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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #841  
Old 07-17-2021, 3:11 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Allow me to posit the Twilight Zone scenario.

The Supreme Court fails to reach a majority decision, and the petition is dismissed without a holding from the Supreme Court on whether or not there is a right to carry a handgun concealed under the Second Amendment.

The first issue is standing, which can be raised at any point during the proceedings, including from the Supreme Court itself. New York is unique. The licenses at issue are granted under NY Penal Code 400.00(2)(f). Under that provision, a licensing officer may grant a license for “proper cause.” Proper cause can include hunting or target shooting, and the licensing officer can place hunting or target shooting restrictions on such license. However, a person who carries a handgun in violation of his or her restriction does face not a fine or any other “penal sanction”, although they do face potential suspension or revocation of their license. See People v. Thompson, 705 N.E.2d 1200, 1201, 92 N.Y.2d 957, 959 (1998).

In this case, the petitioners received licenses under NY Penal Code 400.00(2)(f), but hunting and target shooting restrictions were placed on them. As such, if they carry handguns concealed for self-defense purposes they should not be subject to any fines or criminal prosecution, but they could potentially have their licenses revoked. As of yet, the licenses granted to them under NY Penal Code 400.00(2)(f) have not been revoked.

Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh latch onto the fact that the petitioners are not subject to criminal penalties for carrying handguns for self defense purposes to determine that they do not have standing to address the question for which the Supreme Court granted certiorari. As such Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh do not address the merits of the case.

The other seven justices (properly, I might add) disagree and address the question on its merits. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor hold that there is no right to carry a handgun concealed under the Second Amendment. Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Thomas reach the opposite conclusion and determine that the concealed carry licenses should be granted.

As such, the Court rules 5-4 against the petitioners, but yet there is no majority ruling from the Supreme Court one way or other with respect to the issue of concealed carry, and we continue to wait.
This seems way out there. Assuming you are correct that a premises license holder caught carrying would only lose their license, it's still an injury and loss of rights. NY isn't making the case that plaintiffs don't have standing, unless I missed something.
Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 07-17-2021, 6:18 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 834
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildcat19 View Post
Thanks for correcting my ignorance. You must be an attorney. You offer NO reasonable solutions.

I have no LE experience - only military. So, I'm not qualified. I'll stay on the couch and send money to the RIGHT candidate.
So AOC, the bartending economist, is more qualified than you are?

Get off the couch.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

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!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 07-19-2021, 12:01 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/20-843.html

Quote:
Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of The Buckeye Institute submitted.
Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Representative Claudia Tenney and 175 Additional Members of the U.S. House of Representatives submitted.
Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups submitted.
Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms submitted.
Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of The DC Project Foundation; Operation Blazing Sword—Pink Pistols; Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership submitted.
Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Patrick J. Charles submitted.

Last edited by abinsinia; 07-19-2021 at 2:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 07-19-2021, 5:00 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,649
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia 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-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 07-19-2021, 6:59 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,959
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Supreme Court October arguments are set and NYSRPA is not one of them

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6L2yXGW...g&name=900x900
The above was posted July 13, 2nd Tuesday of the month.

When will Nov orals schedule be available? August 10th, 2nd Tuesday of the month? August 13? Some other date?
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

Re-elect Sonoma County Sheriff Essick!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 07-19-2021, 8:28 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

OMG Do I have to do this myself? I'll answer the question!

Do I call Michaels & ask them to file an amicus brief for me?
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 07-19-2021, 9:10 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The brief from the congresscritters is actually pretty good. They do a better job than I could of outlining the systematic racist origins of the NY law being challenged. And they quote Caetano like I suggest above. I think they did a good job of answering the question posed by the Court. May it carry the day!
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 07-20-2021, 9:31 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of J. Joel Alicea submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Second Amendment Foundation, et al. submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of American Constitutional Rights Union submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Cato Institute submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Firearms Policy Coalition and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of American Center for Law and Justice submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund submitted.
Everyone wants in on this case.
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 07-20-2021, 10:30 AM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 631
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
You do realize Scalia has been dead for 5 years, we have 3 new conservative justices, and 5 extra years of lower court intermediate scrutiny BS, right?
Exactly. If the Court can do a 180 in 17 years in Lawrence v Texas, it can expand Heller in 13.

Again, the question really presented is: Why would a 6-3, more right leaning court than in 2008, vote for cert in this case? To limit Heller? Doesn't make sense.
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.

Be sure to add CRPA as your charity in Amazon Smile.
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 07-20-2021, 11:17 AM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,732
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Everyone wants in on this case.
So they can all claim "they" helped create the win to bolster their own fund raising efforts.
__________________
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” ----Sen. Barry Goldwater
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----Benjamin Franklin

NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member

Last edited by OCEquestrian; 07-20-2021 at 11:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #851  
Old 07-20-2021, 11:24 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,162
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guninator View Post
Exactly. If the Court can do a 180 in 17 years in Lawrence v Texas, it can expand Heller in 13.

Again, the question really presented is: Why would a 6-3, more right leaning court than in 2008, vote for cert in this case? To limit Heller? Doesn't make sense.
Actually the correct answer is to tell the court the state has the right to deny a concealed carry permit and that open carry is the protected right, especially since the question is, "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

Who cares that they clearly don't want to address open carry. Better to create precedent that concealed can generally be denied. Court composition, justice ages, current president, and the fact that conceal carry is the preferred form of carry for 90%+ of the population LOL. Something something precedent, dead Scalia said 13 years ago. Something something SEE HELLER.

