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

[CCWFacts]

What makes you so convinced that the justices WILL NOT SEE THIS AS SIMPLY ANOTHER CCW CASE CLAIMING TO SIMPLY BE A CARRY CASE?

Because it isn't. They can issue a ruling that does say, "plaintiffs can carry, you get to regulate it in any reasonable way that your legislature decides." Didn't you see the question presented? I'll paste it again:

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.

The question says absolutely nothing about any particular mode of carry, or any type of carry regulations. The plaintiffs don't care. They just want to exercise the right to bear (carry) in public. How can it get any more clear than that? This isn't a CCW case!

Imagine one state passed a statute that says, "Only bookstores that have a very special need can be open in our state."

A book seller sues saying, "I have a 1A right to buy and sell books!"

Imagine it somehow makes it to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS will issue a broad ruling that says, "yes, you can't pass a law that prevents ordinary book sellers from buying and selling books. You can't limit the book supply to just a few special individuals."

You notice what's NOT in that ruling? Nothing about exactly how book stores must operate. States under such a ruling could of course enforce zoning regulations, business hours regulations, health and safety regulations, tax regulations, etc on book sellers. Some states might have more such regulations, some states might have less, all states will have differences in their regulation, and that's all ok. It's not up to SCOTUS to define zoning regs for book stores in every state. That's up to states. The only thing that states couldn't do is create a system that allows only a small subset of book sellers, or some burdensome regulations such as "you can only be open between 1am and 2am on Sunday" which would obviously be an attempt to prevent them from actually exercising their right.

That's how it likely will go with the 2A. Just like Heller didn't hand the states a set of statutes that they must pass to be 2A compliant, it will be the same with any future 2A cases.

SCOTUS doesn't write statutes.

(This is all wasted, he's can't understand any of this.)

[CCWFacts]

The cert request spends almost the entirety arguing against "just cause".

Of course, because that's the reason the plaintiffs were denied permits. I assume that they had avoided the mistakes of Peruta and asked a lower court for carry, any way the state wants it.

NOT against the lumping of ALL handguns into a regulatory scheme.

Sure, that's a separate issue. That's similar to California's roster issue, which also means that if I want to carry, say, a Gen 5 Glock in California, I CAN'T DO IT! Too bad for me! That is being challenged but that's not a "bear arms" issue. That's an "arms" issue.

NOT against the fact it precludes the ownership of subset.

It also doesn't challenge NY's magazine capacity limits or assault weapons ban or NFA ban. Those are separate issues, not part of the question this suit is trying to answer.

NOT against the fact it precludes the open carry of the previous.

This isn't an open carry suit. It's not a concealed carry suit. It's a * carry suit.

To put it in more formal terms,

{ m | all possible methods of carry }

{ p | all ordinary, non-disqualified people }

2A → ∀ p ∃ m

That "just cause" focus gives this case away as really being another attempt at getting a CCW win - while ignoring again the elephant in the corner.

You can't ever seem to clarify what this elephant is, or where in Heller it says whatever it is that you're talking about.

Again...

List the 4 Justices who would vote for cert.

It would be the four most conservative justices who are eager to clarify what the 2A really means.

List the 5 Justices who would vote for striking down in whole or in part Heller.

Nothing in this case would strike down anything in Heller. They are asking for the right to bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less. Like all good attorneys they are not muddling to issue by bringing in a bunch of other issues.

[TruOil]

By definition in California, a "handgun" is a firearm that is capable of being concealed upon the person. I have no idea what an "unconcealable" handgun is. You can strap a Colt Walker or a DE to your hip, and with a long coat conceal it quite well.

Used to be in Texas, which allowed open carry but punished concealed carry without a permit, that any concealment of an openly carried handgun, e.g., by the top of your shirt or jacket covering a portion of the grip, was a violation of the concealed carry law. But after reading a string or responses from "he who shall not be named," I am convinced he is the only one in this forum who knows what "unconcealable handgun" means and he isn't planning on sharing. I think we should rename him Don Quixote for titlting at so many windmills.

