SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case - NYSRPA v. Bruen — Decision … soon

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by TruOil

The issue was never brief or argued. It is not within the scope of the issue it agreed to address. Go listen to the argument. The court was unimpressed with the argument that the right to a CCWQ should be subject to the unbridled discretion of a government functionary.

Careful there...

"The court was unimpressed with the argument that the right to a CCWQ should be subject to the unbridled discretion of a government functionary."

Sometimes it is important not to read too much into something...


"The court was unimpressed with the argument that the right to a CCWQ should be subject to the unbridled discretion of a government functionary."


Leaves you with...


"The court was unimpressed with unbridled discretion of a government functionary."


^^^ And that is why my fingers are crossed on some kind of "equal protection" fleshing out in the opinion whenever it it released.


=8-|

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Careful there...

"The court was unimpressed with the argument that the right to a CCWQ should be subject to the unbridled discretion of a government functionary."

Sometimes it is important not to read too much into something...


"The court was unimpressed with the argument that the right to a CCWQ should be subject to the unbridled discretion of a government functionary."


Leaves you with...


"The court was unimpressed with unbridled discretion of a government functionary."


^^^ And that is why my fingers are crossed on some kind of "equal protection" fleshing out in the opinion whenever it it released.


=8-|

Wouldn't the plaintiff have to raise the equal protection claim in the District Court, and again in the 2d Circuit, in order to preserve the claim? Wouldn't the plaintiff have to raise the equal protection argument in the cert petition? Does the record contain a factual basis to support an equal protection challenge? I'm not understanding where the challenge even comes from.

Even if they had a basis for an equal protection challenge, why bring that when they have such a clear Second Amendment claim. All they have to show is that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to "bear" outside the home and not just "keep and bear" inside the home. If you have the ball at the 10 yard line and are down two points with three seconds left in the game, you kick a field goal. You don't try to throw a pass into the end zone. Same concept.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by stoogescv

Wouldn't the plaintiff have to raise the equal protection claim in the District Court, and again in the 2d Circuit, in order to preserve the claim? Wouldn't the plaintiff have to raise the equal protection argument in the cert petition? Does the record contain a factual basis to support an equal protection challenge? I'm not understanding where the challenge even comes from.

Even if they had a basis for an equal protection challenge, why bring that when they have such a clear Second Amendment claim. All they have to show is that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to "bear" outside the home and not just "keep and bear" inside the home. If you have the ball at the 10 yard line and are down two points with three seconds left in the game, you kick a field goal. You don't try to throw a pass into the end zone. Same concept.

For someone with a low post count you ask very good questions and seem to have very good insight. I suspect significant legal training. All I can say is that we are dealing with the SCOTUS and they can pretty much do whatever the majority pleases.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

For someone with a low post count you ask very good questions and seem to have very good insight. I suspect significant legal training. All I can say is that we are dealing with the SCOTUS and they can pretty much do whatever the majority pleases.

Thank you...

=8-|

Saved me the trouble...

People here like to think CA9 is a "roque" court...but truth is there's nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment keeping SCOTUS from being "roque" as well.

Let's not forget that SCOTUS changed the question on cert bascially narrowing it WHILE opening things up submission-wise for claims and arguments via freshly submitted briefs.

=8-|

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Careful there...

"The court was unimpressed with the argument that the right to a CCWQ should be subject to the unbridled discretion of a government functionary."

Sometimes it is important not to read too much into something...


"The court was unimpressed with the argument that the right to a CCWQ should be subject to the unbridled discretion of a government functionary."


Leaves you with...


"The court was unimpressed with unbridled discretion of a government functionary."


^^^ And that is why my fingers are crossed on some kind of "equal protection" fleshing out in the opinion whenever it it released.
=8-|

I would thank you not to rewrite what I wrote. What I said was the argument presented, as I quite accurately stated. But as you rewrote it, it comes out as something that simply is not true. There are innumerable areas in which government functionaries exercise essentially unbridled discretion, subject only to a test as to whether the discretion vested in them was abused. Abuse of discretion is RARELY demonstrated, and if you look up the test applied, you will see why.

I do not see any place where the Court could engage in an equal protection analysis; there is no evidence in the record that persons equally entitled were treated differently under the law, i.e., where two people showed identical or nearly identical good cause but only one received a license.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I would thank you not to rewrite what I wrote. What I said was the argument presented, as I quite accurately stated. But as you rewrote it, it comes out as something that simply is not true. There are innumerable areas in which government functionaries exercise essentially unbridled discretion, subject only to a test as to whether the discretion vested in them was abused. Abuse of discretion is RARELY demonstrated, and if you look up the test applied, you will see why.

I do not see any place where the Court could engage in an equal protection analysis; there is no evidence in the record that persons equally entitled were treated differently under the law, i.e., where two people showed identical or nearly identical good cause but only one received a license.

A SCOTUS looking for that only needs to find ONE example.

And then remand back to lower court with instructions for NYS to correct their handgun license policies and guidelines for issuing authorities.

General larger issuance rural and suburban and scarce issuance inner city where the self-defense need is more pronounced provides two perfect pools to pick from.

Same for within NYC - say, let's say the catering pool for NYC. Owner of big established catering company that caters primarily to government funded operations who gets license versus owner of catering company that caters primarily to big businesses who doesn't get license.

All else equal, NYC would have to explain the difference.

The biggest problem with "MAY" issue type environments is that it is like someone who constantly tells lies. As time goes by, the lies become harder to maintain. You get to a point where any street bum can point and say "well look at that!" with a healthy dose of sarcasm.

Kinda like right here in Santa Clara County when it became clear about 8 years ago what the "May Issue" policy was: $10,000 check in a campaign coffer - "wink wink".

Didn't see anyone do this in the briefs submitted, but then again, maybe, just maybe, SCOTUS will go roque and do a little "equal protection" fleshing.

Just maybe...

=8-|

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

A SCOTUS looking for that only needs to find ONE example.

And then remand back to lower court with instructions for NYS to correct their handgun license policies and guidelines for issuing authorities.

General larger issuance rural and suburban and scarce issuance inner city where the self-defense need is more pronounced provides two perfect pools to pick from.

Same for within NYC - say, let's say the catering pool for NYC. Owner of big established catering company that caters primarily to government funded operations who gets license versus owner of catering company that caters primarily to big businesses who doesn't get license.

All else equal, NYC would have to explain the difference.

The biggest problem with "MAY" issue type environments is that it is like someone who constantly tells lies. As time goes by, the lies become harder to maintain. You get to a point where any street bum can point and say "well look at that!" with a healthy dose of sarcasm.

Kinda like right here in Santa Clara County when it became clear about 8 years ago what the "May Issue" policy was: $10,000 check in a campaign coffer - "wink wink".

Didn't see anyone do this in the briefs submitted, but then again, maybe, just maybe, SCOTUS will go roque and do a little "equal protection" fleshing.

Just maybe...

=8-|

I think an Equal Protection challenge would have to identify a disadvantaged class of people. For example, if NY was granting permits to white applicants but not black applicants. I don't think there's anything in the record that would provide a basis for that (or other protected class such as sex or religion), so I don't think there is any way for the court to grant relief to the plaintiffs on the basis of Equal Protection. I would not be surprised if some of the opinions include something in their discussion of the history of gun control referencing the fact that many gun control restrictions were aimed at keeping the newly freed slaves from being armed, but that would not amount to an Equal Protection challenge to this current NY statute.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by stoogescv

I think an Equal Protection challenge would have to identify a disadvantaged class of people. For example, if NY was granting permits to white applicants but not black applicants. I don't think there's anything in the record that would provide a basis for that (or other protected class such as sex or religion), so I don't think there is any way for the court to grant relief to the plaintiffs on the basis of Equal Protection. I would not be surprised if some of the opinions include something in their discussion of the history of gun control referencing the fact that many gun control restrictions were aimed at keeping the newly freed slaves from being armed, but that would not amount to an Equal Protection challenge to this current NY statute.

