New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,666
    Nobody really knows how the supreme court will rule in this case. Let's assume for the moment that they rule in favor and strike down state may issue schemes clearly. What's next? I'm asking because I'm not an attorney and would like to hear from the MSF brain trust.

    1. Would all may-issue states be required to amend their laws to be shall issue? (IE state must show cause to deny VS citizens must show cause to require) or would each state need to be sued first?

    2. If states are required to amend laws, what do we think they will look like? I anticipate much longer lists of disqualifying conditions, unless SCOTUS deals with what are reasonable restrictions based on text and history.
     

    Mr. Ed

    This IS my Happy Face
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2009
    7,899
    Edgewater
    I think it's a safe bet our Marylandistan overlords will continue to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a wear and carry permit. I don't expect anything to change for us regular citizens for several years, if at all.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,884
    If you want to see what a dedicated anti gun jurisdiction looks like after being forced into shall issue , look at DC and Illinois .

    The changing dynamics subquently will involve the numbers of newly enabled Permit holders , and those who could see themselves doing so at time of their choosing , politically pushing back against the most egregious aspects .
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Nobody really knows how the supreme court will rule in this case. Let's assume for the moment that they rule in favor and strike down state may issue schemes clearly. What's next? I'm asking because I'm not an attorney and would like to hear from the MSF brain trust.

    1. Would all may-issue states be required to amend their laws to be shall issue? (IE state must show cause to deny VS citizens must show cause to require) or would each state need to be sued first?

    2. If states are required to amend laws, what do we think they will look like? I anticipate much longer lists of disqualifying conditions, unless SCOTUS deals with what are reasonable restrictions based on text and history.

    There is another case MSI v MD which is currently on hold waiting on this case with NY.

    So based on the specifics of this case, is what will happen to MD law, and will happen probably within 30 days.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Nobody really knows how the supreme court will rule in this case. Let's assume for the moment that they rule in favor and strike down state may issue schemes clearly. What's next? I'm asking because I'm not an attorney and would like to hear from the MSF brain trust.

    1. Would all may-issue states be required to amend their laws to be shall issue? (IE state must show cause to deny VS citizens must show cause to require) or would each state need to be sued first?

    2. If states are required to amend laws, what do we think they will look like? I anticipate much longer lists of disqualifying conditions, unless SCOTUS deals with what are reasonable restrictions based on text and history.

    There is another case MSI v MD which is currently on hold waiting on this case with NY.

    So based on the specifics of this case, is what will happen to MD law, and will happen probably within 30 days.

    Also there are suits that will be for could be filed to push the issue of issuing non-resident permits or recognizing reciprocity.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Nobody really knows how the supreme court will rule in this case. Let's assume for the moment that they rule in favor and strike down state may issue schemes clearly. What's next? I'm asking because I'm not an attorney and would like to hear from the MSF brain trust.

    1. Would all may-issue states be required to amend their laws to be shall issue? (IE state must show cause to deny VS citizens must show cause to require) or would each state need to be sued first?

    2. If states are required to amend laws, what do we think they will look like? I anticipate much longer lists of disqualifying conditions, unless SCOTUS deals with what are reasonable restrictions based on text and history.

    Essentially yes they’ll have to go shall issue. Perhaps they don’t technically need to change the law because they can simply issue permits and accept everything as good cause.
    And yes I don’t put it past those states to make the process incredibly onerous, even more so than now.
     

    sgt23preston

    USMC LLA. NRA Life Member
    May 19, 2011
    3,995
    Perry Hall
    I'm pretty sure the Merry Land State Legislature will find a way to stick their claws further in "Shooters Rights"...

    They may use Kenosha to point out what happens when too many people have guns in hand...

    And they will further the right of Self Defense to inside of our homes only...

     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    I'm pretty sure the Merry Land State Legislature will find a way to stick their claws further in "Shooters Rights"...

    They may use Kenosha to point out what happens when too many people have guns in hand...

    And they will further the right of Self Defense to inside of our homes only...


    All 8 May Issue areas will look for the loopholes that will be in the Justices Opinion just like they have with Heller and McDonald cases.

    They will push it to the edge in whatever way they could.

    Look at New York and NYC. Premise/purchase permits are give as shall issue without having to show dire need or good cause. Providing you have a clean bg with no criminal or mental history etc… and will pay huge permitting fingerprinting fees etc…

    Many states have ownership possession permits required for even home ownership. Such as Illinois with the FOID. Even though they are issued as shall issue. It’s only if you have a clean BG void of mental, or criminal, or substance abuse issues.

    Will states do the same for carry permits. Absolutely, they will eliminate good cause and go shall issue.

    What they will start making it hard to do, is places you can carry.

    They will ban public buildings, local parks, state parks, federal parks, they will ban possession in as many places as they can. Maybe even banning parking lot storage. Thereby making it impossible to actually go anywhere with your LTC other then in your car going down the road.

    Getting the LTC will be a lot easier, more expensive, then have no where to carry it.

    Look at having a Washington DC LTC. If you don’t live there where can you carry it? Not in federal or public buildings. D.C. isn’t very big. Most private businesses don’t let you carry. So in D.C. it’s basically your home and your car. You can’t carry on public transportation either.

    I go to D.C. often and it’s not even worth me getting LTC for D.C. especially for all the hoops you have to jump through.
     

    ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,666
    On a carry permit in Maryland, Is there a requirements to specify the particular firearm you intend to carry, similar to LEOs requirement to "qualify" on a particular make and model, or can you carry whatever is comfortable?
     

    xKtF

    Member
    Nov 5, 2018
    69
    On a carry permit in Maryland, Is there a requirements to specify the particular firearm you intend to carry, similar to LEOs requirement to "qualify" on a particular make and model, or can you carry whatever is comfortable?

    I don't think so, I believe you can carry anything in MD. Its DC where you have to register each gun you intend to carry.
     

    RRomig

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 30, 2021
    1,924
    Burtonsville MD
    On a carry permit in Maryland, Is there a requirements to specify the particular firearm you intend to carry, similar to LEOs requirement to "qualify" on a particular make and model, or can you carry whatever is comfortable?
    No
    Carry what’s comfortable
    I have different guns for different times of year and clothing.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,064
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    I think it's a safe bet our Marylandistan overlords will continue to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a wear and carry permit. I don't expect anything to change for us regular citizens for several years, if at all.

    I predict that our betters will ignore the ruling via the COMAR just like the way they do with Heller. As long as the Curran Clique is in charge we will not be able to freely defend ourselves.
     

    dannyp

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 30, 2018
    1,464
    that's why we need to support MSI , they have our back and truly work for us .
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Nobody really knows how the supreme court will rule in this case. Let's assume for the moment that they rule in favor and strike down state may issue schemes clearly. What's next? I'm asking because I'm not an attorney and would like to hear from the MSF brain trust.

    1. Would all may-issue states be required to amend their laws to be shall issue? (IE state must show cause to deny VS citizens must show cause to require) or would each state need to be sued first?

    2. If states are required to amend laws, what do we think they will look like? I anticipate much longer lists of disqualifying conditions, unless SCOTUS deals with what are reasonable restrictions based on text and history.

    The issue is not which way they rule, it is how they rule that is important. While the general consensus is that the law will likely be struck down, it is unclear what restrictions may be allowed. Clement has acknowledged that certain sensitive place restrictions are allowed. The oral arguments did not appear to illuminate the extent of what those restrictions might be.

    What will likely happen is that the remaining states will interpret the opinion to allow as many restrictions as they think they can get away with. We will need to wait for the opinion to get a better sense for how narrow of a ruling the opinion will be.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    The issue is not which way they rule, it is how they rule that is important. While the general consensus is that the law will likely be struck down, it is unclear what restrictions may be allowed. Clement has acknowledged that certain sensitive place restrictions are allowed. The oral arguments did not appear to illuminate the extent of what those restrictions might be.

    What will likely happen is that the remaining states will interpret the opinion to allow as many restrictions as they think they can get away with. We will need to wait for the opinion to get a better sense for how narrow of a ruling the opinion will be.

    Thats what i have been saying all along.

    If you look at what was said/asked/answered at the oral arguments 3 things were clear.

    1. The right to be able to carry outside the home for self defense will be found constitutional.

    2. Something will be said in the opinion about the use of strict/intermediate scrutiny vs Text & History. It will become stricter and based on Text/History.

    3. Sensitive Times/Places. They probably wont specify places, or even say by what standards one can determine what is a sensitive place/time. See #2

    The vagueness if #3 is where liberal states will jump on and start abusing.

