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

[rplaw]

Take a look at: Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc

They squarely address the absurdity of CA9 En Banc in their treatment of both Young and Peruta, in avoiding the question.

This amicus brief actually responds to the question in the same way the question was presented.

Heller says that the founders didn't mention "bearing arms" just to protect the carrying of a pistol from the bedroom to the kitchen. They also distinctly defined "bear", in part, as being in a pocket. (Which means CONCEALED in case you couldn't figure that out on your own even though they didn't use those "exact words.")

So really the reformulated question asks if a State can reduce the bearing of arms to a single mode or manner and then get to arbitrarily pick and choose who gets to exercise their rights via that mode or manner, and if doing that violates the 2A.

I think the answer is pretty clear even without wishful thinking on our parts. I also think this decision is going to lead to a lot of problems for big city cops in the area of Terry v. Ohio.

[kuug]

This amicus brief actually responds to the question in the same way the question was presented.

Heller says that the founders didn't mention "bearing arms" just to protect the carrying of a pistol from the bedroom to the kitchen. They also distinctly defined "bear", in part, as being in a pocket. (Which means CONCEALED in case you couldn't figure that out on your own even though they didn't use those "exact words.")

So really the reformulated question asks if a State can reduce the bearing of arms to a single mode or manner and then get to arbitrarily pick and choose who gets to exercise their rights via that mode or manner, and if doing that violates the 2A.

I think the answer is pretty clear even without wishful thinking on our parts. I also think this decision is going to lead to a lot of problems for big city cops in the area of Terry v. Ohio.

If the supreme court rules on both bearing of arms and the question of standard of review for all 2A cases that will reduce many of the headaches we endure in the future. They need to give activist judges in the lower courts as little wiggle room as possible. The only issue I see with that hope is that Kavanaugh and Barrett were big fans of incrementalism during the October 2020 term. They might try to slow walk these 2A cases and that would be bad news for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Foothills]

Quite the history...

Take a look at: Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc

They squarely address the absurdity of CA9 En Banc in their treatment of both Young and Peruta, in avoiding the question.

There’s a whole lot of “evading review” going on.

And interesting approach suggesting ways they can reduce the workload so Breyer can take it easy for a few more years.

[cyphr02]

Another good brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...No._20-843.pdf

In discussing California’s near identical law, a dissenting opinion by Judge Callahan of the Ninth Circuit observed, “a discretionary licensing scheme that grants concealed weapons permits to only privileged individuals would be troubling.” Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego

[LonghornBob]

[Foothills]

I do appreciate the Black Guns Matter et al brief. There are now plenty of briefs to set up a good oral arguments session with a discussion about how NY’s scheme protects or disadvantages marginalized groups. If NY claims the police will protect them, I hope that one of the justices asks, “But didn’t you defund the police? Isn’t that contributing to the rise in hate crimes?”

And with equal protection concerns, once self defense for marginalized groups must be allowed as adequate cause, then everyone else would need it, too.

Do any of the anti 2A briefs address the racist history of NY’s law and the need for marginalized people groups to defend themselves?

[TruOil]

The SAF brief talks all about the Sullivan Act. Well written too.
There is a better argument with respect to the argument that the police are there to protect you (as posited by the Ninth in Young); the courts have long held that police only have a general duty to protect "the public" and maintain order, but not a duty to any individual member of society. As to that, you are on your own. As many have said, the police are there after the fact to take pictures, obtain evidence, and clean up the mess, and maybe track down the person or persons responsible. The police have no duty to (and realistically cannot) prevent crime.

[snailbait]

On the other hand, I am not sure that it is proper to use the experience of shall issue and CC states to predict how police officers in previously no issue areas will react when faced with large numbers of armed citizens.

Many states that are now "shale issue" were "no issue" before they changed the laws. The police somehow did not mass murder the citizens, nor was there any sort of mass murder. Except maybe for preconceived notions, that died a nasty death.

[pacrat]

I do appreciate the Black Guns Matter et al brief. There are now plenty of briefs to set up a good oral arguments session with a discussion about how NY’s scheme protects or disadvantages marginalized groups. If NY claims the police will protect them, I hope that one of the justices asks, “But didn’t you defund the police? Isn’t that contributing to the rise in hate crimes?”

And with equal protection concerns, once self defense for marginalized groups must be allowed as adequate cause, then everyone else would need it, too.

Do any of the anti 2A briefs address the racist history of NY’s law and the need for marginalized people groups to defend themselves?

ALL Gov CCW permit schemes [not just NY] are disadvantageous for "marginalized" groups. Especially ALL LOW INCOME individuals.

There have historically NEVER been any "equal protection concerns", where oppressive 2A laws are concerned. How much do retired LE PAY IN FEES for their COAST TO COAST LEOSA permits?

The RIGHT TO VOTE. Is not enumerated in the BoR. Or even mentioned in the Constitution. Yet POLL TAXES or ANY FEES associated with the Right to Vote are ILLEGAL.

The 2A has never been treated AS A RIGHT. But as a privilege to be parsed, and doled out to the advantage of political groups. WHO GREATLY PROFIT FROM IT!.

I've always used the default example of;

A law abiding single Mom with 2 kids and 2 jobs. Trapped in LOW RENT DISTRICTS. [read ghetto] By financial restraints. As a US CITIZEN. Wants the ability to defend herself/family/ and property. Which was GUARENTEED IN THE B of R.

But she can't afford the exorbitant TAXES associated with the right to self defense. Even if "SHALL ISSUE". Is mandated by SCOTUS

ETA................. IMHO, if ConCarry is not recognized as the LAW OF THE LAND. Due to the 2A. And the Gov in any form, is ALLOWED to levy financial requirements before a CITIZEN can exercise their 2A RIGHT. THEN THAT GOV SHOULD FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR REQUIREMENT.

[TruOil]

Try not to get lost with the "carry" arguments folks...focus on the actual question.

=8-|

Your narrow focus skips over the logical predicates necessary to determine the "actual" question posed. One cannot decide if discretionary issuance is constitutional until one first decides: 1) there is a right to bear outside the home; 2) that the right to bear is available equally to all citizens, and 3) only then whether the government in the context of an enumerated right can deny the right to some (or most) but grant it to others merely on the whim of a governmental functionary. If the court were to agree with the Ninth that there is no right to bear outside the home, the case ends at the first step, and so forth. When viewed against the backdrop that discretionary issuance has a long history of invidious discrimination against racial and immigrant groups, there is a powerful argument that discretionary issuance of a permit is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, separate and apart from the issue of whether the government can limit/control the presence of firearms in the community at large.

[Foothills]

They did narrow it...

If the supreme court rules on both bearing of arms and the question of standard of review for all 2A cases that will reduce many of the headaches we endure in the future. They need to give activist judges in the lower courts as little wiggle room as possible. The only issue I see with that hope is that Kavanaugh and Barrett were big fans of incrementalism during the October 2020 term. They might try to slow walk these 2A cases and that would be bad news for us.

[rplaw]

You can spend all day arguing buts, exceptions, alternatives, contrasts, conflicts, alternative, balances, animus, history, etc . . .

. . . but at some point you have to specifically answer the question posed by the judge or the court.

The question is whether a denial for a concealed carry permit for self-defense in NYC/NYS is a constitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment....

I think you're skipping over that part in your analysis and are stuck on concealed permits.


You don't get to permits without first acknowledging that they involve the bearing of arms and whether the State has the authority to regulate or limit the bearing of arms.


If the State's permits involve the bearing of arms and is subject to denial at whim; then the question arises on whether said bearing of arms is a Right of the people, or merely a privilege being awarded via a permit to the deserving.


The question even sets this up.

1. Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications...

2. for concealed-carry licenses...

3. violated the Second Amendment.

[kuug]

To me, the question of increments is determined entirely on whether they define a solid test for 2A cases or not. They certainly won't be ruling for constitutional carry with NYSRPA, that's not even in question. But whether Kavanaugh and Barrett refuse to take part in adding a standard of scrutiny for 2A related cases as a whole is what really matters here. If the justices rule only on the issue of carrying we will continue to have the same gamesmanship and outright dishonesty from the lower courts. Don't get me wrong I would like to have shall-issue. But I would love watching the justices take a baseball bat to the knees of these activist rulings we see from the likes of the 2nd, 3rd, and 9th circuits.

[ShadowGuy]

This was not something I expected to read in MSM. I think the title is misleading.

New York gun rights case before Supreme Court with massive consequences

...That means New Yorkers must distinguish themselves from their fellow citizens and be rationed a constitutional right by bureaucrats. In New York, gun licenses are restricted, expensive and the process is riddled with politics and bribery, making licenses inaccessible to most. This led to the judicial saga now before the U.S. Supreme Court of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Corlett and a fundamental question for the Court to answer — is the Second Amendment a right of the people, or a privilege of the elite?...

New York gun rights case before Supreme Court with massive consequences

[LonghornBob]

SCOTUS changed the question from carry to concealed carry.

Not I.

=8-|

Is that the fact that the petitioners are prohibited by law from being able to open carry not relevant to that question?