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

[MajorCaliber]

I know you weren't asking me, but I'll throw in my two cents anyways - it really depends on how the opinion is written. It could be a broad, cut-and-dry, clear as day opinion regarding the entire 2A that cannot be ignored or sidestepped around. Or it could be a vague, clear as mud opinion that courts will be able to creatively sidestep around without being in obvious violation. Or a third option, it could be very clear and concise, but also very narrowly-tailored (i.e., only covers the "good cause" condition for approval of CCW permits).

One thing that most of us agree on with Heller, is that while it was a very important landmark ruling, it left too much open to interpretation. It answered the primary question (whether handguns can be owned at home) extremely well, but it did a poor job of spelling out the individual right to keep and bear all arms in popular modern use. Despite a few people here insisting that "___ is spelled out in plain english in Heller, didn't you read it?!?", unfortunately for most aspects of the 2A, Heller just isn't that clear. I'm hoping Thomas (or whoever crafts the opinion) will have taken the lessons learned from that to heart in this opinion.

Thanks for chipping in anyway. I guess the focus of my concern is that even "a broad, cut-and-dry, clear as day opinion regarding the entire 2A that cannot be ignored or sidestepped around." will still not do the job in the 9th unless a variety issues are specifically addressed by name . Taking mag limits as an example again, anything short of "restrictions on possession or acquisition of magazines of any capacity are unconstitutional" the 9th will simply declare that particular issue to be outside the ruling and say "If the Supreme Court thinks there is a right to unlimited magazines of any capacity, they need to say so more clearly". Same for a variety of other 2A issues.

Also with respect to the CCW cause issue at hand, anything short of specifying a form of carry and saying it must be allowed without a permit, will simply result in a half dozen new methods that will be used to delay or deny the issuance of permits by CA and the 9th will happily uphold every single one.

[CandG]

I've seen your posts and respect your knowledge. So for clarification, when you say Bruen and Young should cover things, do you think that any amount of guidance and standard of review setting will keep the 9th, when addressing a specific issue like mag limits, from finding a way to ignore any such guidance and find limits constitutional? I'm just using mag limits/bans as an example, but I think the same principal would apply to a whole variety of non-carry issues such as storage requirements, rosters, feature bans, insurance requirements, purchase timing limits. etc. It seems to me that nothing short of specifically declaring these rights and bypassing any form of review or interpretation is going to do the job in the 9th.

I know you weren't asking me, but I'll throw in my two cents anyways - it really depends on how the opinion is written. It could be a broad, cut-and-dry, clear as day opinion regarding the entire 2A that cannot be ignored or sidestepped around. Or it could be a vague, clear as mud opinion that courts will be able to creatively sidestep around without being in obvious violation. Or a third option, it could be very clear and concise, but also very narrowly-tailored (i.e., only covers the "good cause" condition for approval of CCW permits).

One thing that most of us agree on with Heller, is that while it was a very important landmark ruling, it left too much open to interpretation. It answered the primary question (whether handguns can be owned at home) extremely well, but it did a poor job of spelling out the individual right to keep and bear all arms in popular modern use. Despite a few people here insisting that "___ is spelled out in plain english in Heller, didn't you read it?!?", unfortunately for most aspects of the 2A, Heller just isn't that clear. I'm hoping Thomas (or whoever crafts the opinion) will have taken the lessons learned from that to heart in this opinion.

[Calier]

Armed Scholar mentioned in a video tonight that SCOTUS is issuing a ruling tomorrow and "sources" say it may be the NYRPA case.. He's not comply convicted but one never knows.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

"Armed Scholar" is a serial click-bate offender, I would ignore him.

[wireless]

Currently the dates for releasing opinions are:

May 02, 16, 23, 31
June 06, 13, 21, 27

Soooo june 13th, 21st, or 27th. My bet is the 21st and abortion the 27th.

[Paladin]

I will be watching the live blog of all the opinions going forward...
Hope we get NYSRPA earlier than expected.

Currently the dates for releasing opinions are:

May 02, 16, 23, 31
June 06, 13, 21, 27

[MajorCaliber]

Bruen should cover that challenge, as well as the decision in Young denying the existence of a right to bear outside the home. You cannot have a right to a shall issue CCW without first establishing the premise that a right to bear outside the home exists under the 2A.

I've seen your posts and respect your knowledge. So for clarification, when you say Bruen and Young should cover things, do you think that any amount of guidance and standard of review setting will keep the 9th, when addressing a specific issue like mag limits, from finding a way to ignore any such guidance and find limits constitutional? I'm just using mag limits/bans as an example, but I think the same principal would apply to a whole variety of non-carry issues such as storage requirements, rosters, feature bans, insurance requirements, purchase timing limits. etc. It seems to me that nothing short of specifically declaring these rights and bypassing any form of review or interpretation is going to do the job in the 9th.

[TruOil]

When a case came down today with a 4-4 split, it suddenly occurred to me that our newest justice, not having attended oral argument, may not participate in the decision. Unless there are five in favor of reversal, an 8 member court certainly puts an interesting spin on things.

[TruOil]

I believe the 9th even prescribed the approach that SCOTUS must take in Peruta, where they said something to the effect of " If the Supreme Court believes there is a Constitutional right to concealed carry, they must say so more clearly". The Court should respond with "Challenge accepted" and use every one of those other cases to say with absolute clarity exactly what aspects of the right may not be infringed. Things like "Limits on magazine capacity are unconstitutional".

Bruen should cover that challenge, as well as the decision in Young denying the existence of a right to bear outside the home. You cannot have a right to a shall issue CCW without first establishing the premise that a right to bear outside the home exists under the 2A.

[MajorCaliber]

I'm hoping for the other result, that they actually take and decide those other 2A cases and use the opportunity to further erect unbreachable walls protecting our rights with specifics. At least in the 9th, no amount of remand, guidance, and setting of review standards will make any difference, the 9th will continue it spotless record of never seeing an anti 2A law it did not like. I believe the 9th even prescribed the approach that SCOTUS must take in Peruta, where they said something to the effect of " If the Supreme Court believes there is a Constitutional right to concealed carry, they must say so more clearly". The Court should respond with "Challenge accepted" and use every one of those other cases to say with absolute clarity exactly what aspects of the right may not be infringed. Things like "Limits on magazine capacity are unconstitutional".

[dawgcasa]

IMHO, the NY decision will be a strong one.
Not only is a pro-2A decision long overdue, Thomas and others know that this is the time to get 'er done.
There are ten (?) more gun cases at the Supreme level waiting on hold right now.
If the NY decision is narrow, all ten have to be dealt with in some way.
If the NY decision is narrow, then there will be ten or twenty or hundreds more in the future to be dealt with.
If the NY decision is broad and clear, the Supremes won't have to hear any more gun cases for a while.

"One and done" is what I'm thinking...hoping...chanting to myself late at night.

[CandG]

Opinions release today (so far?) are LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller.

No idea what the UP case was about, but it's interesting that ACB recused herself from it, and the remaining 8 votes were split 4-4 (which, by default, affirms the lower court decision). Let's hope NYSRPA doesn't suffer similar fate (though I doubt it will)

[CGZ]

Opinions release today (so far?) are LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller.

[lastinline]

"Bad" jurisdictions will need to get their checkbooks out.

[lastinline]

they released an opinion , but not for this case.

NOTE: they are still releasing opinions..

[abinsinia]

+ Orders released: 9:30 am EST first work day of week
+ Opinions: 10:00 am EST
+ Dockets updated: 11:00 am EST

they released an opinion , but not for this case.

NOTE: they are still releasing opinions..