14th Amendment "Equal Protection" clause make no mention of "special disadvantaged class". It wouldn't be very EQUAL if it did. It would be the "Equal Protection for Disadvantaged Class Clause" if it did.

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As it is now, every state violates the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th A with impunity.

Just look at the Union Payed for COP Carve Outs for gun control infringements here in Ca.

Or widening the scope to the national level. Look at LEOSA.

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by pacrat

14th Amendment "Equal Protection" clause make no mention of "special disadvantaged class". It wouldn't be very EQUAL if it did. It would be the "Equal Protection for Disadvantaged Class Clause" if it did.



As it is now, every state violates the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th A with impunity.

Just look at the Union Payed for COP Carve Outs for gun control infringements here in Ca.

Or widening the scope to the national level. Look at LEOSA.

I see now how you think there is an Equal Protection issue when the government allows police officers to carry concealed weapons but don't allow normal citizens to carry concealed weapons. This is going to be a very difficult argument to win at the Supreme Court because without a distinction based on race, sex, or other suspect class, the Court applies rational basis review, and the government doesn't even have to present evidence supporting the rational basis. The government is *presumed* to have a rational basis. It should be obvious that such a challenge is much more difficult to win than a straightforward challenge on the Second Amendment.

[BaronW]

See y'all in 7 hours for today's opinions.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by stoogescv

I see now how you think there is an Equal Protection issue when the government allows police officers to carry concealed weapons but don't allow normal citizens to carry concealed weapons. This is going to be a very difficult argument to win at the Supreme Court because without a distinction based on race, sex, or other suspect class, the Court applies rational basis review, and the government doesn't even have to present evidence supporting the rational basis. The government is *presumed* to have a rational basis. It should be obvious that such a challenge is much more difficult to win than a straightforward challenge on the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS does not have to apply rational basis. No previous precedent applies to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is the ultimate precedent setter. Not a precedent follower. To date SCOTUS has overturned SCOTUS over 300 times.

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by pacrat

SCOTUS does not have to apply rational basis. No previous precedent applies to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is the ultimate precedent setter. Not a precedent follower. To date SCOTUS has overturned SCOTUS over 300 times.

If the Supreme Court wants to expand Second Amendment rights to carry outside the home, it can do that very neatly just by interpreting the Second Amendment more broadly without affecting anything outside the Second Amendment. The unintended consequences of the decision are thus very limited.

Adopting a more expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause would open the door to lots of unintended consequences outside the Second Amendment area. I think there are at least five voices on the Court that don't like the loose/fuzzy language about Equal Protection in Obergefell, for example, and would be reluctant to resort to it where it is not necessary, and it is not necessary here.

For those reasons, I will be shocked if the Supreme Court adopts a new test for applying the Equal Protection Clause. If the majority does anything on the Equal Protection Clause in the next year or two, I expect they will scale it back rather than expand it.

[pacrat]

There are definite 14th issues all across the 2A legal spectrum. Highly unlikely they will be addressed in NYSRPA. The question that the court created is much too narrow for that to happen.

I personally believe that THIS SCOTUS will remove 2nd class right status to some extent. How far they go with this, and subsequent cases remains to be seen.

I can only guess, and hope. Anyone not on SCOTUS that claims otherwise. Is delusional.

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Monday, the 23rd, has been changed from light blue to yellow.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

Today, monday the 23rd is the last yellow day. All subsequent yellow days have been changed to blue. So all this year’s remaining decisions will be issued today, starting at 10am eastern time??

[abinsinia]

The cases released so far,

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez

[Paladin]

Not today!

Less than 5 weeks to go!



Currently the remaining dates for releasing opinions are:

May 31
June 06, 13, 21, 27

NB The Court can always add Opinion days anytime it wishes.

[CGZ]

With this I'm courting 34 cases left undecided for this session.

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

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. was argued on March 21, 2022.
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez was argued on December 8, 2021.

[ShadowGuy]

What might be interesting, especially for the folks that have not been following closely since NYSRPA 1.0, is that there are a good amount of other cases with a much more direct impact on CA lined up like dominos based on a decision in this case. With less than 5 weeks to go, this opinion will reverberate across the 9th circuit and CA.

Group 1 - Ammo and Mags

• Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - Stayed Pending Duncun (9th Circuit)
  

• Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags - Distributed for Conference and petitioned to be held until NYSRPA.

Group 2 - Assault Weapons

• Miller v. Bonta (Assault Weapon): Held for Rupp (9th Circuit)
  

• Rupp v Becerra (AWCA): Held for NYSRPA

Group 3 - Carry

• Nichols Vs. Brown (Carry) Held pending Young (9th Circuit)
  
• Flanagan v. Harris ( Carry) Stayed pending Young (9th Circuit)
  
• Young v. Hawaii (CA9) (Carry) - Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. Assumed to be held by SCOTUS pending NYSRPA

Let me know if I need to make any edits, and I expect this to be the topic on the next Armed Scholar video (note the timestamp).

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by ShadowGuy

What might be interesting, especially for the folks that have not been following closely since NYSRPA 1.0, is that there are a good amount of other cases with a much more direct impact on CA lined up like dominos based on a decision in this case. With less than 5 weeks to go, this opinion will reverberate across the 9th circuit and CA.

That was really useful, thank you very much.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by ShadowGuy

What might be interesting, especially for the folks that have not been following closely since NYSRPA 1.0, is that there are a good amount of other cases with a much more direct impact on CA lined up like dominos based on a decision in this case. With less than 5 weeks to go, this opinion will reverberate across the 9th circuit and CA.

Group 1 - Ammo and Mags

• Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - Stayed Pending Duncun (9th Circuit)
  

• Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags - Distributed for Conference and petitioned to be held until NYSRPA.

Group 2 - Assault Weapons

• Miller v. Bonta (Assault Weapon): Held for Rupp (9th Circuit)
  

• Rupp v Becerra (AWCA): Held for NYSRPA

Group 3 - Carry

• Nichols Vs. Brown (Carry) Held pending Young (9th Circuit)
  
• Flanagan v. Harris (Open Carry) Stayed pending Young (9th Circuit)
  
• Young v. Hawaii (CA9) (Carry) - Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. Assumed to be held by SCOTUS pending NYSRPA

Let me know if I need to make any edits, and I expect this to be the topic on the next Armed Scholar video (note the timestamp).

Flanagan v. Harris is not open carry as the plaintiffs relinguished their claim in District Court with the Judge calling it another attempt at Peruta.

=8-|

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Not today!

Less than 5 weeks to go!



Currently the remaining dates for releasing opinions are:

May 31
June 06, 13, 21, 27

NB The Court can always add Opinion days anytime it wishes.

All the Dark Blue “Non-argument Days” in June are now Light Blue “Order List Issuance Days.”

[gobler]

What do you want to bet that both Bruen and "Roe" will be on the last day..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by gobler

What do you want to bet that both Bruen and "Roe" will be on the last day..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Would make for a spicy Independence Day weekend.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by gobler

What do you want to bet that both Bruen and "Roe" will be on the last day..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Bruen on the Monday of the last week of opinions, and Roe on the last day (Usually a Thursday) so they can get out of Dodge.

Expect several recent events to be referenced in the Bruen decision and dissent. Several different ethnic groups were victims. It goes directly to all the amicus briefs by those various ethnic groups who pointed out that NY's current law denies them that right. Expect the "sensitive spaces" portion of the opinion to address how people need the ability to defend themselves in public at a parade, grocery shopping, at church, or picking up their kids from school.

[Lanejsl]

Will be interesting to see if the events in TX sway the decision one way or the other.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

Will be interesting to see if the events in TX sway the decision one way or the other.

It could affect cases that are being held, but I don't think it'll change this opinion much or at all.

[FreshTapCoke]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

Will be interesting to see if the events in TX sway the decision one way or the other.

I'd guess that something recent like this would have the most effect on people with a foundation based on emotions. Expect to see it underlined in the dissent.

Those with a foundation of logic will already have taken into account the multitude of shootings that have repeatedly occurred for the past few decades. I don't expect them to change their decisions based on TX.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

Will be interesting to see if the events in TX sway the decision one way or the other.

Won't change the courts opinion, but will stoke the outrage from the left and the mainstream media talking heads.

[homelessdude]

An interesting collision coming between the court's decision and what ever the Senate passes. Gavin and the California legislature are also headed in the same direction if they pass more crap as he is threatening.

[Offwidth]

What does Senate pass?

[wireless]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

An interesting collision coming between the court's decision and what ever the Senate passes. Gavin and the California legislature are also headed in the same direction if they pass more crap as he is threatening.

Hopefully they strike down Texas's blatantly unconstitutional abortion law that revolves around suing people, and they address abortion directly, because that Texas law is going to make life real difficult for gun owners in blue states.

[homelessdude]

The Dems. are trying to put together a gun control bill in the Senate. and some of our most famous rinos's are working with them Gram and the turtle for two. There are others. Expect to see federal back ground checks, so called assault weapon ban, over ten round mags ban all preposed. I doubt they will pass but who knows with the upside down world we are living in. Schumer is pushing hard for this. He said he is holding all the Dem. bills because they can't get 60 votes on them. He is hoping that with the tragedy and the rino's help he can push something thru.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

Will be interesting to see if the events in TX sway the decision one way or the other.

I would hope that it does not affect the decision. As I understand it, the court's job is to interpret law. Events, no matter how tragic, do not change the law nor the interpretation. Only Congress can change the law, and they may do so in response to events if they so choose.

The court does get some interesting leeway when new technology appears, though.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

The Dems. are trying to put together a gun control bill in the Senate. and some of our most famous rinos's are working with them Gram and the turtle for two. There are others. Expect to see federal back ground checks, so called assault weapon ban, over ten round mags ban all preposed. I doubt they will pass but who knows with the upside down world we are living in. Schumer is pushing hard for this. He said he is holding all the Dem. bills because they can't get 60 votes on them. He is hoping that with the tragedy and the rino's help he can push something thru.

Not awb or mag ban. Read the articles. It's pretty clear they are interested in redflag legislation and 21 year old semi auto rifle ban.

AWB and mag ban are DOA.

[johndoe2150]

Red flag laws are worse then most other laws. I won’t be shocked if they become political attacks.

Don’t think there are more then 2 genders. Red Flag.
Oppose castrations of prepubescent children. Red Flag.
Want to own an AR. Red flag.
Think Biden has dementia. Red Flag.
Think the government has too much power. Red Flag.

[Elgatodeacero]

Don’t forget if you are against red flag laws, then that’s a pretty obvious red flag.

[gobler]

SCOTUS already put RFL's on notice... Don't think it would hold up in court.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by johndoe2150

Red flag laws are worse then most other laws. I won’t be shocked if they become political attacks.

Don’t think there are more then 2 genders. Red Flag.
Oppose castrations of prepubescent children. Red Flag.
Want to own an AR. Red flag.
Think Biden has dementia. Red Flag.
Think the government has too much power. Red Flag.

I also note that there are many calls from the left that:

1. People with mental health problems should not be allowed to own guns.
2. Racism is a mental health problem.
3. All White people, conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, etc. are racist.

It does not take a Ph.D. in math to add 1+2+3.

[TruOil]

States are free to enact red flag laws. Why do we need a federal law that merely duplicates those laws? Do we really want the federal courts to be in the business of adjudicating these claims/cases? As it is, most federal courts (and the federal district trial courts) have more business than they can handle. I have two cases where it is takes a year from the completion of briefing on a motion to get a decision from the judge. Yet pols want trial courts/magistrates to have trials in these cases within a few weeks of the issuance of a TRO? The system cannot handle the extra work without falling hopelessly behind, an issue that raises serious issues of due process.

[librarian72]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

1. People with mental health problems should not be allowed to own guns.

How could you forget (toxic) masculinity being a mental health problem?!??! It's even listed.... You made it in 1.