SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case - NYSRPA v. Bruen — Decision before July 1st!!!

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by stoogescv

That's not how it works. Stare decisis does not count for anything with the Left if it stands in the way of them getting what they want.

Exactly right! They will overrule Heller and it's progeny the first chance they get.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

Exactly right! They will overrule Heller and it's progeny the first chance they get.

Is this like saying "The new precedent is that there is no precedent"?

And they'll follow it up with "See Dobbs."

[shooting4life]

I think the leak shows us that we are in for a good decision. My main argument is That the abortion case and the ccw case are the biggest cases of the term. Thomas has not written an opinion for November. Him differing this opinion to Alito further alludes that Thomas will be writing the opinion in the ccw case. We all know where Thomas stands in re to the second amendment. If Thomas wasn’t writing the ccw case he would have kept overturning roe.

If scotus is willing to go balls out in Roe like this, Thomas will write a strong opinion protecting ccw.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

I think the leak shows us that we are in for a good decision. My main argument is That the abortion case and the ccw case are the biggest cases of the term. Thomas has not written an opinion for November. Him differing this opinion to Alito further alludes that Thomas will be writing the opinion in the ccw case. We all know where Thomas stands in re to the second amendment. If Thomas wasn’t writing the ccw case he would have kept overturning roe.

If scotus is willing to go balls out in Roe like this, Thomas will write a strong opinion protecting ccw.

Thomas was part of the 9-0 unamimous majority in Heller that concealed carry is regulated by the States and that prohibitons thereon may be upheld.

Concealed carry is already protected as a State (polity) regulated mode.

So what makes you think that Thomas will change his mind on BOTH?

Furthermore, what makes you think that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett will change their mind that Heller is binding AND what makes you think that Alito and Robert's will change their minds like Thomas?

=8-|

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Thomas was part of the 9-0 unamimous majority in Heller that concealed carry is regulated by the States and that prohibitons thereon may be upheld.

Concealed carry is already protected as a State (polity) regulated mode.

So what makes you think that Thomas will change his mind on BOTH?

Furthermore, what makes you think that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett will change their mind that Heller is binding AND what makes you think that Alito and Robert's will change their minds like Thomas?

=8-|

My argument is Thomas isn’t changing his mind and will write an opinion protecting carry and even go as far as providing a high level of scrutiny for lower courts.

If overturning roe is possible like this than anything is possible when it’s Thomas writing the majority opinion. We have seen him call out the court for acting like the second is a disfavored right in the past, it’s something he cares about. This isn’t another train pension case.

Plus if it was going to be a soft opinion Robert’s would be writing the opinion and would be in the majority.

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

Is this like saying "The new precedent is that there is no precedent"?

I think the court and the process for selecting and confirming justices has been losing any sense of comity and cooperation for quite some time. Both parties are guilty but In general, I think the left is worse. Both parties have engaged in an escalating war of made-up justifications regarding when nominees will even be considered. I think this has now gone about as far as it can go and I predict we will never see a justice of one party confirmed as along as the other party controls the Senate. The recent open consideration of packing the court in a naked grab for power for no other reason than "we are not getting our way", would have been far beyond the pale even 15 years ago. Every single criticism of Justice Barrett in her confirmation hearing was one form or another of "she won't give us the policies we want" rather than any criticism of the quality of her judicial reasoning. The same goes for the current Dobbs decision. I have not heard a single liberal criticize the reasoning, they just think it must be wrong because they don't like the result. The fights over precedent fit right into this pattern. Both sides think the precedents they like are inviolate and those they don't are just mistakes waiting to be corrected when the "right people" get on the bench. This is all just a microcosm of the coarsening of our politics in general and the current attitude that those who disagree with me are not just wrong but evil. Again, I think that aspect is generally worse on the left.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

...

Concealed carry is already protected as a State (polity) regulated mode.

...

In the event that this upcoming opinion does not itself establish CCW as a right, I believe that the writing is on the wall for it.

