Supreme Court strikes down NY Concealed Gun Law !!

[nick]

Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe

Good angle! There's got to be someone on this site that qualifies in that category.



Requirement, yes.

However, many/more than a few manufactured guns from before 1968 (old Colt's for example) came with serial numbers .Others, especially the Montgomery Ward 22LR type specials, did not.

But we're talking about government laws and regulations, not something a private company decided to do.

[natman]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

Link? Where do I find this document?

.

CA Attorney General on Bruen:

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...021576/photo/1

[kalashnikitty]

My concern as a gun owner is that we may have won the battle but lost the war. Up until now we had a two part test: history and interest/balancing. Justice Thomas threw out the interet/balancing portion of the test and left us with a single test: only those regulations consistent with historical regulations are permissible.

Now the interest/balancing portion of the test was at least nominally objective (although the courts have tended to overemphasize the interest and underemphasize the balancing especially in cases which involved "assault weapons" or limited magazine capacity). With only the history test remaining there are two problems: history is seldom monolithic and mostly ambiguous at best, and there is an old saying: The history is right perhaps, but let us not forget, it was written by the victors.

So what happens when the composition of the court changes? For a liberal court to go back and say that Thomas misread and misinterpreted the history is not too far fetched. It is certainly less of a stretch than overruling outright a case with 50 years of historical precedent (Roe v Wade).

Adam Winkler is quoted as saying: "the respective fates of California's various gun laws could largely depend on the whims of whichever lower court judges hear the challenges."

"The court says they're looking to history and tradition, but New York presented plenty of history on restrictions on concealed carry that the court dismissed as outliers or not historically relevant," he said. "The court claimed it was using history but it looked like politics as usual to me."

I don't want my Second Amendment rights subject to the whims of whichever particular court hears the case.

[bigdaddyz1776]

More Legal Guns Reduced Crime in Brazil

‘Lives are on the line,” President Biden said after the Supreme Court held New York state’s restrictive gun-permit regime unconstitutional last week. Gov. Kathy Hochul warned: “This could place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way.” Brazil’s experience suggests otherwise.

In 2018, the year before Jair Bolsonaro became president, Brazil had one of the highest homicide rates among developed countries: 27.8 per 100,000 people, compared with 5 per 100,000 in the U.S. Mr. Bolsonaro’s solution: “Give guns to good people. Let people have guns so that they have the chance to defend themselves.”

In Brazil black-market firearms are widely available to criminals, and 70% of murders in 2019 involved guns. When Mr. Bolsonaro took office, there were about 330,000 licensed firearm owners in Brazil. At the time, according to the BBC, “only strictly defined groups of people, including police and security officials are able to obtain a gun license.” In 2019, when Mr. Bolsonaro’s many changes began taking effect, Brazil added more than 400,000 licensed firearm owners.

During his presidential campaign, critics said he had it dangerously wrong. A Bloomberg Opinion writer scoffed: “It’s hard to buy the current proposals championed by gun lobbyists and a few political yahoos who aim to make Brazil safer by slackening controls.” The New York Times wrote in a news story that his proposals were “worrying some experts who argue that more guns fuel more violence.”

Brazil’s pre-2019 laws looked like the wish list of American gun-control advocates. Owning a gun without a license carries a four-year prison sentence. By comparison, almost no state in the U.S. requires a license to own a gun, and 25 states don’t require a license to carry a gun.

In Brazil aspiring gun owners have to be at least 25, undergo psychological and technical aptitude screening, show proof of employment, and explain why they want a firearm. Mr. Bolsonaro eliminated the psychological and other screening requirements.

By November 2021, Mr. Bolsonaro had made 32 changes to ease Brazil’s gun laws. Brazilians were allowed to own more and more-powerful guns—up to six guns and up to .50 caliber, the same maximum caliber as the U.S. He raised the maximum annual ammunition purchase to 5,000 rounds a year from 50. He made it easier to carry concealed handguns in public.

Before Mr. Bolsonaro, Brazilians had to pay $260 for a new gun license and $25 every three years to renew it. This put legal gun ownership out of reach of the poor. The initial license fee has fallen to around $18.50, and licenses are good for 10 years.

Instead of surging, crime declined sharply in Brazil. In three years under Mr. Bolsonaro, the homicide rate has fallen 34%, to 18.5 per 100,000.

The media and gun-control advocates were wrong about Brazil. Mr. Biden and Ms. Hochul should take note.

Mr. Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”

[Ubermcoupe]

Originally Posted by kalashnikitty

My concern as a gun owner is that we may have won the battle but lost the war. Up until now we had a two part test: history and interest/balancing. Justice Thomas threw out the interet/balancing portion of the test and left us with a single test: only those regulations consistent with historical regulations are permissible.

Now the interest/balancing portion of the test was at least nominally objective (although the courts have tended to overemphasize the interest and underemphasize the balancing especially in cases which involved "assault weapons" or limited magazine capacity). With only the history test remaining there are two problems: history is seldom monolithic and mostly ambiguous at best, and there is an old saying: The history is right perhaps, but let us not forget, it was written by the victors.

So what happens when the composition of the court changes? For a liberal court to go back and say that Thomas misread and misinterpreted the history is not too far fetched. It is certainly less of a stretch than overruling outright a case with 50 years of historical precedent (Roe v Wade).

Adam Winkler is quoted as saying: "the respective fates of California's various gun laws could largely depend on the whims of whichever lower court judges hear the challenges."

"The court says they're looking to history and tradition, but New York presented plenty of history on restrictions on concealed carry that the court dismissed as outliers or not historically relevant," he said. "The court claimed it was using history but it looked like politics as usual to me."

I don't want my Second Amendment rights subject to the whims of whichever particular court hears the case.

Yes, but no. Sure the lower courts need to rule appropriately or the proverbial cans get kicked down the road of appeals (and potentially into the SCOTUS arena), BUT this SCOTUS is sending a clear ruling that they're not F'n around anymore. The lower courts will fall into line, or they'll potentially be overruled. The anti-2A-states and proponents of restricting 2A rights now face a dilemma; either they toe the line carefully, or they keep pushing and end up getting more of their 'sacred' provisions thrown out.

To the THT of the Sullivan act - make no mistake that this law was racist, and an attempt to control sections of the population that were deemed un-trustworthy or disliked by the whichever powers that be were in charge.

We see something similar with the Mulford Act, signed by Ronald Regan (and supported by ... wait for it ... the NRA).

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

The restriction would have to be consistent with the Nation's historical tradition. If there is not a tradition of banning open carry, then you can't make the argument, even by analogy, that a law which does so is consistent in that fashion.

You miss the point. Until the law is overturned, which I would have to think is highly likely under the current test, you can still be arrested, charged, and tried for violating the law. Of course, you can raise a constitutional question as to the open carry ban, but that will cost you a pretty penny out of your own pocket. Moreover, there is still the issue that the County can legalize open carry with a permit. I have no idea how that will go; the judge could easily rule that the miscreant had the opportunity to comply with the law but willfully failed to do so. So before open carrying, it would be better to apply, be refused, and then sue for violations of civil rights.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe

Yes, but no. Sure the lower courts need to rule appropriately or the proverbial cans get kicked down the road of appeals (and potentially into the SCOTUS arena), BUT this SCOTUS is sending a clear ruling that they're not F'n around anymore. The lower courts will fall into line, or they'll potentially be overruled. The anti-2A-states and proponents of restricting 2A rights now face a dilemma; either they toe the line carefully, or they keep pushing and end up getting more of their 'sacred' provisions thrown out.

To the THT of the Sullivan act - make no mistake that this law was racist, and an attempt to control sections of the population that were deemed un-trustworthy or disliked by the whichever powers that be were in charge.

We see something similar with the Mulford Act, signed by Ronald Regan (and supported by ... wait for it ... the NRA).

In all fairness the NRA of 1966, is assuredly not the POWERHOUSE PRO2A BIG DOG IN THE FIGHT OF TODAY.

The NRA of 1966, died a quick death in 1977.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by TruOil

You miss the point. Until the law is overturned, which I would have to think is highly likely under the current test, you can still be arrested, charged, and tried for violating the law. Of course, you can raise a constitutional question as to the open carry ban, but that will cost you a pretty penny out of your own pocket.

Oh. I thought the question was about the Constitutionality of the law, not the status of the law prior to challenge.

Yes, of course, the law will be in effect until it is successfully challenged.

Moreover, there is still the issue that the County can legalize open carry with a permit. I have no idea how that will go; the judge could easily rule that the miscreant had the opportunity to comply with the law but willfully failed to do so. So before open carrying, it would be better to apply, be refused, and then sue for violations of civil rights.

I agree. That's generally the best approach. You have standing because you would openly carry but for the law.

[five.five-six]

I think all the commotion about baby murdering has been a huge benefit to CCW rights by taking our victory out of the spotlight.

[ja308]

Originally Posted by five.five-six

I think all the commotion about baby murdering has been a huge benefit to CCW rights by taking our victory out of the spotlight.

If it wasn't that it would be something else. .i.e Jonny Dep.the ice skater who got hit in the leg, Lorenia Bobbit or 1000s of other stories to keep the bread and circus crowd ( democrats) occupied with fluff .

I see it a little different . If the CCW victory was publicized , it might encourage the low information crowd to examine RKBA and the foundation of liberty Americans enjoy as a birthright .

Probably time to give an appropriate name to those who celebrate abortion .
Something like Friends of Moloch .

[sergeantc]

Originally Posted by five.five-six

I think all the commotion about baby murdering has been a huge benefit to CCW rights by taking our victory out of the spotlight.

////////////////////////

Completely agree

[Squatch]

Originally Posted by five.five-six

I think all the commotion about baby murdering has been a huge benefit to CCW rights by taking our victory out of the spotlight.

Maybe that was by design.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Librarian]

A couple pieces at Volokh by Josh Blackman -

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/27...mits-of-bruen/

The Limits of Bruen
The Constitutionality of "Shall Issue" Regimes After Bruen.

Josh Blackman | 6.27.2022 1:29 PM

Bruen was a resounding triumph for originalism. But unlike Dobbs, Bruen will not lead to sweeping changes in gun laws nationwide. For starters, more than 40 states already employed some form of shall-issue carry. Depending on how you count, only 6 or 7 states will have to modify their regimes in the wake of Bruen. Much of the sturm und drang about Bruen is hyperbole.

And, no doubt, these states will try to push the boundaries of Bruen. Eugene already blogged about one such attempt from the California Attorney General. Here, I would like to flag the limits that Bruen identifies, as well as those recognized in the concurring opinions.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/27...on-of-liberty/

Bruen's Originalist Analogical Reasoning Applies A Presumption of Liberty
A new framework for originalist judging.

Josh Blackman | 6.27.2022 1:40 AM

Justice Thomas's majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen may be the most important originalist opinion of all time. Its significance surpasses Heller, Crawford, and any other decision that came before it. Rather than trying to cram originalism into pre-existing standards--such as the tiers of scrutiny or a two-step test--Thomas starts from first principles. He employs originalist analogical reasoning. The Court instructs lower courts to determine the validity of a modern-day gun restriction by considering analogous restrictions in the past. But this mode of reasoning is weighted against the government, and follows a presumption of liberty. The state has the burden to justify that its restriction has historical analogues. And more importantly, the government cannot rely on sparse or attenuated historical analogues to meet its burden. Even if the evidence is at equipoise, the tie goes to freedom.

