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

[Foothills]

Why not both?

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.

I still suspect that they were persuaded by the objective vs. subjective brief to look closer as to whether there might be an equal protection issue. There is a lot more public support for equal protection claims these days. As they probably suspected, people came out of the woodwork to show how NY’s current system harms all sorts of people. NY can’t “moot” those harms.

They might even get a unanimous decision for equal protection demanding a change to objective issue even if it’s 5-4 for strict scrutiny. I could see Breyer writing a concurring opinion that once a state decides it’s going to issue permits at all, then they need to be objective and not limit it to favored demographic groups/corrupt issuance.

[DoesItGoBang]

Ok, not a lawyer but grew up in New York State. (not city)

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

OK, As I understood the law in NYS if you didn't have a Pistol Permit you are not allowed to touch a pistol. Not at the range or have one in your home! If you are denied then you are out of luck and no pistol for you. So looking at the question posed then....a denial of permit then it has violated your right to a pistol. Yes even to touch one. I would take this as a 2nd amendment violation. This single fact should be enough to kill the NY law. In all of the briefs has anyone brought this up?

Doesitgobang

[Foothills]

The 14th Still Matters

And what is the first hurdle?

States may regulate concealed carry, and prohibitions thereon may be upheld.

That's the wall you have to get over, around or bust through first as part of making your case.

You cannot ignore that in your argument.

=8-|

It's standard for equal-protection cases to tie to another amendment, right or power in the Constitution. It can violate their 2nd Amendment rights because the way their permit scheme is implemented, and has historically been implemented, it denies those 2nd Amendment rights to anyone not an elitist. You can always make the equal protection argument that it is the lack of equal protection resulting in a Constitutional right being denied or abridged.

[LINY]

Ok, not a lawyer but grew up in New York State. (not city)

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

OK, As I understood the law in NYS if you didn't have a Pistol Permit you are not allowed to touch a pistol. Not at the range or have one in your home! If you are denied then you are out of luck and no pistol for you. So looking at the question posed then....a denial of permit then it has violated your right to a pistol. Yes even to touch one. I would take this as a 2nd amendment violation. This single fact should be enough to kill the NY law. In all of the briefs has anyone brought this up?

Doesitgobang

[Citizen_B]

mrrabbit, serious question. How do you think SCOTUS will rule in this case?

[Citizen_B]

So here's how I HOPE SCOTUS will rule

Does how you hope SCOTUS will rule differ from how you think SCOTUS will rule? There are parts of your above statements I'm almost positive SCOTUS will not say.

[Citizen_B]

To ask what I think they will decide is to actually require that I know what they are thinking. That's an impossible to reconcile contradiction.

You can have a thought on how someone will likely decide without knowing what they are thinking - we do it all the time. Do you refuse to drive a car not knowing what the driver of the oncoming car is thinking? Or do you assume it's very likely they're thinking about staying on their side of the road and not smashing directly into you?

This is a problem with a lot of these kind of discussions - we need to be able to separate what we want to happen, from what we rationally think will happen.

[Paladin]

The above was posted 08:15 am July 13, 2nd Tuesday of the month.

When will Nov orals schedule be available? August 10th, 2nd Tuesday of the month? August 13? Some other date?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx

[ShadowGuy]

It is interesting how the dates are all lining up.

Response to merit briefs are due 9/14
Russell and Young are going to conference on 9/27 (the first of the term).

Looks like they will have plenty of reading to do.

Check out this article in which, the case is expected to break the record for number of amicus briefs. It also does a good job summarizing as a group.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/08/breaking-down-the-initial-amicus-briefs-in-bruen/

Given the set conference dates for Young and Russell, I would bet we see November oral arguments for Bruen.

[press1280]

And of course, the authors of this article "forgot" to mention that the briefs did not answer the question.

They could have had a check mark column for that too...



=8-(

They are answering the question, maybe not how you want them to but they're answering it. The two sides agree on a main point (now perhaps that changes if NY all of a sudden wants to throw the Young en banc opinion in the ring), so it comes down to the "need" statute.

[press1280]

[Paladin]

Aug 16 2021 ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, November 3, 2021.

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

ETA: It’s the only case they have scheduled that day.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2021.html

Hearing the case this early in their Term makes me think they may release their opinion as early as March. We’ll have a better idea after we know what they’re going to do with Russell and Young.

[wireless]

They were begging for a case and now got it....
You don’t think the change in court composition and Wrenn had anything to do with it?

Nope no way. The only protected form of bear is open carry 2021 New York City.

Something something Scalia said with a 4-4-1 court 13 years ago.

LOL.

[TruOil]

Nope no way. The only protected form of bear is open carry 2021 New York City.

Something something Scalia said with a 4-4-1 court 13 years ago.

LOL.

Scalia said no such thing 13 years ago and NYC does not allow much less protect open carry. Or did I miss the sarcasm?

[wireless]

It’s sarcasm.