P.S.: NYC does not allow the open carriage of handguns without a permit and a showing of just cause, e.g., armed security guard. Same as Hawaii. In fact, until recently, NYC didn't even let people transport their legally owned firearms under a premises permit except to and from an in-town range of gun store.

[kuug]

I suspect that SCOTUS is tired of getting cert requests for cases where plaintiff simply can't be straight forward, specific and direct on what it is they are asking for - no shenanigans or "4D Chess" crap.

I suspect they are also tired of examining cases requesting cert where the plaintiff appears to be ignoring the elephant in the corner - that would amount to an easy victory for something that has been hinted to or even established already.

Most importantly, I suspect SCOTUS is also tired of getting cert requests for cases where the plaintiff is basically asking the court to agree: "Yeah, we got it wrong in ___________, we've changed our mind, we really meant...."

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), SCOTUS made it crystal clear that they meant what they said in DC v. Heller (2008).

How hard can it be for the NRA to simply request cert on a case that says:

1. Lumping non-concealable handguns in with concealable handguns for restrictive regulatory purposes is a BAN ON LEGAL-TO-OWN NON-CONCEALABLE HANDGUNS BY PROXY.

2. Client has a 2nd Amendment individual right to carry non-concealable handguns openly - subject of course to the limitations on places, mentally ill and felons noted in Section III. of DC v. Heller.

3. We challenge on a Equal Protection basis concealable arms and concealed carry regulations that discriminate on the basis of race, class, income or political status.

=8-|

You mean like Pena v Lindley? Get it together rabbit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CCWFacts]

They're not asking for the right to bear arms, they already have it - and SCOTUS already ruled that we have the individual right to keep and bear arms suitable for self defense for the purpose of confrontation in DC v. Heller.

And they referenced cases of litigants in that past who were arrested and convicted who were open carrying out and about in public who almost with rare exception had their convictions overturned on appeal.

So that's the issue. "With rare exceptions". If some right is constitutionally protected, there are ZERO exceptions, it's not something the police will deal with at all. For example, I have the constitutional right to vote. NO ONE who is eligible to vote (citizen, 18 years or older, not a felon, not voting more than once in an election) gets arrested, much less prosecuted, much less convicted, for voting. Do you see the difference? That's what it means when a right is constitutionally protected.

In contrast, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND OPEN CARRY. Do it! You will find out, you will get arrested, and the charges will stick if the prosecutor wants them to.

Especially in NYC. Depending on location, between 25% to 60% of people in NYC picked up on gun charges get charged and those charges stick. They don't get appeals. They don't get thrown out on appeals (note they are likely to serve very little time). NY isn't going to care AT ALL if the gun is open carried vs concealed. If it's open carried, it will just make the arrest happen a lot faster.

When I say some activity is constitutionally protected, I mean it like voting, where I can do it and not worry about having to make bail, much less find a defense attorney and run a very high likelihood of charges sticking or having to plea bargain, esp. in NYC. For those of us with professional jobs, btw, even a misdemeanor conviction can be a major problem.

To take an example from the other direction, tax evasion is ILLEGAL, and yet almost no one is ever charged with it. Convictions are super-rare! Less than 1,000 people per year are convicted of tax evasion that's not connected with drug distribution. That does NOT mean tax evasion is a constitutionally protected activity, hello!

You keep posting about how Heller protects open carry. You are adamant. You can't point out where or how but you're sure it does. SO STOP TALKING AND START DOING IT.

[Citizen_B]

Knowing that in DC v. Heller SCOTUS was unanimous 9-0 that prohibitions on concealed carry were constitutional . . .

Unfounded claim. We've already went through this, but let's try again. Quote specifically where SCOTUS in Heller says this.

. . . name the 4 Justices now that would vote to take up CERT.