[randomBytes]

I fear Volokh is right, it may take another decade of litigation to bring real carry freedom to CA

[OleCuss]

I'm not a lawyer so Blackman is probably far more correct than am I. But he is talking about the limits of the decision based on concurring dicta, not so much from the opinion. That said, the concurring opinions are certainly expert opinions regarding the holding so they will likely carry some weight.

That said, I find it interesting that there was no apparent movement on the 2A cases with cert requests. It is barely possible that they will keep those cert requests available in order to address further issues if the lower courts do not behave as required in their analyses of the cases which will inevitably arise.

[chris]

Lets all just say Justice Clarence Thomas is savage ads F*** and thank him for the meltdown of Democrats across the country over this ruling.


I love seeing this state cry over it.

[htjyang]

I agree with Ole Cuss in that much of the limiting language should be regarded as dicta, as they are obviously not part of the core holding (i.e. unnecessary to reaching the result). Obviously, Supreme Court dicta is not regular dicta (see the Cato Institute's very useful brief). But as we have learned recently, the Court is free to reverse its own precedents, regardless of how much reliance interests have been built up, let alone dicta.

I've also looked over the Thomas opinion and my own view is that:

i. It seems to contain fewer nuggets (defined as interesting dicta which may be useful for future 2A litigation) than Heller. That leads us to

ii. It seems to be a more tightly focused opinion, focusing on THT. This is a very good thing as it outlines how lower courts should approach this issue while rejecting alternative approaches. If lower courts follow the Court's methodology, then few gun control laws will stand. Obviously, as many commentators here suggested, many lower courts (let's come out and say it, the 9th circuit) are likely to abuse history (i.e. torture history until it confesses) and the Supreme Court will have to remain vigilant against such abuses. Hopefully, decade-long droughts in 2A cases will be a thing of the past and the Court will swiftly correct lower court mistakes, intentional or otherwise, through the judicious use of GVRs and PCs.

The libertarian law professor Randy Barnett has also weighed in on this issue. In my opinion, DC's rules are obviously too restrictive. Though the Court's current opinion does not directly threaten the DC's gun control regime, at least parts of it are probably ripe for judicial review and reversal. The Court is probably not ready to dismiss the idea of licensing completely, but I'm optimistic that the Court will get there some day, especially if there is a long train of cases detailing how states and localities are abusing the licensing process for the sake of banning firearms.

I don't agree with Prof. Barnett's view that J. Thomas believes in enumerated rights only. In Dobbs, Thomas fully joined an opinion that used the Glucksberg test to evaluate unenumerated rights. The Glucksberg test is essentially THT.

That leads to a major issue that many people (including the Court) have not really grappled with: Why should THT only apply to 2A? Should it be extended to other rights or even the rest of the Constitution? Is there any incompatibility between THT and the traditional 3 tiers of scrutiny? Is THT an added level of scrutiny or should THT replace the 3 tiers of scrutiny altogether? If THT is an added level of scrutiny, then where is it placed? Above or below strict scrutiny? Note that on p. 13, J. Thomas specifically mentioned that:

...Heller relied on text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such
as strict or intermediate scrutiny.

My own guess is that eventually this problem will have to be solved. I'm not entirely sure which approach the Court will take:

a) use THT to replace 3 tiers of scrutiny (allowing for only 2 outcomes: government regulations that satisfy THT will live, regulations that fail THT will go the way of the dodo bird),
b) redefine strict scrutiny as THT or even
c) add THT as an additional level of scrutiny.

In my view, THT is much more rigorous than traditional strict scrutiny. According to its own terms, strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring. But what is compelling government interest and what is narrow tailoring? Essentially, even strict scrutiny still leaves too much for the State and the court's whims and biases.

The benefit of THT is that it requires an exhaustive examination of the historical record (see Heller and now NYSRPA). It requires courts to search for close historical analogous examples. Like any human system, I'm sure THT is still subject to abuse. But by requiring much more work on the part of the lower courts, it may cut down on such abuses. As Prof. Barnett rightly noted, it shifts the burden of proof to the State.