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

[Paladin]

NYSRPA v. Corlett challenges NY’s “proper cause” requirement for a CCW. More at: https://www.nraila.org/articles/2020...-supreme-court

I just read about this case tonight.

ETA: here’s a link to its SCOTUS docket

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

// ... but since most folks will not click the link, ...
//
// ____ Petition for certiorari Dec 17 2020
//
// ____ Cert granted April 26, 2021 (Court narrows question)
//
// ____ Oral arguments November 3, 2021
//
// and here we are, waiting for the opinion
//
// Librarian

[CCWFacts]

NY really wants to make sure that some groups can keep carrying illegally while other groups can't carry.

Homicides in NY are up 95% this year (ie, they have DOUBLED), and yet they continue releasing gun suspects on "supervised release". Shockingly enough, this isn't reducing gun violence.

Nearly 90 percent of suspects arrested on gun charges this year are back on the streets, which the NYPD says has fueled a historic spike in shootings that have left more than 1,756 dead or wounded.

About 3,345 of the 3,793 perps arrested between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30 for firearms crimes — 88 percent — were let go, according to department data. Just 450 remain in jail, the NYPD told The Post.

NY releases nearly everyone who is picked up for violating their "strict" gun laws, because the people doing the crime are favored Democratic groups. Meanwhile they will spend millions on court battles to make sure their disfavored non-Democratic groups can't carry. I hope SCOTUS corrects them.

The cert petition:

This Court should grant certiorari, resolve this untenable circuit split, and restore to all “the people” protected by the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms for their own self-defense.

[OCEquestrian]

Another reason EVERYONE should be a member of the NRA and the CRPA, regardless of how much LaPierre spent for suits.

[Paladin]

If this case is granted cert before MLK Day (2021 Jan 18), it should be heard and decided by 2021 June 28. If not, it will be held over until fall of 2021.

[Jimi Jah]

SCOTUS won't take this case. They get 8000 requests per year and grant 80 of them, 1%.

Gun laws are far down that list.

[Flyron]

SCOTUS won't take this case. They get 8000 requests per year and grant 80 of them, 1%.

Gun laws are far down that list.

[dawgcasa]

SCOTUS won't take this case. They get 8000 requests per year and grant 80 of them, 1%.

Gun laws are far down that list.

I’m less pessimistic with the new makeup of the court. Thomas and Alito have been chomping at the bit for years to take up a gun rights case to build upon the foundation of Heller, and to correct the ‘soft spots’ that have been exploited by the liberal lower courts in their efforts to eviscerate Heller. But Thomas and Alito have been reluctant to do so while dependent upon Roberts as the ‘swing’ vote ... because in the past decade Roberts has swung towards the liberal bloc of judges, and has also become more sensitive to political attacks by Democrats. Roberts is now an wholly unreliable vote when it comes to 2nd amendment rights. But with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett as solid 2nd amendment votes, it is now time for them to take up a gun rights case and establish the scope of the right outside the home, and establish strict scrutiny as the proper level of review. Roberts has been marginalized so his inconsistency and unpredictability is no longer a threat to further undermining Heller.

Also, now with a 5-1-3 court (conservative - swing - liberal), that means that Thomas, as the most senior justice, gets to select who writes the opinion ... unless Roberts decides to vote with the conservatives ... then as Chief Justice, he chooses who writes the opinion. Roberts could decide to vote with the conservative justices simply so he could write the opinion himself ... so he could build enough trap doors and soft definitions into it to again allow lower courts a lot of latitude and a means to circumvent it.

Actually, if Democrats win both GA senate seats, this would be more likely. Roberts would feel the court exposed to the political whims of the Democrats if they won the Senate majority, so he would do whatever he could to blunt and weaken any opinion that was favorable to the 2nd amendment in an attempt to placate Senate Democrats. By joining in a conservative opinion, he can exercise more control over it. If Republicans win at least one seat in the GA runoffs, then Democrats can’t do anything to the Supreme Court, at least not for the next two years, probably longer. And 2022 isn’t looking any better for Democrats to retake the Senate majority. In that case, Roberts might join the liberals so he could write his own dissent.