Starting from your assertion that OC is the right and CCW is discretionary, the issue will turn to Equal Protection. There are many possible avenues for this, but the most obvious one comes from the same community that brought us Caetano.

For persons who are homeless, travelers, and other marginalized groups, OC places a high burden on their ability to keep and bear arms (the two are conflated in the case of an un-housed individual). Similarly, a person living in a dangerous neighborhood - someone who has a heightened need for self defense - is placed at demonstrably higher risk if they exercise their right to bear through OC.

It just seems inevitable to me that if this case doesn't resolve CCW once and for all as a right, it is a fairly small (and unavoidable) step to get there. The real question will be how many decent low income people get robbed or killed while OC before the laws get changed. It's a rhetorical question because they are smarter than that and they will CCW anyway, get arrested and have their lives turned upside down in the system. Nothing new to see here.

[cyphr02]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

My argument is Thomas isn’t changing his mind and will write an opinion protecting carry and even go as far as providing a high level of scrutiny for lower courts.

If overturning roe is possible like this than anything is possible when it’s Thomas writing the majority opinion. We have seen him call out the court for acting like the second is a disfavored right in the past, it’s something he cares about. This isn’t another train pension case.

Plus if it was going to be a soft opinion Robert’s would be writing the opinion and would be in the majority.

How do you know Roberts isn't writing it?

[HibikiR]

Originally Posted by cyphr02

How do you know Roberts isn't writing it?

The idea is that SCOTUS tries to divide the workload evenly.

IIRC, for the month of November, when this was heard, most of the other justices, including Roberts, have already done their share, which leaves only two options: Thomas and Barrett.

For a pivotal decision, seniority should dictate which of the two will write the opinion.

[DolphinFan]

I believe that any decision written by Thomas will codify the 2A and direct the lower courts to the process they must follow and their limitations.
I expect to be able to carry a loaded firearm the day of the decision outside my home.
7 weeks to go.

Who’s right is it to determine the MODE of carry? I don’t think the government.
I hope Thomas will allow the citizen to Bear Arms, in a mode that they choose.
I think the limit place on the government will be only to limit where one can carry, ie. “Sensitive Places”.

[Phiremin]

Originally Posted by FullMetalJacket

The impact of a favorable ruling isn't really the number of additional people who will carry.

It's that the ruling will entrench the right to carry so firmly that it will take an enormous effort and a long time for it to be undone.

I wish I could agree with you, but I fully expect to see blue states regulate concealed carry with Jim Crow type laws. Just about everywhere will be a “restricted area”. They type of gun and the ammo will be regulated. There will be astronomical liability insurance requirements. Training will be required, but they will take years to certify the instructors.
This requires years of courts striking down the more draconian restrictions, but the courts generally haven’t been friendly to gun rights.

[mrrabbit]

So . . .

Let's assume that the SCOTUS calendar showing no opinion issuances thru June is accurate . . .

Let's assume that SCOTUS WILL act on NYSRPA v Bruen during that time period . . .

What are the chances that NYSRPA v Bruen will be on an order list as:

As a remand to the lower court as mooted OR improvidently granted?

Just wondering what you guys think...

=8-|

[FreshTapCoke]

showing no opinion issuances thru June is accurate . . .

This is accurate, but it's not accurate to draw the conclusion that the calendar cannot be updated again.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by FreshTapCoke

This is accurate, but it's not accurate to draw the conclusion that the calendar cannot be updated again.

Nice strawman...





=8-|

[Bhobbs]

That would probably set gun rights back decades, if not permanently.

[CGZ]

The calendar on the SOCTUS website is updated regularly. Opinion issuance dates will appear on the calendar a few days or the day before the issuance comes out. I have seen as such for the last two issuance dates. IIRC all opinions for the session should be out by July 1.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by CGZ

The calendar on the SOCTUS website is updated regularly. Opinion issuance dates will appear on the calendar a few days or the day before the issuance comes out. I have seen as such for the last two issuance dates. IIRC all opinions for the session should be out by July 1.

Hope you're right, tired of waiting.