Alito (extremely likely), Thomas (extremely likely), Kavanaugh (likely), Gorsuch (likely), Barrett (likely). There is a solid bloc of originalists, and answering the question if carrying outside the home is protected is significant to the core of the 2A.

. . . name the 5 Justices now that would vote to overturn DC v. Heller in part on concealed carry regulation by the states. Keep in mind Alito and Thomas are two long shots. Same for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who consider themselves bound by DC v. Heller.

Only you believe Heller says CC bans are constitutional. Only you believe this case isn't about carry rights generally. Those incorrect starting assumptions lead you to erroneously believe the originalists are "bound" by Heller to uphold a CC ban.

Peruta had some issues in trying to be a general carry case. It was tailored to CC. The 9th jumped on that and played their games turning a blind eye to the standing OC ban. SCOTUS isn't stupid and they don't like games. The only question here is whether SCOTUS believes it's time to address the long-standing "unanswered" question of whether bear extends outside the home. If they take the case, I'd put money on a favorable ruling.

[kuug]

SCOTUS isn't stupid and they don't like games.

I would absolutely disagree on this point. They are fools and they love games, see NYSRPA v NYC

[SandHill]

So that's the issue. "With rare exceptions". If some right is constitutionally protected, there are ZERO exceptions, it's not something the police will deal with at all. For example, I have the constitutional right to vote. NO ONE who is eligible to vote (citizen, 18 years or older, not a felon, not voting more than once in an election) gets arrested, much less prosecuted, much less convicted, for voting. Do you see the difference? That's what it means when a right is constitutionally protected.

"If some right is constitutionally protected, there are ZERO exceptions, it's not something the police will deal with at all." Interesting assertion, and far from a mainstream view. That doesn't make it wrong. It just means that it needs support.

As an example of a protected right with lots of exceptions, free speech may be the best known. Do you have the right to free speech? Sure. Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Absolutely not. That's an exception. Do you have the right to make threats and use "fighting words?" Nope. How about defamation? Deceptive advertising? Exceptions, excepotions, exceptions.

Even your example about voting has lots of "exceptions." If you were 17 would you get to vote for anyone? What if you were a convicted felon in a state which bars them from voting? What's that you say? Your original post said "if I have the right to vote...." So the premise already accounts for these exceptions? OK, assume you have the right to vote. Do you get to vote for Supreme Court nominees? Ambassadors? Mayor of Seattle if you don't live in Seattle? Exceptions everywhere.

[CCWFacts]

"If some right is constitutionally protected, there are ZERO exceptions, it's not something the police will deal with at all." Interesting assertion, and far from a mainstream view. That doesn't make it wrong. It just means that it needs support.

No no... I'm expressing a very mainstream view, as a way of making a point about Mr. Rabbit's view. ALL rights are subject to regulation, as you point out. But someone exercising the right within those regulations has nothing to fear. Someone at the very edges of those exceptions might fear. But for an ordinary person who is qualified to vote, going out and voting isn't something you would need to have bail money ready for. Whereas open carrying around NYC, that's 100% going to result in charges.

Think of this in the context of Mr. Rabbit's points. He's saying that open carry is protected by Heller, and you can get charged for it but the charges will probably be dropped on appeal! Ok... do you have your bail money and criminal defense attorney on standby when you go out to vote? Or when you post something on Calguns? Of course not. That's what it means, in practical terms, when something is constitutionally protected, you can do it without needing bail money.

[Citizen_B]

I would absolutely disagree on this point. They are fools and they love games, see NYSRPA v NYC

We'll agree to disagree on whether SCOTUS has fools, and I'll modify the games description. There is some strategy and politics involved, but I wouldn't call it games. Regarding NYSRPA, a few on the conservative bloc did call out NYC's shenanigans while voting to dismiss on the technicality. On it's merits they would have ruled with the 2A, by the letter of the law I can understand why they let it go. I don't agree with it and wish they stopped the NYC game playing, but if anything, they stayed true to the law.

[TruOil]

"If some right is constitutionally protected, there are ZERO exceptions, it's not something the police will deal with at all." Interesting assertion, and far from a mainstream view. That doesn't make it wrong. It just means that it needs support.

As an example of a protected right with lots of exceptions, free speech may be the best known. Do you have the right to free speech? Sure. Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Absolutely not. That's an exception. Do you have the right to make threats and use "fighting words?" Nope. How about defamation? Deceptive advertising? Exceptions, excepotions, exceptions.

Even your example about voting has lots of "exceptions." If you were 17 would you get to vote for anyone? What if you were a convicted felon in a state which bars them from voting? What's that you say? Your original post said "if I have the right to vote...." So the premise already accounts for these exceptions? OK, assume you have the right to vote. Do you get to vote for Supreme Court nominees? Ambassadors? Mayor of Seattle if you don't live in Seattle? Exceptions everywhere.

Yeah, but but but the 2A is supposed to brook no exceptions ("shall not be infringed"). Nonetheless, courts and legislators are more than willing to "except" it into oblivion. For example, in California you cannot openly carry any firearm in any urban area, without exception, separate and apart from the GFSZ law. You are only free to carry out in the woods and on private property. You can carry--concealed, if you can land a permit-- except on school property, federal buildings, courthouses, many municipal buildings, police stations, jails, prisons, some public parks....(except except except). In the Ninth, your right to keep and bear arms exists EXCEPT where it is against the State's interest in public safety to allow you to do so.

[SandHill]

Think of this in the context of Mr. Rabbit's points. He's saying that open carry is protected by Heller, and you can get charged for it but the charges will probably be dropped on appeal! Ok... do you have your bail money and criminal defense attorney on standby when you go out to vote? Or when you post something on Calguns? Of course not. That's what it means, in practical terms, when something is constitutionally protected, you can do it without needing bail money.

OK. Honestly, I can't follow what Mr. Rabbit is trying to say, other than that he is smarter than everyone because we can't read Heller. But in context, yeah, I get your point.

Yeah, but but but the 2A is supposed to brook no exceptions ("shall not be infringed"). Nonetheless, courts and legislators are more than willing to "except" it into oblivion. For example, in California you cannot openly carry any firearm in any urban area, without exception, separate and apart from the GFSZ law. You are only free to carry out in the woods and on private property. You can carry--concealed, if you can land a permit-- except on school property, federal buildings, courthouses, many municipal buildings, police stations, jails, prisons, some public parks....(except except except). In the Ninth, your right to keep and bear arms exists EXCEPT where it is against the State's interest in public safety to allow you to do so.

I disagree with your first point. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean no exceptions. The First Amendment provides that the right of free speech "shall not be infringed" and yet, there are tons of exceptions, as I pointed out in my prior post, which the courts have determined are not infringements. With regard to your second and main point, you are preaching to the choir. Of course California is infringing our right to "bear" arms by not allowing carry in any form.

[TruOil]

I disagree with your first point. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean no exceptions. The First Amendment provides that the right of free speech "shall not be infringed" and yet, there are tons of exceptions, as I pointed out in my prior post, which the courts have determined are not infringements. With regard to your second and main point, you are preaching to the choir. Of course California is infringing our right to "bear" arms by not allowing carry in any form.

Umm, last I checked, the First Amendment has no such "shall not be infringed" language. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To abridge means "to curtail." The fact that the Congress used different words suggests they intended a different meaning.

[pacrat]

Umm, last I checked, the First Amendment has no such "shall not be infringed" language. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To abridge means "to curtail." The fact that the Congress used different words suggests they intended a different meaning.

I concur ................. "abridge" and "infringe" are not synonymous.

Even in any LEGALESE JARGON dictionaries I've found.

[Paladin]

I concur ................. "abridge" and "infringe" are not synonymous.

Even in any LEGALESE JARGON dictionaries I've found.

To add a little mud to the water, IIRC some of the prior federal appeals court 2nd A cases spoke approvingly of (impinge/impingement/impinging) upon the Right.