[press1280]

Wow...this case wasn't on the radar. Doesn't look like its even on the SCOTUS docket yet.

[CCWFacts]

There's almost no reason for pessimism in this case.

We have 5.5 conservatives on the court, including several who are openly frustrated about the lack of SCOTUS addressing major outstanding 2A issues we have. The case is an NRA case with Paul Clements. This is all a recipe for success for us.

The pessimism: if the Democrats win a Senate majority, SCOTUS might not want to take this case because the Democrats are openly talking about packing the courts. They've done it before.

The other issue everyone in CA should consider: even if the court rules this state will be shall-issue, it's still going to be a hard process! In LA the total fees and costs are nearly $1,000, plus three days of time for training, interviews, and all the other hassle, for a process that takes months to finish. Additional litigation might eventually streamline that, or it might not. So even if we get a great ruling, you still need to "man up" and put in the effort. Many aren't willing to.

[Flouncer]

Another reason EVERYONE should be a member of the NRA and the CRPA, regardless of how much LaPierre spent for suits.

Is he still there ? Has the Organization done anything to restore credibility in this area ? Thanks.

[kuug]

I'm quite sure this will be the case that determines whether or not we will get cert on the 2A with the Supreme Court. After Torres it seems quite clear the justices have zero interest in the felon prohibition cases. This case will beat ANJRPC v Grewal to conference. If a 2nd NYSRPA dies at SCOTUS then it's over, +3 fedsoc justices will mean nothing under Trump.

[CCWFacts]

You know, every argument you make comes down to "Open carry is THE right. See Heller!"

And every response to that point is, "ok tell us where in Heller exactly we should look?" And you can never answer.

In the original litigation:

I'm looking at the cert request, not the original litigation, because the cert request is what matters right now and I don't have time to read the previous briefs. You can if you want.

...cause from the Cert brief it just sounds like another attempt to get SCOTUS to take up a CCW case and get a "win".

Very clearly, cert brief bottom of page 2:

The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

To paraphrase into more direct plain English:

Ordinary citizens should be able to carry a gun outside the home for self defense.

That's it.

Nothing about open vs. concealed, nothing about permits vs no permits, nothing about good cause.

This isn't a concealed carry case.

This isn't an open carry case.

This isn't a permits case.

This is one issue only: ordinary citizens, carrying a weapon outside the home.

I predict that, if they take this case, they will say that ordinary citizens (not some small subset of citizens) can carry weapons (guns) outside the home. They will not specify any details of how that will work, and will leave that up to state governments, and all the state governments will take a wide range of approaches, from Alaska "carry whatever you want, however you want, no permit or with permit, it's up to you" to California / NY: "concealed only, must have a permit, must have training, must go through a whole bunch of paperwork". All that is ok! SCOTUS isn't going to define how. By analogy, every state must allow book stores to operate. But SCOTUS isn't going to tell states exactly what the hours of operation of book stores shall be, what their zoning requirements are, etc. Just that they have be allowed in some way that makes it practical for anyone who wants to run a book store to do it.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Like the court will ever hear the case.

[dogrunner]

Damn MMR..............just what in hell is a NON concealable handgun??

I happen to have a mid length AR that could be easily concealed by merely tucking the bbl in my waist band and closing the retractable stock and holding it under my arm.............truly it's not one lick less or more concealable than any average.....say four or five inch.....revolver or auto pistol
Your call on the USSC is truly over the edge! For that matter, what's to stop any jurisdiction from defining 'concealable' as anything less than a 26" bbl, as is now the case in England for shotguns I believe.....or how bout Canada's 5" minimal bbl requirement.

Seems to me that THIS is one area we ought to stay far away from.

[Offwidth]

Rabbit again with his uneducated drivel.