=8-|

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

I wish I could agree with you, but I fully expect to see blue states regulate concealed carry with Jim Crow type laws. Just about everywhere will be a “restricted area”. They type of gun and the ammo will be regulated. There will be astronomical liability insurance requirements. Training will be required, but they will take years to certify the instructors.
This requires years of courts striking down the more draconian restrictions, but the courts generally haven’t been friendly to gun rights.

Absolutely right! The only way we really get our rights is for the Court to specify a mode of carry and say that must be allowed without permits or permission of any kind. Even leaving it up to the state to decide will not do it because CA will respond by not changing anything and leaving in place both the state ban on OC and permit requirement for CC and we will be right back to where we were in the 9th with Peruta. The Court will probably also have to specify that all commonly used types of firearms are permitted and put severe restrictions on what can be considered sensitive places (such as places with signs and metal detectors) or else the shenanigans will be endless.

[thethreegs]

Honest question: Best case, SCOTUS rules that shall issue must replace may issue effective immediately. What is to stop California from IMMEDIATELY ruling around this? I have a hard time believing that the "Brentwoods" and "Palo Altos" of the influential California community would - for ONE second - allow something like this to occur in their neighborhood. The thought that anyone can now conceal carry a firearm at The Grove while they are with their family shopping.

I remain hopeful for a positive SCOTUS ruling, but realistically - does it even matter? California will carve out their own laws as they see fit regardless of any SCOTUS decision. I think that's the harsh reality check of our situation.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

And what do you think follows the syllabus . . . something completely unrelated?



=8-\

Really? Even the Court itself says it is no part of the opinion. It is a summary prepared by Court staff prior to publication; it is not the opinion nor endorsed by the opinion writer. It may be entirely accurate (or not) BUT IT CANNOT BE CITED IN ANY COURT OF LAW AS BINDING PRECEDENT! Please please please get a clue.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by thethreegs

Honest question: Best case, SCOTUS rules that shall issue must replace may issue effective immediately. What is to stop California from IMMEDIATELY ruling around this? I have a hard time believing that the "Brentwoods" and "Palo Altos" of the influential California community would - for ONE second - allow something like this to occur in their neighborhood. The thought that anyone can now conceal carry a firearm at The Grove while they are with their family shopping.

I remain hopeful for a positive SCOTUS ruling, but realistically - does it even matter? California will carve out their own laws as they see fit regardless of any SCOTUS decision. I think that's the harsh reality check of our situation.

One can already conceal carry in Palo Alto if they obtained permit in another county. I don’t think they will care that much. If that is concealed carry.


Probably good time to submit application.

[ojisan]

Allow me to preface the following with I think we should have a choice of open or concealed carry, with concealed carry of handguns favored in public places.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that is not the right to right to keep and bear concealable handguns, it is the right to keep and bear arms.
Arms include swords and long guns, which cannot be carried concealed.

[FreshTapCoke]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Nice strawman...





=8-|

Wait, what? I'm being 100% serious here and was just trying to help. They're going to update the calendar with more releases.


To show good faith, I will try to respond to the rest of your post. I think the likelihood of it being dropped is low. With the current composition of the court, this will probably be the last chance to release a favorable ruling on the 2nd Amendment. The worst case I'm expecting is a watered down or weak ruling to get enough support from the majority.

And yes, I'm tired of waiting, too. I've had my fingers crossed since 1996.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by FreshTapCoke

Wait, what? I'm being 100% serious here and was just trying to help. They're going to update the calendar with more releases.


To show good faith, I will try to respond to the rest of your post. I think the likelihood of it being dropped is low. With the current composition of the court, this will probably be the last chance to release a favorable ruling on the 2nd Amendment. The worst case I'm expecting is a watered down or weak ruling to get enough support from the majority.

And yes, I'm tired of waiting, too. I've had my fingers crossed since 1996.

This was my predicate:


"Let's assume that the SCOTUS calendar showing no opinion issuances thru June is accurate . . ."



This was the predicate you tried to represent me with:


"showing no opinion issuances thru June is accurate . . ."



Then you proceded to attack / correct me on the basis of YOUR predicate:


"This is accurate, but it's not accurate to draw the conclusion that the calendar cannot be updated again."


A position I of course never took.


You committed a strawman. Doing so accidently is one thing. Understand that if you do it as a habit, you're outing yourself as a dishonest person who refuses to represent others accurately.

Careful...

=8-|

[FreshTapCoke]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

You committed a strawman. Doing so accidently is one thing. Understand that if you do it as a habit, you're outing yourself as a dishonest person who refuses to represent others accurately.

Careful...

=8-|

Ahh, I understand and see now! Thank you for the explanation.

[htjyang]

1. Previously, I assumed that J. Barrett would be writing Dobbs, leaving NYSRPA to J. Thomas. Now that it appears J. Alito is writing Dobbs, I think J. Barrett probably has NYSRPA. Note that last term, J. Thomas did not pen the majority opinion in any of the ideologically divided cases ( https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...07.02.2021.pdf
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...ded-7.6.21.pdf ). Partly, I suspect it was CJ Roberts preventing J. Thomas from penning those majority opinions. But one might also question whether J. Thomas is actually capable of "massing the Court", i.e. pen and defend a majority opinion and prevent defections. Thomas's clarity of thinking may also make it harder for him to hold a majority.

Of course, we're not talking about the possibility of defeat here, just the magnitude of victory. J. Barrett made some remarks during argument that suggest that she may be sympathetic to a broad definition of "sensitive places". Let's hope they don't make it into her opinion.

2. J. Thomas wrote in his Silvester v. Becerra dissent:

Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance. We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years. Peruta v. California, 582 U. S. ___ , ___ (2017) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 7). And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving the Fourth Amendment—even though our jurisprudence is much more developed for those rights.

That may suggest an interest in normalizing the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps with the ascension of J. Barrett, the Court may take up 2A cases regularly. Let's not be too greedy and simply assume that the Court will now hear one 2A case every two years. The conservative majority on the Court is expected to last 30 years. That means about 15 pro-2A cases for the next 3 decades....

Even assuming J. Thomas is writing NYSRPA (which I doubt), I don't think Thomas can come up with the kind of be-all-and-end-all of 2A opinions that some people are hoping for. I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's somewhat sad conclusion:

I understood that some of my Cabinet colleagues and other ministers were moving to the left, some more to the right. But I believed that they had generally become convinced of the rightness of the basic principles as I had. I now know that such arguments are never finally won.

Just as the arguments over 1A and 4A are still ongoing, I doubt anyone can end the debate over 2A. But a steady stream of pro-2A opinions over a period of 3 decades might have the effect of convincing lower courts to reject gun control laws regularly.

And that's not taking into account possible per curiams, GVRs, and dare we hope for the occasional "cert before judgment"? One should not underestimate the importance of these decisions. They might seem insignificant because there was no full argument. But they may actually be more significant because of that fact. They may indicate to lower courts that gun control is so obviously wrong that the Court will quickly reverse lower courts without full argument. In time, lower courts may wish to avoid that kind of embarrassment.

3. I think I need to point out that the concealed carry language in Heller is, strictly speaking, dicta, not the core holding. The Court can overrule its precedents, let alone dicta. One rather remarkable set of examples is the qualified immunity cases of Saucier v. Katz (2001) and Pearson v. Callahan (2009). Pearson significantly limited Saucier. Saucier was decided by (arguably) 8-1 and Pearson was unanimous. Yet 7/9 members of the Court were completely the same in both cases!

In short, I'm not convinced that the concealed carry language in Heller will significantly influence NYSRPA because it was dicta. Furthermore, justices do change their minds. (J. Scalia in Ring v. Arizona (2002): "Since Walton (1990), I have acquired new wisdom that consists of two realizations–or, to put it more critically, have discarded old ignorance....")

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by ojisan

Allow me to preface the following with I think we should have a choice of open or concealed carry, with concealed carry of handguns favored in public places.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that is not to right to keep and bear concealable handguns, it is the right to keep and bear arms.
Arms include swords and long guns, which cannot be carried concealed.

Good point.
I’m hoping that if we get a favorable ruling, fixed-blade knives and such would be covered as well, although I think that issue would have to be further litigated in lower courts under a different level of scrutiny.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

On the SCOTUS calendar (https://www.supremecourt.gov/), the dates in May have been changed from dark blue (Non Argument Days), to light blue (Order List Issuance Days).

Monday, the 16th, has been changed from light blue (Order List issuance) to yellow (Opinion issuance).

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by htjyang

1. Previously, I assumed that J. Barrett would be writing Dobbs, leaving NYSRPA to J. Thomas. Now that it appears J. Alito is writing Dobbs, I think J. Barrett probably has NYSRPA. Note that last term, J. Thomas did not pen the majority opinion in any of the ideologically divided cases ( https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...07.02.2021.pdf
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...ded-7.6.21.pdf ). Partly, I suspect it was CJ Roberts preventing J. Thomas from penning those majority opinions. But one might also question whether J. Thomas is actually capable of "massing the Court", i.e. pen and defend a majority opinion and prevent defections. Thomas's clarity of thinking may also make it harder for him to hold a majority.

Of course, we're not talking about the possibility of defeat here, just the magnitude of victory. J. Barrett made some remarks during argument that suggest that she may be sympathetic to a broad definition of "sensitive places". Let's hope they don't make it into her opinion.

2. J. Thomas wrote in his Silvester v. Becerra dissent:



That may suggest an interest in normalizing the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps with the ascension of J. Barrett, the Court may take up 2A cases regularly. Let's not be too greedy and simply assume that the Court will now hear one 2A case every two years. The conservative majority on the Court is expected to last 30 years. That means about 15 pro-2A cases for the next 3 decades....

Even assuming J. Thomas is writing NYSRPA (which I doubt), I don't think Thomas can come up with the kind of be-all-and-end-all of 2A opinions that some people are hoping for. I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's somewhat sad conclusion:



Just as the arguments over 1A and 4A are still ongoing, I doubt anyone can end the debate over 2A. But a steady stream of pro-2A opinions over a period of 3 decades might have the effect of convincing lower courts to reject gun control laws regularly.

And that's not taking into account possible per curiams, GVRs, and dare we hope for the occasional "cert before judgment"? One should not underestimate the importance of these decisions. They might seem insignificant because there was no full argument. But they may actually be more significant because of that fact. They may indicate to lower courts that gun control is so obviously wrong that the Court will quickly reverse lower courts without full argument. In time, lower courts may wish to avoid that kind of embarrassment.

3. I think I need to point out that the concealed carry language in Heller is, strictly speaking, dicta, not the core holding. The Court can overrule its precedents, let alone dicta. One rather remarkable set of examples is the qualified immunity cases of Saucier v. Katz (2001) and Pearson v. Callahan (2009). Pearson significantly limited Saucier. Saucier was decided by (arguably) 8-1 and Pearson was unanimous. Yet 7/9 members of the Court were completely the same in both cases!

In short, I'm not convinced that the concealed carry language in Heller will significantly influence NYSRPA because it was dicta. Furthermore, justices do change their minds. (J. Scalia in Ring v. Arizona (2002): "Since Walton (1990), I have acquired new wisdom that consists of two realizations–or, to put it more critically, have discarded old ignorance....")

Wasn't the whole speculation with whether Barrett and Thomas would write NYSRPA revolving around who had not written an opinion on the cases heard in November? Dobbs was heard on December 1, 2021, so Alito writing Dobbs would not play into that speculation.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by ajb78

Wasn't the whole speculation with whether Barrett and Thomas would write NYSRPA revolving around who had not written an opinion on the cases heard in November? Dobbs was heard on December 1, 2021, so Alito writing Dobbs would not play into that speculation.

I think Barrett also issued an opinion for November already, while Thomas is the only justice that has not. Additionally, he would be the most senior justice is a 5-4 opinion or 5-3-1 opinion giving him the ability to assign himself as the author. Splitting Dobbs and NYSRPA between alito and Thomas makes sense to me. Especially because I think Thomas will write a concurrence in Dobbs indicating a right to life being granted by the 14th amendment. This theory also makes sense as to why Alito is writing for the majority and not Thomas in Dobbs.

I stand by my assertion that if scotus gives zero f’s as to overturning Roe then the same 5 will give zero f’s about a strong 2nd amendment holding.

[gobler]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Monday, the 16th, has been changed from light blue (Order List issuance) to yellow (Opinion issuance).

So what else; other then Mississippi, are we waiting on before Bruen?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[CGZ]

Originally Posted by gobler

So what else; other then Mississippi, are we waiting on before Bruen?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

I counted 9 cases that were argued in 2021 that still don't have decision out yet. There are also cases that were heard in 2022 including ones heard in April listed in the link below. I'm unsure how many would be included in the current session set to end by July though.

https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Cour...term_2021-2022

These are the 9 that had argument dates sometime in 2021 that still don't have an decision out.

Hemphill v. New York
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Shinn v. Ramirez
Patel v. Garland
Carson v. Makin
United States v. Taylor
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation
American Hospital Association v. Becerra

[mikeyr]

What does that mean for us in Calif. ? we all know that Newsom will fight it even if it was the Supreme Court. What could he do to stop it ? by the way, I don't have a lot of faith that they will allow carry.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mikeyr

What does that mean for us in Calif. ? we all know that Newsom will fight it even if it was the Supreme Court. What could he do to stop it ? by the way, I don't have a lot of faith that they will allow carry.

If a shall issue regime is imposed, that only means no discretion or need for "good cause". But it doesn't mean that they cannot try to jack up the training requirement, perhaps even a proficiency requirement (as some counties now do), or massively increase the application costs. By w ay of example, my recollection is that when DiFi got her ccw, she had to pass the same proficiency requirements as imposed on LEOs. All this despite the absence of evidence that licensed carriers are a source of accidental or intentional shootings....

[DolphinFan]

Requiring a proficiency test to carry, “Bear” is like requiring an IQ test to vote.
Therefore I see the decision expanding Heller to “outside the home for self defense” less “sensitive places” is the core right, also without dicta as to mode of carry.
That too should be left to the choice of the person exercising their right.

[gobler]

Originally Posted by TruOil

If a shall issue regime is imposed, that only means no discretion or need for "good cause". But it doesn't mean that they cannot try to jack up the training requirement, perhaps even a proficiency requirement (as some counties now do), or massively increase the application costs. By w ay of example, my recollection is that when DiFi got her ccw, she had to pass the same proficiency requirements as imposed on LEOs. All this despite the absence of evidence that licensed carriers are a source of accidental or intentional shootings....

Unless they say No Fees, tests or expiration date.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[splithoof]

I foresee games with the standard of GMC, and absent that, the need for the state legislature, with willing LE agencies, to “analyze” the whole decision (if favorable to the citizenry) for a long time first. Then kill it for Californians by way of endless hoops, insurances, training, verifications, etc. Each of those may need to be litigated, so that will get the states more time. Meanwhile, some of us will die off before meaningful change ever really happens.

[green grunt]

^some of us will die off before meaningful change ever really happens.


so true...

[wireless]

Originally Posted by splithoof

I foresee games with the standard of GMC, and absent that, the need for the state legislature, with willing LE agencies, to “analyze” the whole decision (if favorable to the citizenry) for a long time first. Then kill it for Californians by way of endless hoops, insurances, training, verifications, etc. Each of those may need to be litigated, so that will get the states more time. Meanwhile, some of us will die off before meaningful change ever really happens.

I highly doubt that. Writing an opinion that left room for GMC means the opinion would ONLY address "need". Do you think the majority wouldn't say something along the lines of, "every law abiding citizen must be issued a permit to carry unless they are a prohibited person". GMC completely irrelevant at that point.

[homelessdude]

We will know soon. July is coming pretty quick. I hope there is some meat in it with no wiggle room but as I said, July is coming.