to justify a complete carry ban.

They went thru all the history that Justice Thomas went thru and came to a different conclusion.

They will mutate and retcon history to come up with the "tradition" which they want.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008

We would not have had this favorable ruling if Hillary won in 2016 and appointed three judges.

Scary thought.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by moleculo

I haven't read the entire ruling yet but have picked up a few excerpts. Here's one Winkler highlighted:

"America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms."

Goodbye to laws prohibiting 18-21 year-olds from purchasing semi auto rifles.

Actually... probably not since the decision specifically mentioned Fed Laws which prohibit selling handguns to persons under 21 with a degree of acceptance while implying wihtout saying or even discussing the issue that those laws don't violate the 2a.

The only good thing about the decision doing that it that it's only dicta and not the holding. Which means it could still be challenged down the road.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by rplaw

The lower courts will develop a different 2 step. One which involves a question of "core or not core?" and every regulation will be determined to be "not core" thereby giving the lower courts free rein to go back to their interest balancing methodology. For ex:

1. Are AW's "core or not core?" Answer; no because they are weapons of war and Bruen explicitly states that the core purpose of the 2A is self defense. Ergo, go on to step #2:

2. The States have a heightened interest in protecting public safety... blah, blah, blah...



Watch and see if I'm wrong.

Thomas explicitly states 2 step is 1 step too many. They will have to come up with something more creative than that.

[Tripper]

Is everyone going to start open carrying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by rplaw

The lower courts will develop a different 2 step. One which involves a question of "core or not core?" and every regulation will be determined to be "not core" thereby giving the lower courts free rein to go back to their interest balancing methodology. For ex:

And they would be violating the explicit instructions of the Supreme Court in doing so. That's because the Court explicitly said that this is the first test:

Originally Posted by NYSRPA v Bruen

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

There's no "core" versus "non-core" distinction to be found there.

The second test is, of course, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" consistency test.

Watch and see if I'm wrong.

I won't be surprised if they try something like that, but again, they'd be explicitly violating the Court's explicit directions here.

However, I do agree that we're going to see the lower courts suddenly find that all manner of regulated activity is suddenly not covered by the 2nd Amendment's plain text. Lord knows what sort of gyrations they'll go to in order to arrive at that conclusion, but I have great faith in their abilities.

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think the Young case (En Banc one) is a good example of how the 9th will evade this ruling. In that case they used history to justify a complete carry ban.

They went thru all the history that Justice Thomas went thru and came to a different conclusion.

They will mutate and retcon history to come up with the "tradition" which they want.

If I recall, lot of that history was pre-statehood HI history, not American history. Further, there is some talk in the opinion on rules in the territorial west, that bear no weight, because those were territories.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Are you sure your reading the right opinion ?

I was quoting the SFGATE article who was quoting Winkler who was supposedly quoting the opinion. Since this is the telephone game, it's possible someone misquoted.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by Citizen_B

NY already had an OC ban in place. Please explain to me how NY can take your Option 1 Ban?? It's a very simple question.

They did not ban OC of long guns...just on handguns by using the proxy of concealed carry regulations to do so.

Thomas et. al. JUST STRUCK THAT DOWN!!!

NY can reinstitute one of the following:

1. Complete ban on concealed carry

OR

2. Shall issue on concealed carry


So long as New Yorkers can:

1. Carry or transport long guns openly

2. And as Thomas said - large handguns openly - not "pocket pistols".

So long as a 14th Amendment violation does not occur, they're good to go.

Justice Thomas in Pages 39 to 51 even discussed lengths of barrels for pocket pistols v. large handguns.

It's all there...

=8-|

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by Tripper

Is everyone going to start open carrying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Not so long as our LEO, Legislators and Judges continue to use the system and its "process" to harrass us and threaten us to the point of financially destroying our lives..."

Said pretty much everyone...

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ShadowGuy

If I recall, lot of that history was pre-statehood HI history, not American history. Further, there is some talk in the opinion on rules in the territorial west, that bear no weight, because those were territories.

I agree of course, but the 9th won't agree.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

And rplaw...

...under this decision, States are still allowed to regulate concealed carry and concealable arms.

- ban
- shall issue (14th Amendment compliant)
- permitless

That's what they're down to, no more May Issue.

=8-|

Under this decision all the States can do is ban the CONCEALED bearing of arms without a permit and they're going to be required to grant a permit for CONCEALED carry upon request as long as the applicant is not a prohibited person. The State CANNOT ban the bearing of arms (absent a showing on the part of the state that a particular individual is carrying arms with the intent to commit a crime) but can require a permit to purchase, keep, or carry CONCEALED.

Basically, this decision is Constitutional Open Carry / Shall Issue rolled into one.

[boludo12]

I wish they would have released the announcement on a date with a numerical significance, like 3.08.22, 6.5.22, 6.8.22, 2.7.22, 2.23.22. That would have made the "take that" all the much better.
NTL, I'm celebrating as I just picked up a micro pistol for a CCW class. Giddy up.

[gonzo1510]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

Where does it say that?

No, you cannot open carry.

I got it straight from the county website.

[pistol3]

Originally Posted by boludo12

I wish they would have released the announcement on a date with a numerical significance, like 3.08.22, 6.5.22, 6.8.22, 2.7.22, 2.23.22. That would have made the "take that" all the much better.
NTL, I'm celebrating as I just picked up a micro pistol for a CCW class. Giddy up.

I mean, it is Clarence Thomas's birthday...

[FullMetalJacket]

It looks to me like this ruling is essentially checkmate for carry: there is a right to carry, the right doesn't turn on an official considering your reason for doing so sufficient, no two-step process (hi, 9th Circuit!), no unreasonable delays or costs, no taking the entirety of public out of play for carry.

I expect countermeasures, and I expect they'll be quite...creative. But we have--no ifs, ands, or buts--a formally recognized right to carry handguns for our own self-defense.

The game may continue for a little while, but the game has definitely been changed strongly in our favor. We will all be able to carry soon.

Next, let's abolish bans on common firearms and magazines, and eliminate micro-stamping and the roster.

.

[wchutt]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

There is already a roster case in the courts.

Sorry for the ignorance, but what’s is the case? I see Renna, but the thread on it is locked. Is there another?

[OleCuss]

I'd tend to suggest folk visit the Volokh Conspiracy for some analyses by some pretty knowledgeable folk. SCOTUS Blog didn't do much of an analysis but it never hurts to visit and get their perspective.

Personally, I don't think most of us can really know what it all really means. Getting a somewhat broad range of opinions from lawyers will probably be beneficial to get a general sense of where things will go with all of this.

I think it will get a bit more clear over time but I think that what we'll find is that the opinion has a lot more fuzzy areas than I/we wish and that means more litigation to come.

Just be sure to get another Republican into the White House so that we don't get a majority of Justices trying to gut our freedoms.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by wchutt

Sorry for the ignorance, but what’s is the case? I see Renna, but the thread on it is locked. Is there another?

No, I was refering to Renna. It's scheduled to be heard in 2023.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1665656

[Fyathyrio]

I believe you all are missing THE most important result of this opinion . . . it makes arguing with the rabbit even more pointless, even more of a waste of time. The ignore function, like the court system, works!

It's a gun owner's holiday, push yourselves away from the keyboard and go hit the range! I didn't even eat breakfast once I saw the headlines, just grabbed my neighbor and went to throw dollar bills down range.

[DarkHorse666]

Originally Posted by danfinger

Permit "application fee" = $100,000.00
Proof of Insurance policy with $1,000,000.00 coverage

NOPE.

The court addressed that:

"To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit]. Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” — features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry."

It is plainly saying there - if a states implements a "shall-issue" scheme that is effectively a "no-issue" due to long delays or high fees, it may be challenged as unconstitutional.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Under this decision all the States can do is ban the CONCEALED bearing of arms without a permit and they're going to be required to grant a permit for CONCEALED carry upon request as long as the applicant is not a prohibited person. The State CANNOT ban the bearing of arms (absent a showing on the part of the state that a particular individual is carrying arms with the intent to commit a crime) but can require a permit to purchase, keep, or carry CONCEALED.

Basically, this decision is Constitutional Open Carry / Shall Issue rolled into one.

Open Carry / Ban
Open Carry / Shall Issue
Open Carry / Permitless (Vermont)

...and possibly, just possibly...

Ban / Shall Issue

But any State that tries to do that is in very dangerous waters - because they immediately come under 14th Amendment examination AND

per the reasoning and analysis Thomas gave in regards to the Sullivan Act and how it landed one person in jail who had no choice but to violate the law.

Constitutional Carry is a political and lobbying campaign marketing label created by a group out of Arizona in 2010 in response to Scalia's instructive that States may regulate concealed carry.

=8-|

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by gonzo1510

I got it straight from the county website.

Not traffic citations (per se). You can still apply, just disclose the traffic violation on the application.

It wouldn’t bar you from a permit if said traffic violation was minor in nature (no DUIs, vehicular manslaughter, etc).

[Citizen_B]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

They did not ban OC of long guns...just on handguns by using the proxy of concealed carry regulations to do so.

Thomas et. al. JUST STRUCK THAT DOWN!!!

NY can reinstitute one of the following:

1. Complete ban on concealed carry

OR

2. Shall issue on concealed carry


So long as New Yorkers can:

1. Carry or transport long guns openly

2. And as Thomas said - large handguns openly - not "pocket pistols".

So long as a 14th Amendment violation does not occur, they're good to go.

Justice Thomas in Pages 39 to 51 even discussed lengths of barrels for pocket pistols v. large handguns.

It's all there...

=8-|

Ok, time out, I want to understand what you're saying here. Are you saying New Yorkers can already do these currently?

1. Carry or transport long guns openly

2. And as Thomas said - large handguns openly - not "pocket pistols".