    I also see states getting stricter on training. Making Instructors jump through bigger hoops, only allowing some intructors who are state approved. Making qualifications harder, and required for renewal. RI for inatance makes someone take the class every two years. Seriously??? Qualification i get, but a class?

    Texas for instance... To get your LTC you have to get a 70% on a b27 menaing everything inside the 7 circle.
    To get instructor cert you have to get a 90%. (everything inside the 8 circle) So "IF" that was maryland. They could require everyone get all shots inside thr 8 circle, or maybe even the 9 circle. That for sure weeds out quite a few!
     

    Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    Thats what i have been saying all along.

    If you look at what was said/asked/answered at the oral arguments 3 things were clear.

    1. The right to be able to carry outside the home for self defense will be found constitutional.

    2. Something will be said in the opinion about the use of strict/intermediate scrutiny vs Text & History. It will become stricter and based on Text/History.

    3. Sensitive Times/Places. They probably wont specify places, or even say by what standards one can determine what is a sensitive place/time. See #2

    The vagueness if #3 is where liberal states will jump on and start abusing.

    I also see states getting stricter on training. Making Instructors jump through bigger hoops, only allowing some intructors who are state approved. Making qualifications harder, and required for renewal. RI for inatance makes someone take the class every two years. Seriously??? Qualification i get, but a class?

    Texas for instance... To get your LTC you have to get a 70% on a b27 menaing everything inside the 7 circle. To get instructor cert you have to get a 90%. (everything inside the 8 circle) So "IF" that was maryland. They could require everyone get all shots inside thr 8 circle, or maybe even the 9 circle. That for sure weeds out quite a few!

    To review, Heller gave us "Keep", Bruen will presumably give us "Bear". Then it's on to "Infringed", something that will take decades, perhaps generations, possibly saecula to resolve. That does not blemish my joy with "Keep" and "Bear". The right is (or soon will be established). Everything else, comparatively speaking, is a mere bagatelle and will be dealt with in time.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The issue is not which way they rule, it is how they rule that is important. While the general consensus is that the law will likely be struck down, it is unclear what restrictions may be allowed. Clement has acknowledged that certain sensitive place restrictions are allowed. The oral arguments did not appear to illuminate the extent of what those restrictions might be.

    What will likely happen is that the remaining states will interpret the opinion to allow as many restrictions as they think they can get away with. We will need to wait for the opinion to get a better sense for how narrow of a ruling the opinion will be.

    One thing I thought of had to do with the court either expanding or clarifying sensitive places. Clearly Barrett and Roberts are looking to do this. I did not hear the same from from the other 4 pro 2A judges. So if those 4 simply don’t want to go there then it’s still back to Heller to make those calls, as there wouldn’t be a majority to do so.
    But what about the liberals? Let’s say if all 3 joined in with Roberts and Barrett could they put in a sensitive places doctrine? Or would they have to vote to strike down May issue in order for this to happen?
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    Thats what i have been saying all along.

    If you look at what was said/asked/answered at the oral arguments 3 things were clear.

    1. The right to be able to carry outside the home for self defense will be found constitutional.

    2. Something will be said in the opinion about the use of strict/intermediate scrutiny vs Text & History. It will become stricter and based on Text/History.

    3. Sensitive Times/Places. They probably wont specify places, or even say by what standards one can determine what is a sensitive place/time. See #2

    The vagueness if #3 is where liberal states will jump on and start abusing.

    I also see states getting stricter on training. Making Instructors jump through bigger hoops, only allowing some intructors who are state approved. Making qualifications harder, and required for renewal. RI for inatance makes someone take the class every two years. Seriously??? Qualification i get, but a class?

    Texas for instance... To get your LTC you have to get a 70% on a b27 menaing everything inside the 7 circle.
    To get instructor cert you have to get a 90%. (everything inside the 8 circle) So "IF" that was maryland. They could require everyone get all shots inside thr 8 circle, or maybe even the 9 circle. That for sure weeds out quite a few!

    MD already requires class every 2 years. That alone will probably limit the number of people who reapply every time they are up for renewal.

    Personally, I think it would be better for drivers license renewal than concealed carry
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    Personally, I think it would be better for drivers license renewal than concealed carry

    In 2019, there were 36,096 traffic fatalities in the US; there were 15,292 non-suicide firearms-related deaths.

    Facts never matter in these situations.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom