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

[rplaw]

SCOTUS changed the question from carry to concealed carry.

Not I.

=8-|

Dude, calm down. I'm on your side.

I just think you're missing something in the overall picture, that's all.

You don't get to "concealed carry" without "carry" in the first place. You also don't get to "carry" a firearm "concealed" without "permit" and the petitioners don't get a permit because it was denied and they have no other option for "carry." Further, the current question more closely fits the facts than the looser "carry only" originally presented and puts this squarely in conflict Constitutionally with Blue States which have onerous gun laws and bans, defacto or otherwise, against carrying them. States where this issue keeps cropping up and which have appellate courts which aren't following Heller.

You can say this is a concealed carry case all you wish, but it BEGINS with "carry" and progresses from there to answering the certified question. The reformation of the question could also be a signal that "this court" is willing to take on the issues presented in Peruta and possibly be dispositive of Nichols/Young/et al at the same time. We can hope this is so and also hope that the Supremes will finally get off their comfy benches and add some much needed clarity and firm instruction to the lower courts.

In the end, none of us know and all of this hot air (and electrons) is meaningless and it's not worth giving yourself a stroke or alienating friends over.

[rplaw]

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

It's not relevant to the certified question, but it is relevant to any decision on the merits for the certified question.


Just as Heller had to discuss the prefactory clause in order to determine the intent and meaning of "keep" at the time of ratifying the 2nd Amendment, so too will this court have to discuss whether there's a RTBA at all before it can get to deciding what to do about petitioners' permit denials.

My best guess is that the SCOTUS will go with the minimal infringement on States' Rights and toss the ball back to them to decide which manner of "bear" is acceptable to their citizens and legislatures. That will lead to different schemes in different States, but as long as they allow the people to bear arms in some manner, there is no Constitutional infringement.

[press1280]

This is what happened in the Wrenn case. The court did not get into the mode of carry since neither side made an issue of it. Just like here.

[NATO762]

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

[LonghornBob]

DC v. Heller already covered the right to bear....

...and consistently, precedents reference by SCOTUS made it clear:

1. Convictions for open carrying OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were overturned or remanded.

2. Convictions for conceal carrying and possessing concealable arms OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were upheld.

There was even one person who was carrying CONCEALED ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY whose convictions was upheld!!!

And Jamie Caetano as a homeless person was carrying concealed without a permit OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC 100% OF THE TIME and SCOTUS didn't bat an eye examination wise as to the carry question.


SCOTUS has taken the general carry claim by the petitioner in this case and narrowed it down to a concealed carry question upon cert.


And what are all the PRO-CCW parties and lawyers doing that have been CRYING OR BEGGING FOR A CHANCE FOR A SHOT BEFORE SCOTUS SINCE TWO THOUSAND AND FRICKING EIGHT???


Ducking . . . literally ducking . . . straight up refusing to answer the question and instead running with the pre-cert "carry" arguments and briefs.


SCOTUS has given these PRO-CCW parties exactly the toilet that they want - and they refuse to sit on it and actually crap in it.


You know what, I'm tired of all this bull****...I'm going to stop being all diplomatic about it and come right out and say it:

The real reason this crap is happening is because they know that if they make the actual arguments they need to make to get some kind of win for concealed carry - they will have to argue for in favor of open carry to do so.

That is exactly what they DON'T WANT...they don't want a repeat of DC v. Heller.

=8-|

OK, so if you were on the Supreme Court, how would you write the opinion?

Concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. Petitioners should have challenged New York's prohibition on open carry instead. You lose, so sorry, too bad.

[press1280]

Buckeye didn't answer the question . . .

Claudia Tenney et. al. ALMOST answered the question . . .

Law Enforcement group brief did not answer the question . . .

CCRKBA did not answer the question . . .

Pink Pistols kinds heads in the equal protection direct a little bit , but didn't answer the question . . .


In other words, more "carry" briefs instead of briefs specifically answering directly SCOTUS question.

Ugh...

=8-|

The SCOTUS question is just a straight forward question based on the facts. Petitioners were denied a CCW, they applied for the permit using self defense as a reason, and does this violate the 2A? You may be reading way too much into them changing the question which they do quite frequently.

It may be helpful to see what SCOTUS did in some other cases that were also granted cert for the upcoming term. Were questions re-written into the bare facts or did they allow them to stand as extremely broad?
And this may be in the weeds but who re-writes the questions? The whole court? A majority of the court? A clerk?

[Foothills]

Weeding...

The SCOTUS question is just a straight forward question based on the facts. Petitioners were denied a CCW, they applied for the permit using self defense as a reason, and does this violate the

And this may be in the weeds but who re-writes the questions? The whole court? A majority of the court? A clerk?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressives-gun-control-black-attorneys-of-legal-aid-supreme-court-amicus-brief-11627078928?st=gc1fqv6b9feo5nx&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Note that the organization is in the news for other reasons.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-witch-trial-at-the-legal-aid-society?fbclid=IwAR0Vc59s2LbsIIxXoJOWagPQ9LXXRiNHwY0-A3sTgojry2wdewWGNIgE3J0

[Foothills]

You know, Missouri’s brief on behalf of several states is very good at answering the question. I like their construction comparing objective-issue to subjective-issue. They have plenty of empirical data to show that objective-issue does not create a public safety risk. That makes it even easier for the Court to find that NY, CA and HI have no data to back of their position that permit holders are extra dangerous.

And they filed their brief back before cert was granted. The case was distributed for conference several times afterward. Now I would conclude that their brief triggered the re-writing of the question, which asked all parties to weigh in on this subjective vs. ibjective issuance idea and, essentially, whether a subjective issuance policy is unconstitutional.

[rplaw]

DC v. Heller already covered the right to bear....

...and consistently, precedents reference by SCOTUS made it clear:

1. Convictions for open carrying OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were overturned or remanded.

2. Convictions for conceal carrying and possessing concealable arms OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC were upheld.

There was even one person who was carrying CONCEALED ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY whose convictions was upheld!!!

And Jamie Caetano as a homeless person was carrying concealed without a permit OUT AND ABOUT IN PUBLIC 100% OF THE TIME and SCOTUS didn't bat an eye examination wise as to the carry question.


SCOTUS has taken the general carry claim by the petitioner in this case and narrowed it down to a concealed carry question upon cert.


And what are all the PRO-CCW parties and lawyers doing that have been CRYING OR BEGGING FOR A CHANCE FOR A SHOT BEFORE SCOTUS SINCE TWO THOUSAND AND FRICKING EIGHT???


Ducking . . . literally ducking . . . straight up refusing to answer the question and instead running with the pre-cert "carry" arguments and briefs.


SCOTUS has given these PRO-CCW parties exactly the toilet that they want - and they refuse to sit on it and actually crap in it.


You know what, I'm tired of all this bull****...I'm going to stop being all diplomatic about it and come right out and say it:

The real reason this crap is happening is because they know that if they make the actual arguments they need to make to get some kind of win for concealed carry - they will have to argue for in favor of open carry to do so.

That is exactly what they DON'T WANT...they don't want a repeat of DC v. Heller.

=8-|

The problem with your analysis here is that Heller isn't being obeyed by the lower courts because it wasn't clear.

Cataeno is a perfect example of how Heller is being disobeyed and how much the court didn't like it. The thing is, the court still isn't being obeyed even though Cataeno was more than perfectly clear.

The court needs a vehicle to clarify what they meant in Heller and tried to tell the States in Cataeno. Pre ACB, there wasn't enough judicial will to do that in the cases that were being presented to the SCOTUS.

There is now.

Corlett is actually fairly perfect if the intent of the court is to chastise the lower courts and establish that they "mean what they said in Heller."

Which is that the 2a is an individual Right and States don't get to restrict the right without a really, really good reason that's narrowly tailored in the least restrictive manner possible to address the perceived problem. They can also articulate clearly this time that the test isn't the two-step BS that the lower courts are using to rubber stamp Blue State infringements on the 2a.

But you don't get there without actually saying that the people have the Right to bear arms in public. They can't imply it in dictum like they did in Heller, they're going to have to actually come out and say it. Once they do, they can say that the manner of bearing those arms can be left up to the individual States, but they cannot restrict the manner of bearing arms to the point that the people cannot exercise their Right.

This is Corlett.

Interestingly enough, the parties in Corlett may not get what they want even if the decision goes their way. I can see at least 1 scenario where NY gets told to allow it's citizens to bear arms which results in the appellants not getting CCW permits. So a "win" for Corlett isn't necessarily going to get them permits. Not that I believe for a nanosecond that's what appellants really want.

[Foothills]

The cases in the Black Public Defenders brief paint a grim picture if the way NYPD applies the licensing laws in a discriminatory way. It actually blends well with the Republican congresscritters who pointed out that NY only grants licenses to the elitists.

By phrasing the question as they did, the Court changes this from a historical 2A case to an equal-protection case. And the remedy for a long history of using discretion in a racially discriminatory way is to take away that discretion and require the issuing agency to change to the objective issuance that so many other states use.

Honestly they’ve done the best job so far of answering the question directly.

[Robotron2k84]

If we get a good decision, and this case equals, or nearly so, the level of historical analysis of Heller, we should expect the following (hopefully not all in dicta):

• Analysis of historical norms of firearms carried outside the home and for what purposes

• Analysis of historical norms of how weapons were carried, what laws were upheld in restricting time, place and manner.

• Analysis of historically prevented groups denied their constitutional rights to carry (in whatever means)

• Analysis of historically sensitive areas that may be denied carry

• Analysis of the near majority of states that have decided to eliminate permitting and proceed to constitutional carry, without significant increase in crime

• And, finally, analysis of how concealed carry has become the dominant mode of carry

A lot of that analysis was already performed in Heller, so can readily be cited. A possible outcome of such a set of analyses, such as above, might deliver:

• A right exists, that can not be legislated to zero

• The right allows individuals to carry outside their home, except in a limited number of sensitive areas, including limited time restrictions for certain events

• The right can not be denied arbitrarily and in violation of the 14th amendment

• The right must encompass open-carry if any curtailment of the right is placed upon concealed-carry, noting that concealed-carry brings with it the inability to identify a weapon and approach a situation differently, such that the state is within means to deny the ability to those that have had their 2A rights removed, which might otherwise be more easily identified with open-carry

• Which then ultimately sets the scene to properly answer the appellant’s question: does the restriction of concealed-carry for self-defense violate 2A.

Fingers crossed for a good read!

[ronlglock]

The Black Legal Aid society in the Bronx also filed a brief asserting that the NY law had disparate outcomes when it came to prosecuting gun crimes in NY.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/progres..._copyURL_share

[Robotron2k84]

[Guninator]

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.

Speaking of Barrett, I wonder if there is any chance she'd be chosen to write the opinion. Her "virtue limitation" riff in Kanter is an interesting line of reasoning; only the chosen few who convince police that they are good people (who also have good cause) are allowed to bear arms outside of their homes?

[press1280]

The problem with a straight equal protection argument (2A is put aside completely) is then it's a rational basis argument. While it's historically true that blacks were denied based on race, plaintiffs here are not making the case that they were denied based on race.
It only becomes a heightened scrutiny scenario if the equal protection involves a constitutional right. Public carry is either protected under the 2A or it isn't.
There's almost always going to be a rational basis argument for restricting public carry short of accepting only last names beginning with certain letters or only accepting applicants who applied on Tuesday, exc.