In all seriousness, I am not a lawyer, but clearly when we put all of these factors together, outside of the strict "text, history, tradition" interpretation, the idea that open carry will be the protected right in this half of the 21st century is a joke.

Last edited by wireless; 07-20-2021 at 11:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 07-20-2021, 12:12 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of California Gun Rights Foundation submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of William English, Ph.D. and The Center for Human Liberty submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, et al. submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of National Foundation for Gun Rights and National Association for Gun Rights submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Independent Institute submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, Marsha Blackburn, John Boozman, Mike Braun, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, Kevin Cramer, Mike Crapo, Steve Daines, Josh Hawley, John Hoeven, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, James Lankford, Mike Lee, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, Jerry Moran, Jim Risch, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Thom Tillis submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Madison Society Foundation, Inc. submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Crime Prevention Resource Center submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Governor Greg Abbott submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Second Amendment Law Professors submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of FPC American Victory Fund, Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, Orange County Gun Owners, Riverside County Gun Owners, California County Gun Owners, and Knife Rights Foundation, Inc. submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Lambert Henry, Russell Davenport, and Peter Fusco submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of THE LEAGUE FOR SPORTSMEN, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DEFENSE submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Korte Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Korte Tree Care submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Heller Foundation submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of State of Arizona submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Buckeye Firearms Association submitted.
Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Goldwater Institute submitted.
gEEZ..
Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old 07-20-2021, 12:45 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 1 / 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.
Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 07-20-2021, 1:11 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...20SENATORS.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 07-20-2021, 1:16 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,806
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..
Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 07-20-2021, 2:14 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 388
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
Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 07-21-2021, 5:31 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 677
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
Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 07-21-2021, 6:01 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 834
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:

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!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 07-21-2021, 7:36 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 677
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
Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 07-21-2021, 8:15 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 1 / 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.
Reply With Quote
  #861  
Old 07-21-2021, 9:03 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 385
iTrader: 18 / 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
Reply With Quote
  #862  
Old 07-21-2021, 5:07 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 45
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-à-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-à-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.
Reply With Quote
  #863  
Old 07-22-2021, 8:15 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,649
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphr02 View Post
Um hmm...

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #864  
Old 07-22-2021, 8:19 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,649
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
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-à-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-à-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.
Um hmmm....

...I would also note that there are small handguns where the design and intent is STILL not for concealment, such as .25 and .32 that are suitable for self-defense for small women and very small men - as not everyone is 5' 8" with big hands.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #865  
Old 07-22-2021, 2:26 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 1 / 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?
Reply With Quote
  #866  
Old 07-22-2021, 3:40 PM
TruOil TruOil is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,007
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.
Reply With Quote
  #867  
Old 07-22-2021, 4:10 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 68
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.
Reply With Quote
  #868  
Old 07-22-2021, 4:15 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,193
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..
Reply With Quote
  #869  
Old 07-22-2021, 6:01 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,649
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Again, the question (revised) as raised by SCOTUS taken up on cert is:

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


In other words, has a 2nd Amendment violation occurred when an issuing authority tells an applicant:

"You're application for a concealed carry permit for the stated reason of "self-defense" is denied."

=8-|

Try not to get lost with the "carry" arguments folks...focus on the actual question.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #870  
Old 07-22-2021, 8:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,007
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.
Reply With Quote
  #871  
Old 07-23-2021, 6:17 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,649
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
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.
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....

At some point you have to:

1. Acknowledge the general right of a State and its authoritative agencies to regulate concealed carry as noted in DC v. Heller.

2. Identify what specifically in their statute, policy and denial stands out under scrutiny.

So far, I'd say myself and a couple others here have actually come up with a few:

- NYC / NYS is using concealed carry permitting as a proxy to ban handguns that could be regarded as suitable for open carry.

- NYC / NYS statute and regulations have an underlying if NOT outright racial animus to them.

- NYC / NYS statutes and regulations are being enforced in a caste / elitist manner that does not treat all qualifying citizens equally under the law.

- Unduly burdens women.

- Unduly burdens the homeless.


What too many of the briefs do is the following:

A. Keep arguing the general carry argument as though cert was taken up on the original question.

B. Keep arguing all the "particulars" without ever acknowledging the States right to regulate concealed carry.

C. Keep arguing pro-concealed carry right up until the point that the open carry problem starts to be revealed as the elephant in the corner - at which point they switch right back to the general carry argument to avoid it.


"C" is the tiresome one in particular - where everyone is so desperate to argue for the win that they want WITHOUT getting the win that they DON'T want.


It's not surprising though - as the SAF, NRA and the other usual groups won in DC v. Heller - it's just they got the win they didn't want.



=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 07-23-2021 at 6:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #872  
Old 07-23-2021, 6:46 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 1 / 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.
Reply With Quote
  #873  
Old 07-23-2021, 6:55 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 834
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:

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!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #874  
Old 07-23-2021, 9:49 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 677
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.
Reply With Quote
  #875  
Old 07-23-2021, 11:48 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 388
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
Reply With Quote
  #876  
Old 07-23-2021, 2:10 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,649
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
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.


SCOTUS changed the question from carry to concealed carry.

Not I.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #877  
Old 07-23-2021, 2:18 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 45
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?
Reply With Quote
  #878  
Old 07-23-2021, 2:29 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 834
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:

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!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.

Last edited by rplaw; 07-23-2021 at 2:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #879  
Old 07-23-2021, 2:43 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 834
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:

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!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.

Last edited by rplaw; 07-23-2021 at 2:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #880  
Old 07-23-2021, 3:10 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,649
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
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.
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-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 3:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical