Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1041  
Old 09-22-2021, 1:47 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Given the state of the concealed carry laws in New York: (1) where it is fairly easy to get a CCW license with a “target shooting” or “hunting” restriction; and (2) carrying a handgun for self-defense in violation of a “target shooting” and “hunting” restriction does not subject a CCW license holder to criminal penalties (and just may result in an administrative penalty, such as revocation of the CCW license),* the only law-abiding citizens effectively prohibited from carrying a handgun in New York for self-defense are those who: (1) value following non-criminal rules and regulations more than carrying a handgun for self-defense, or (2) value carrying a concealed handgun for target shooting or hunting more than carrying a handgun for self-defense.

In that context, the parade of horribles presented by New York and its Amici if unrestricted CCW licenses were to be granted to those who do not show a “non-speculative need to carry for self-defense” is laughable. I hope the Supreme Court slaps them down and hard.


* See Reply Brief, pages 7 & 9.
Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 09-22-2021, 2:03 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NY is basically telling people to violate the terms of their permit so they can disarm them completely by yanking their license
Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 09-22-2021, 2:15 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
If it is not too early for predictions, here is mine, based more on issues like practicality and compromise, rather than theoretically correct jurisprudence:

The court will give us something, but still leave lots of discretion to the states and avoid the OC/CC debate, and we will get Peruta revisited. They will undo the 9th’s absurd two step where they acknowledged the right to bear, but when the OC was challenged they said the Constitution/SCOTUS does not specifically guarantee OC so it can be prohibited, and when the CC law was challenged in Peruta, they said the Constitution/SCOTUS does not guarantee CC so it can be prohibited. They completely ignored one of the central arguments in Peruta that you have to consider both laws together. I compare the situation where we all agree that you have a right to vote and the state passed one law that says voting on even numbered days is prohibited and a different law saying voting on odd numbered days is prohibited, and the court allows both to stand since neither by itself is a prohibition on voting.

I think they will say that either OC or CC must be generally allowed to law abiding citizens, you can’t foreclose both. I hope they are aggressive in defining what are and are not acceptable restrictions, delays, obstacles, etc., but I doubt that they will be unless Thomas is given free rein. I think is he clearly frustrated with all the obstruction of 2A and will do as much as possible in this area.
Agreed. "Good cause" is nothing more than a rationing scheme. OC/CC won't matter as the court will ask NY point blank whether CC can be considered "bearing arms". They'll agree because they have no choice.
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 09-22-2021, 2:17 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Given the state of the concealed carry laws in New York: (1) where it is fairly easy to get a CCW license with a “target shooting” or “hunting” restriction; and (2) carrying a handgun for self-defense in violation of a “target shooting” and “hunting” restriction does not subject a CCW license holder to criminal penalties (and just may result in an administrative penalty, such as revocation of the CCW license),* the only law-abiding citizens effectively prohibited from carrying a handgun in New York for self-defense are those who: (1) value following non-criminal rules and regulations more than carrying a handgun for self-defense, or (2) value carrying a concealed handgun for target shooting or hunting more than carrying a handgun for self-defense.

In that context, the parade of horribles presented by New York and its Amici if unrestricted CCW licenses were to be granted to those who do not show a “non-speculative need to carry for self-defense” is laughable. I hope the Supreme Court slaps them down and hard.


* See Reply Brief, pages 7 & 9.
All plaintiffs have to do is point to constitutional carry states with lower crime rates, game over
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 09-22-2021, 4:10 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,455
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
Just so I understand your position correctly, you believe SCOTUS in Heller says OC is the right, CC is not the right, and that because SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement mechanism lower courts can and do ignore SCOTUS. Please confirm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Of course. That’s why law enforcement and lower courts consistently ignore Miranda.


Oh….wait a minute….
QUESTION? ,,,, By "Oh ....wait a minute...."



Are you inferring that LE and lower courts don't actually ignore "Miranda"???


ETA ...... A bit serendipitous that the above referenced post was # 1033. Which in the APCO TEN CODE means "OFFICER NEEDS HELP!"

Last edited by pacrat; 09-22-2021 at 4:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 09-23-2021, 5:34 AM
LINY's Avatar
LINY LINY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Given the state of the concealed carry laws in New York: (1) where it is fairly easy to get a CCW license with a “target shooting” or “hunting” restriction; and (2) carrying a handgun for self-defense in violation of a “target shooting” and “hunting” restriction does not subject a CCW license holder to criminal penalties (and just may result in an administrative penalty, such as revocation of the CCW license),* the only law-abiding citizens effectively prohibited from carrying a handgun in New York for self-defense are those who: (1) value following non-criminal rules and regulations more than carrying a handgun for self-defense, or (2) value carrying a concealed handgun for target shooting or hunting more than carrying a handgun for self-defense.

In that context, the parade of horribles presented by New York and its Amici if unrestricted CCW licenses were to be granted to those who do not show a “non-speculative need to carry for self-defense” is laughable. I hope the Supreme Court slaps them down and hard.


* See Reply Brief, pages 7 & 9.
In some parts of NYS it may be fairly easy to get CCW permit while in other areas it’s nearly impossible to get a carry permit, and it’s a 1-2 year process just to get a permit to even own one with no right to actually carry it whatsoever. Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island and other areas surrounding NYC for example. Strangely enough though, if you live upstate somewhere and get a full concealed carry permit and subsequently move to those areas you can keep your full carry permission slip as easily as filing a change of address form…
__________________
SLUTS: Subversives, Leftists, Usurpers & Tyrants
When you elect a SLUT, expect to get F___ed!!

When seconds count 1911 > 911 is correct numerically as well

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 09-23-2021, 8:47 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Sep 23 2021 Motion of Criminal Legal Scholars for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
They appear to claim you don't have a right to lethal force.
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 09-23-2021, 11:11 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 229
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It’s funny how the slew of filings this week don’t even attempt to address all the briefs showing how the New York violates equal protection for so many groups. The Dem brief asserts without evidence that the CAUSE of violence against these groups is inadequate gun laws. But they don’t even attempt to address the actual discrimination in the issuance of permits.

Basically they are saying that if the legislature sets up a discriminatory scheme the Courts shouldn’t question it.

I certainly hope that at least one Justice calls out NY and pointedly asks them if the Court should review discriminatory policies implemented by a legislature.

The ScotusBlog page is easier to navigate.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...n-inc-v-bruen/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:43 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical