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

[press1280]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

Not that I think the balance of states on one side or the other matters much, but its a nice gesture.

It didn't make a lot of sense for VA to be joining the anti-states brief considering VA is unlicensed OC and shall issue CCW, other than the old AG was a Democrat.

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by press1280

...VA is unlicensed OC and shall issue CCW, ...

That's the same as Nevada and other states. I'm always amused by the fact that whole states work just fine like that and yet California thinks the world would come to an end, cats sleeping with dogs, etc. if anybody ever saw a gun in a public place.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

That's the same as Nevada and other states. I'm always amused by the fact that whole states work just fine like that and yet California thinks the world would come to an end, cats sleeping with dogs, etc. if anybody ever saw a gun in a public place.

At least though, a Californian may not know any better. An AG from VA shouldn't be advocating for a law contrary to that of VA

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by press1280

At least though, a Californian may not know any better. An AG from VA shouldn't be advocating for a law contrary to that of VA

An "AG" is first and foremost a "politician".

Leftist Dem Politicians have been advocating laws contrary to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights for decades.

Which are also contrary to their 'SWORN OATHS OF OFFICE".

https://youtu.be/Z6Dj8tdSC1A

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by press1280

At least though, a Californian may not know any better.

After traveling the country for some time, I’ve concluded that Californians for the most part are the most stupid folks I’ve ever encountered. We’re talking “Deliverance” character level here, the type that would sodomize an animal.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by lastinline

After traveling the country for some time, I’ve concluded that Californians for the most part are the most stupid folks I’ve ever encountered. We’re talking “Deliverance” character level here, the type that would sodomize an animal.

While many here may agree with you... you do realize that the 'Cal' in Calguns stands for California,

[press1280]

The NY Assembly may already be planning an end run around SCOTUS' upcoming ruling. The bill essentially guts a large portion of public places where one can carry a firearm (with a CCW of course).

https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?de...Votes=Y#A08684

4 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
5 (1) possesses any firearm [or]; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior
6 to the effective date of [the] chapter one of the laws of two thousand
7 thirteen [which added this section] subject to the registration require-
8 ments of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and
9 knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision;
10 or (3) knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or
11 firearm in or upon the following locations:
12 (a) Any form of public transportation, including but not limited to
13 railroads, ride sharing services, paratransit services, subways, buses,
14 air travel, taxis or any other public transportation service;
15 (b) Food and drink establishments; or
16 (c) Large gatherings, which for the purposes of this section shall
17 mean a gathering together of fifteen or more persons for amusement,
18 athletic, civic, dining, educational, entertainment, patriotic, poli-
19 tical, recreational, religious, social, or similar purposes.

The "Large Gatherings" is laughable considering there is no location even specified. They essentially are trying to force people to only be able to carry where there are few or no people around.

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by press1280

The NY Assembly may already be planning an end run around SCOTUS' upcoming ruling. The bill essentially guts a large portion of public places where one can carry a firearm (with a CCW of course).

https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?de...Votes=Y#A08684

4 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
5 (1) possesses any firearm [or]; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior
6 to the effective date of [the] chapter one of the laws of two thousand
7 thirteen [which added this section] subject to the registration require-
8 ments of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and
9 knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision;
10 or (3) knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or
11 firearm in or upon the following locations:
12 (a) Any form of public transportation, including but not limited to
13 railroads, ride sharing services, paratransit services, subways, buses,
14 air travel, taxis or any other public transportation service;
15 (b) Food and drink establishments; or
16 (c) Large gatherings, which for the purposes of this section shall
17 mean a gathering together of fifteen or more persons for amusement,
18 athletic, civic, dining, educational, entertainment, patriotic, poli-
19 tical, recreational, religious, social, or similar purposes.

The "Large Gatherings" is laughable considering there is no location even specified. They essentially are trying to force people to only be able to carry where there are few or no people around.

And so it begins.

I have predicted this earlier. They can and will infringe on our rights faster than we can get relief. We should not discuss specifics on this forum, but I could sit at my keyboard and come up with a dozen new things they could do to effectively kill our rights before I even had to pause to think. I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread that as long as the SCOTUS decision focuses on process, such as a GC requirement, it will just be erased by a new infringing process. Our only hope for real relief is a decision that focuses on end results and says something like, "Any law or combination of laws that prevents an otherwise law abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional". Even that will still not be enough because they will still pass them, but it's the best we can hope for.

The only part that surprises me is that NY was stupid enough to do this before the decision is finalized, and thus might allow SCOTUS to write it in such a way as to block some of this. We can only hope they do.

Further, look at how ridiculous this is. So where can you carry? At the park? Nope, that is a large gathering for recreational purposes. How about just walking down the street? Nope, how far can you walk in Manhattan without passing a hot dog or pretzel cart. They could claim that is "upon" a food and drink establishment. I note also that the liberals, who claim that anything that disproportional affects minorities is racist, have no problem restricting any gun transportation to those few well off people (in Manhattan, at least) with their own private cars.

[Aragorn]

Yes, when you still allow firearms to be prohibited in "Sensitive Places"; everywhere will be designated a sensitive place. This is one reason I was hopping mad at Clement and his oral argument. He surrendered the high ground and nothing good will come of it.

The ultimate irony is that so called sensitive places are precisely where one ought to be armed the most.

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Yes, when you still allow firearms to be prohibited in "Sensitive Places"; everywhere will be designated a sensitive place. This is one reason I was hopping mad at Clement and his oral argument. He surrendered the high ground and nothing good will come of it.

The ultimate irony is that so called sensitive places are precisely where one ought to be armed the most.

Luckily, Roberts of all people, indicated that it made no sense to limit carry to unoccupied places, because that's not where the need for self defense occurs. It is absurd to consider every taxicab a sensitive place when by definition, you are isolated from everybody but the driver.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

Luckily, Roberts of all people, indicated that it made no sense to limit carry to unoccupied places, because that's not where the need for self defense occurs. It is absurd to consider every taxicab a sensitive place when by definition, you are isolated from everybody but the driver.

Which would include that same driver being barred from carrying.

By all indicators. Being a cabby in NYC is a very dangerous occupation.

[MajorCaliber]

Under the proposed rules, you can't even even take your gun home from the gun store or to the range unless you can walk or own a car, and going to the shooting range itself is illegal if it can hold 15 people in total because there you can have 15 people gathered for a recreational purpose. If you own a gun you also cannot invite 14 people over to your home for any form of social gathering.

So many layers of stupidity, it's like a baklava of idiocy.

[dawgcasa]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Yes, when you still allow firearms to be prohibited in "Sensitive Places"; everywhere will be designated a sensitive place. This is one reason I was hopping mad at Clement and his oral argument. He surrendered the high ground and nothing good will come of it.

The ultimate irony is that so called sensitive places are precisely where one ought to be armed the most.

This all stems from the fundamental and persistent belief among liberals … particularly Justices like Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor … that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT actually an individual right. If you suggest to them its OK that the right to free speech exists only on an isolated mountain top where no one can hear you, they’d immediately say “how ridiculous”. If you suggest to them that the only place you are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by police is in gatherings smaller than 15 people, or when you are walking on foot, they’d call you a lunatic. And Breyer himself has refused repeatedly to acknowledge that allowing police to ignore the 4th and 5th amendment restrictions on their actions would directly implicate police ability to improve “public safety” … yet such suppression of THOSE rights through a governmental interest in public safety is clearly out of bounds constitutionally. It’s not that Breyer is stupid and can’t connect the dots. It’s that he consciously won’t. Why? Because in his mind, the 2nd amendment isn’t a right in the first place so it can’t be evaluated by similar criteria of other established individual rights, therefore guns themselves in public spaces are THE problem to be barred through whatever twisted pretzel logic is required. Essentially they want to undo Heller and McDonald where there is no individual right to self defense.

[Robotron2k84]

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

This all stems from the fundamental and persistent belief among liberals … particularly Justices like Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor … that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT actually an individual right.

…

If you extend this analysis, you find out that such a viewpoint is informed by an atheistic and materialist world-view, where some people are more important and worth protecting, and others only get a best-effort by state-monopolized security.

It says that, fundamentally, those with less worth do not deserve the ability to protect themselves, because their value to society is insignificant to those at the top, making the rules. E.g. there are thousands of immigrant workers, and the job is fungible, so we don’t need to protect every such person. Of course any party-loyal high-ranking member deserves private protection, and guns are only permissible in the hands of security forces, state actors or militaries to defend the country.

This viewpoint speaks volumes about the liberal mind, that is both fearful of death and selfish to an extreme. The Hoi polloi are not deemed necessary for their continued rule and happiness, and they should never be armed, lest they attack their betters. It’s a soul devoid of spirit, and a mind wholly consumed with ego and without compassion.

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

..It’s not that Breyer is stupid and can’t connect the dots. It’s that he consciously won’t.

And as bad as he is, he will surely be replaced by somebody worse.

[MajorCaliber]

As long as I’m on my soapbox about this ridiculous NY attempt to end run the anticipated decision in this case, I’ll keep going.

The new law, unfortunately like many others, can make you what I call an “inadvertent criminal”. You might go to an event of a social, religious or recreational nature, let’s say you want to go to your church and pray. It is illegal if there are more than 14 people there, but you may not be able to determine how many people are there until you have gone inside and counted 15. Now you are in violation without any intent. Or, imagine you can see from the outside that that there are only 12, so you enter and make it 13. You are fine until another couple walks in holding hands and now despite you did not do anything wrong, you have become an instant felon because of the actions of somebody else you have no control over.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

And so it begins.

The only part that surprises me is that NY was stupid enough to do this before the decision is finalized, and thus might allow SCOTUS to write it in such a way as to block some of this. We can only hope they do.

I know, right? The Court has done that before, taking note of news reports and other political discussions to expressly address the rumors and talk about people making end runs.

I note also that the liberals, who claim that anything that disproportional affects minorities is racist, have no problem restricting any gun transportation to those few well off people (in Manhattan, at least) with their own private cars.

There were several amici briefs about this very point. The Republican congresscritters wrote about how the existing law was for the elite only, and even the black public defenders wrote about how people were unable to defend themselves in their everyday lives.

I would not be at all surprised if the decision of the court including something along the lines of the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing that you can protect yourself to and from work. Roberts during oral arguments cited the violence people experienced on the subway for example. I certainly hope that they include some phrasing along the lines of, "State laws must allow the average citizen to defend themselves with a firearm as they go about their daily routine, including going to and from work, going to lunch, or going to a public park with their family."

Since the appropriate "sensitive places" came up at oral argument, I have medium to high confidence that there will be something in the decision outlining expectations. I would guess that inside school buildings, post offices and government facilities will make the list for acceptable "sensitive places."

Then the question will be where public property rights fall. Can the Court mandate that people can defend themselves to and from work, but then can't enter onto the property of their employer? Can an employer be forced to allow people to park on the property with a weapon in the vehicle? What about subway riders?

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by Foothills

Since the appropriate "sensitive places" came up at oral argument, I have medium to high confidence that there will be something in the decision outlining expectations. I would guess that inside school buildings, post offices and government facilities will make the list for acceptable "sensitive places."

Then the question will be where public property rights fall. Can the Court mandate that people can defend themselves to and from work, but then can't enter onto the property of their employer? Can an employer be forced to allow people to park on the property with a weapon in the vehicle? What about subway riders?

Those are very good points. Perhaps the doctrine will need to be something like they can prohibit firearms at work only if they allow you the opportunity to enter the premises and securely check it in a locker or something and that if you are a victim of a violent crime at work while you are disarmed, they are responsible. I suspect that level of specificity is a bridge too far to pack all into one decision. I think if Thomas gets to write it, he will pack in as much as possible because he recognizes it is LONG overdue.

[dawgcasa]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

If you extend this analysis, you find out that such a viewpoint is informed by an atheistic and materialist world-view, where some people are more important and worth protecting, and others only get a best-effort by state-monopolized security.

The amazing thing about people with that viewpoint … is that it is the same group of people that will claim that there is no individual right to self defense because ‘public safety’ is the sole responsibility of government law enforcement … and in the same breath denounce the police as the gravest mortal threat to minorities. Those people are extremely good at ignoring facts … like in 2021 there were a total of 12 unarmed blacks shot by police, but 7,600 blacks shot by criminals, most of them other blacks.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

The amazing thing about people with that viewpoint … is that it is the same group of people that will claim that there is no individual right to self defense because ‘public safety’ is the sole responsibility of government law enforcement … and in the same breath denounce the police as the gravest mortal threat to minorities. Those people are extremely good at ignoring facts … like in 2021 there were a total of 12 unarmed blacks shot by police, but 7,600 blacks shot by criminals, most of them other blacks.

As to the bolded;

Those same people make that claim, knowing full well. That the PoPo have no responsibility to protect any citizen from criminal activity.

SCOTUS ruled in "Gonzales" in 2005.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...o-protect.html

[abinsinia]

Jan 28 2022 Letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Clerk notifying the Court of the Commonwealth’s change in position of Commonwealth of Virginia not accepted for filing. (February 03, 2022)

They updated the entry for the Virginia letter, it would seem, to announce it is not accepted.

EDIT: They changed it again to "submitted" so I guess they are accepting it.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by pacrat

As to the bolded;

Those same people make that claim, knowing full well. That the PoPo have no responsibility to protect any citizen from criminal activity.

SCOTUS ruled in "Gonzales" in 2005.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...o-protect.html

You should tell that to the Ninth Circuit. Remember it ruled in Young v. Hawaii that there is no right to bear arms outside the home because only the Sovereign (police) had the authority and duty to protect the public. I guess it doesn't matter to them that the duty to protect is to the public "generally", but that there is no enforceable duty as to any individual specifically.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by MajorCaliber

And as bad as he is, he will surely be replaced by somebody worse.

Not necessarily.

It seems that the Democrats no longer have a majority in the Senate. If Brandon nominates someone who stinks worse than a dead skunk for Bryer's job, the nominee might not get confirmed.

In that case, the process starts all over again while staring straight down the barrel of the Nov election where Republicans are expected to sweep the rug out from underneath the Democrats.

Which means no new liberal justice until after the 2024 election. If the Republican's again take the WH, yet another conservative justice get appointed to the SCOTUS.

You can expect a protracted committee fight for whoever gets nominated. If a liberal, the conservatives will do everything they can to prevent the nomination from getting out of committee. If not a liberal, the Libs will do the same.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by press1280

It didn't make a lot of sense for VA to be joining the anti-states brief considering VA is unlicensed OC and shall issue CCW, other than the old AG was a Democrat.

The VA policy reversal from one extreme to another on a Constitutional issue shows quite clearly that the 10th Amendment/State's Rights isn't the best idea when National Policy is at stake because the "rules" change depending on whose butt is in the driver's seat.

An ever shifting landscape of what's legal and what isn't depending on which party is in power, isn't "rule of law", it's anarchy. The US Constitution is supposed to not let that happen.

[Citizen_B]

Originally Posted by rplaw

The VA policy reversal from one extreme to another on a Constitutional issue shows quite clearly that the 10th Amendment/State's Rights isn't the best idea when National Policy is at stake because the "rules" change depending on whose butt is in the driver's seat.

An ever shifting landscape of what's legal and what isn't depending on which party is in power, isn't "rule of law", it's anarchy. The US Constitution is supposed to not let that happen.

An excellent point. The system was setup to allow states to have broad discretion on policy within their respective state, except on issues of constitutional rights. There are many who don't understand the distinction.

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Not necessarily.

It seems that the Democrats no longer have a majority in the Senate. If Brandon nominates someone who stinks worse than a dead skunk for Bryer's job, the nominee might not get confirmed.

In that case, the process starts all over again while staring straight down the barrel of the Nov election where Republicans are expected to sweep the rug out from underneath the Democrats.

Which means no new liberal justice until after the 2024 election. If the Republican's again take the WH, yet another conservative justice get appointed to the SCOTUS.

You can expect a protracted committee fight for whoever gets nominated. If a liberal, the conservatives will do everything they can to prevent the nomination from getting out of committee. If not a liberal, the Libs will do the same.

While Democrat Senators can be counted on to vote with their party, several Republican Senators have no similar team spirit: Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham will likely vote to confirm any black woman Biden might nominate regardless of their record.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by stoogescv

While Democrat Senators can be counted on to vote with their party, several Republican Senators have no similar team spirit: Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham will likely vote to confirm any black woman Biden might nominate regardless of their record.

It would likely depend on the nominee as to whether those 4 will vote to confirm.

Remember, before the floor vote, the nominee has to get out of committee first. Whether that happens depends on who's on the committee, who the nominee is, and how much stink she emits into the air at any one moment.

As an example; Stacy Abrams wouldn't make it out of committee right now. Her judge sister might not either just because of the familial connection.

What's funny is that this changes nothing if the Liberal is appointed. The fight right now isn't going to be to flip control of the court. The fight's going to be about whether the Republicans get to appoint another conservative in 2025 or not. The answer to that totally depends on who Brandon nominates.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by Citizen_B

An excellent point. The system was setup to allow states to have broad discretion on policy within their respective state, except on issues of constitutional rights. There are many who don't understand the distinction.

Too many just follow the memes rather than thinking about all the ramifications of either of the 2 evils.

[bigdaddyz1776]

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

The amazing thing about people with that viewpoint … is that it is the same group of people that will claim that there is no individual right to self defense because ‘public safety’ is the sole responsibility of government law enforcement … and in the same breath denounce the police as the gravest mortal threat to minorities. Those people are extremely good at ignoring facts … like in 2021 there were a total of 12 unarmed blacks shot by police, but 7,600 blacks shot by criminals, most of them other blacks.

Time to realize the endgame, it was never about the blacks or racial grievances or public safety, all those Soros prosecutors and the Democrat state governments allowed a lot of dangerous criminals go free and yet wanted Kyle Rittenhouse in that same evil prison system that they hate.

They gave away the circus in 2020 and we at the endgame, a kind of nation that resembles the United Kingdom or Canada where the government is in charge of everything through them.

Those trucker protests in Canada give a decent idea over how to rebel against them. Play hardball and not enforce their laws in red counties.

[gobler]

I've been wondering, given that there are currently 22 states with permitless carry and possibly 3 more within the next few weeks. Could SCOTUS consider that in how they decide the case. As it stands, we have more people living in ConCarry states than in May issue states now..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[SharedShots]

Expect that in California, if SCOTUS somehow through a miracle supports constitutional carry or even shall issue across the land that everything from a parking ticket to drinking a cup of coffee in public will become a felony to be prosecuted at the discretion of the DAs and then only certain people will be prosecuted. Then the conviction won't prevent possession, but only public carry concealed or not.

Relying on SCOTUS doesn't get a state like California to do anything, changing the makeup of the legislature and Governor does that and the chances of that happening is none and never. Reality isn't defeatist, its just what is and what will be.

Count on it.

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by gobler

I've been wondering, given that there are currently 22 states with permitless carry and possibly 3 more within the next few weeks. Could SCOTUS consider that in how they decide the case. As it stands, we have more people living in ConCarry states than in May issue states now..

IANAL, but I would think that the mere existence of those 22 states is of little legal help, but it would be helpful for them to take note that when states make the transition, it does not result in blood in the streets and every fender bender becoming a wild west shoot out. That is relevant because one of the legal tests for constitutionality is if the challenged law is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government's objective. If the data from the 22 states shows that restricting permits does not reduce gun crime, that is relevant proof that it is not the least restrictive means to accomplish the purpose.

That aspect absolutely should be considered.

[DolphinFan]

I the State of California, everyone has the inalienable right to “protect themselves” and protect their property. Protection IS self defense.
As long as the scouts ruling says Carry is legal outside the home for self defense, then I see no way to impede that order without amending Article 1 Section 1 of the California constitution.
Then we will see how willing Californian’s are to give away their rights.

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

I the State of California, everyone has the inalienable right to “protect themselves” and protect their property. Protection IS self defense.
As long as the scouts ruling says Carry is legal outside the home for self defense, then I see no way to impede that order without amending Article 1 Section 1 of the California constitution.
Then we will see how willing Californian’s are to give away their rights.

As a practical matter, I don't think that is right. As far as I can tell, that portion of the CA constitution is effectively dead in the CA courts, just like the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in federal courts. I am not aware of a single CA 2A restriction that has been successfully challenged in CA courts by appeal to the CA Constitution. The courts will always find some way around it.

[USMCM16A2]

Oh yeah?! A2

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by gobler

I've been wondering, given that there are currently 22 states with permitless carry and possibly 3 more within the next few weeks. Could SCOTUS consider that in how they decide the case. As it stands, we have more people living in ConCarry states than in May issue states now..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

SCOTUS said in DC v. Heller that they're not going to redefine the right in light of advances in technology, trends, etc.

The right is to keep and bear commonly held arms suitable for self-defense for the purpose of confrontation.

And again, any state that allows open carry without a permit is already "constitutional carry" if you want to use that label.

=8-|

[press1280]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

SCOTUS said in DC v. Heller that they're not going to redefine the right in light of advances in technology, trends, etc.

The right is to keep and bear commonly held arms suitable for self-defense for the purpose of confrontation.

And again, any state that allows open carry without a permit is already "constitutional carry" if you want to use that label.

=8-|

The label is reflecting the lack of laws regarding OC/CC at the time of the founding of the 2A.
As SCOTUS will likely rule, yes, if a state had unlicensed OC and wanted to ban CC, they could do so.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by gobler

I've been wondering, given that there are currently 22 states with permitless carry and possibly 3 more within the next few weeks. Could SCOTUS consider that in how they decide the case. As it stands, we have more people living in ConCarry states than in May issue states now..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

It'll be a factor but just in favor of shall-issue, not necessarily constitutional carry, since that's what was asked for.

[gobler]

Originally Posted by press1280

It'll be a factor but just in favor of shall-issue, not necessarily constitutional carry, since that's what was asked for.

Ok. But they really need to put it in writing that NO fees, tests or hoops to jump through will be permitted. Just fill out a background check and get your permit when cleared.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Fedora]

Originally Posted by gobler

Ok. But they really need to put it in writing that NO fees, tests or hoops to jump through will be permitted. Just fill out a background check and get your permit when cleared.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

But, Gobler, don't you think there would probably need to be a hard window for denial. Any application would have to be disapproved within, say, 20 minutes or approval would be deemed.

Come to think of it, perhaps less than 20 minutes. How long does it take an officer to do a wants-warrants search at a traffic stop?