NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

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!
  • 777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    You clearly do not understand standing. "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." quoting SCOTUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

    The 9CA resolved the case on the merits. They would have clearly stated that the plaintiffs had no standing if that were an issue. They made no mention of standing. They clearly state "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."


    I guess if you want your case concluded at the circuit court level, you could think like that, but that's not very wise. The final disposition of a case happens at the US Supreme Court and if there isn't a personal or property right damage, they don't take the case. Justice Brandeis clearly explains that in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). And exactly why they didn't take the Peruta case, as there was no damaged party to a personal right, due to there being no right to carry concealed firearms.


    The plaintiffs had standing because they were prevented from any kind of carry by CA law. Essentially the same reasons in this case. The 9CA sidestepped the issue by focusing just on the concealed carry aspect of the case and ignored the fact that CA prohibits open carry..

    That assessment is incorrect, as you have overlooked the fact that plaintiffs sought a concealed carry permit in their initial complaint. They did not seek to carry in ANY other manor. The 9th didn't have to address any other issue before them, other than the challenged concealed carry aspect of the case. The 9th actually explains that reasoning in their, correct decision.


    I believe the reason that SCOTUS did not take Peruta or Rogers had to do with the fact that they did not really put the historical prohibitions into context. SCOTUS did not really know how to address it so it decided to wait for a better case to put the historical prohibitions into context. While I don't think that this case presented the appropriate arguments, the dissent in Young does. We will see how this case gets resolved.

    The one thing that is clear is that the plaintiff in this case and Peruta did have standing to bring the case.

    What you believe is in error, and completely hypothetical, as there is no right to carry concealed firearms. Evidenced by Justice Scalia indicating that belief when he mentions a majority of 19th century courts ruling that the carrying concealed weapons can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment in DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Evidenced by the US Supreme court stating that there is no right to carry concealed firearms in Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897). Also, since a right can not be licensed, MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), asking for a license in the exercise of a right, clearly shows the court, that a plaintiff not challenging the license requirement first, but instead seeks to obtain a license, clearly doesn't have a damage concerning a personal right.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I guess if you want your case concluded at the circuit court level, you could think like that, but that's not very wise. The final disposition of a case happens at the US Supreme Court and if there isn't a personal or property right damage, they don't take the case. Justice Brandeis clearly explains that in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). And exactly why they didn't take the Peruta case, as there was no damaged party to a personal right, due to there being no right to carry concealed firearms.

    Two justices wrote a dissent in Peruta and there was no mention of cert being denied for lack of standing. CCW hasn't specifically been ruled on by the court; Scalia's reference (and throw in Baldwin's reference) points back to a time when there were no CCW-only schemes. Context will play a huge role here.


    That assessment is incorrect, as you have overlooked the fact that plaintiffs sought a concealed carry permit in their initial complaint. They did not seek to carry in ANY other manor. The 9th didn't have to address any other issue before them, other than the challenged concealed carry aspect of the case. The 9th actually explains that reasoning in their, correct decision.

    2 justices are on record rejecting this. We don't know why the case was rejected otherwise, but we do know this case has been granted cert. Throw in the Wrenn decision as another rejection of Peruta.


    What you believe is in error, and completely hypothetical, as there is no right to carry concealed firearms. Evidenced by Justice Scalia indicating that belief when he mentions a majority of 19th century courts ruling that the carrying concealed weapons can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment in DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Evidenced by the US Supreme court stating that there is no right to carry concealed firearms in Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897). Also, since a right can not be licensed, MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), asking for a license in the exercise of a right, clearly shows the court, that a plaintiff not challenging the license requirement first, but instead seeks to obtain a license, clearly doesn't have a damage concerning a personal right.

    Your assessment is also hypothetical and naïve. Do you really think if an unlicensed open carry case comes before this court that they'll be all in and rule the way you want?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I guess if you want your case concluded at the circuit court level, you could think like that, but that's not very wise. The final disposition of a case happens at the US Supreme Court and if there isn't a personal or property right damage, they don't take the case. Justice Brandeis clearly explains that in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). And exactly why they didn't take the Peruta case, as there was no damaged party to a personal right, due to there being no right to carry concealed firearms.

    That assessment is incorrect, as you have overlooked the fact that plaintiffs sought a concealed carry permit in their initial complaint. They did not seek to carry in ANY other manor. The 9th didn't have to address any other issue before them, other than the challenged concealed carry aspect of the case. The 9th actually explains that reasoning in their, correct decision.

    What you believe is in error, and completely hypothetical, as there is no right to carry concealed firearms. Evidenced by Justice Scalia indicating that belief when he mentions a majority of 19th century courts ruling that the carrying concealed weapons can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment in DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Evidenced by the US Supreme court stating that there is no right to carry concealed firearms in Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897). Also, since a right can not be licensed, MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), asking for a license in the exercise of a right, clearly shows the court, that a plaintiff not challenging the license requirement first, but instead seeks to obtain a license, clearly doesn't have a damage concerning a personal right.

    If standing is an issue, the case is resolved at the district level before the merits of the case are decided. While you can appeal standing to the circuit court level, they will either confirm the plaintiff has no standing or kick the case back to the district court for a merit determination if the plaintiff has standing. If you don't have standing you don't really make it past the district court and the court does not really hear your case.

    In Pertua none of the courts found that standing was an issue. Both Thomas and Gorsuch felt that SCOTUS should have taken the case. How do you explain their willingness to grant cert if standing were really an issue. Why did the 9th not identify standing as an issue either?

    This case is essentially the same case as Peruta. Why did SCOTUS take this case if the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge concealed carry? If there is no right to carry concealed, why did SCOTUS specifically change the question to address concealed carry?

    You need to read the dissent in Young as they explain why concealed carry has historically been prohibited and why it really is part of the right.
     

    JMangle

    Handsome Engineer
    May 11, 2008
    816
    Mississippi
    As I was reading all the different lines of thought here,and everyone who posted brought up very some good points as well but in the end no one here can predict how SCOTUS will rule after arguments ...

    I just hope that SCOTUS is as war weary from the past few years as most of us seem to be - so much self-delegation of authority and power by everyone in anything resembling a political position. Maybe they'll decide that they need to be a little more forceful in their guidance. They must see how their reasonable statements made in Heller have been completely ignored.

    SCOTUS has always been like a waterwheel - slow, but that gristmill never stops - more inertia than actual power. Now that politicians are moving at the speed of a hummingbird by breaking all the rules, SCOTUS has to do something different. They are never going to move faster, so they had better start making their guidance stronger and with less room for interpretation.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,143
    Gotta talk about something until oral arguments…

    Then gotta talk about something until any ruling.

    It’ll be interesting to see the final result and the supreme gymnastics that go on.

    As I was reading all the different lines of thought here,and everyone who posted brought up very some good points as well but in the end no one here can predict how SCOTUS will rule after arguments ...
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The Brief in Opposition was filed by the state. http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/192413/20210914195816977_20-843 Brief in Opp.pdf

    along with two amici supporting them.
    Neal Goldfarb http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0736_20-843 Amicus Brief of Neal Goldfarb.pdf
    and a group of people that appear to be a number of Republicans. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/192273/20210913145956623_20-843_Amici Brief.pdf

    The State and the group both argue to the historical prohibitions on concealed carry.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The Brief in Opposition was filed by the state. http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/192413/20210914195816977_20-843 Brief in Opp.pdf

    along with two amici supporting them.
    Neal Goldfarb http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0736_20-843 Amicus Brief of Neal Goldfarb.pdf
    and a group of people that appear to be a number of Republicans. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/192273/20210913145956623_20-843_Amici Brief.pdf

    The State and the group both argue to the historical prohibitions on concealed carry.

    Goldfarb is essentially asking for Heller to be overturned as it does not mean what it says according to him.

    The state is throwing up smoke and mirrors by claiming licenses to conceal carry for hunting and back and forth to work were granted so that's all she wrote. Another trick NY is trying to use is by claiming that a NY unrestricted carry permit automatically gives access into sensitive places, which it of course does not. Basically NY says you can't carry (concealed or otherwise) in public, but you can CCW for hunting (why?) or back and forth to work, that's it.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Goldfarb is essentially asking for Heller to be overturned as it does not mean what it says according to him.

    The state is throwing up smoke and mirrors by claiming licenses to conceal carry for hunting and back and forth to work were granted so that's all she wrote. Another trick NY is trying to use is by claiming that a NY unrestricted carry permit automatically gives access into sensitive places, which it of course does not. Basically NY says you can't carry (concealed or otherwise) in public, but you can CCW for hunting (why?) or back and forth to work, that's it.

    Since when is hunting legal within city limits?
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Can someone explain something to me?

    The original petition grant says "Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

    ... which is the same in the petitioners brief.

    The question presented in NY brief is:

    A local licensing officer in New York State granted petitioners Robert Nash and Brandon Koch licenses to carry concealed handguns outside the home for hunting and target practice, and for self-defense in areas not “frequented by the general public.” J.A. 41; see J.A. 114. Koch’s license also allows him to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while travelling to and from work. J.A. 114. The officer did not grant either petitioner an “unrestricted” license to carry a concealed handgun, because neither petitioner established a non-speculative need for armed self-defense in all public places.

    The question presented is:
    Whether the restrictions placed on petitioners’ concealed-carry licenses violate the Second Amendment"

    I read on another blog NY was trying to moot the case and granted petitioners licenses.

    wtf just happened? did they grant licenses and moot the case?
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    I am really confused. NY seems to be arguing a completely different case: The restrictions on the licenses we gave them are ok. tf?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Since when is hunting legal within city limits?

    This case is about NY State law, specifically about the Sullivan Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act The case originated in Rensselaer County, which is next to Albany NY. Rensselaer County can get very rural in many areas.

    Can someone explain something to me?

    The original petition grant says "Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

    ... which is the same in the petitioners brief.

    The question presented in NY brief is:

    A local licensing officer in New York State granted petitioners Robert Nash and Brandon Koch licenses to carry concealed handguns outside the home for hunting and target practice, and for self-defense in areas not “frequented by the general public.” J.A. 41; see J.A. 114. Koch’s license also allows him to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while travelling to and from work. J.A. 114. The officer did not grant either petitioner an “unrestricted” license to carry a concealed handgun, because neither petitioner established a non-speculative need for armed self-defense in all public places.

    The question presented is:
    Whether the restrictions placed on petitioners’ concealed-carry licenses violate the Second Amendment"

    I read on another blog NY was trying to moot the case and granted petitioners licenses.

    wtf just happened? did they grant licenses and moot the case?

    I think you are misunderstanding the Sullivan Act. If I am understanding it correctly then it is really a two part act. The first part is like the MD HQL where a license is required just to own a handgun. The second part ("unrestricted" license) is like a CCW permit. The first part is easy to get, the second is difficult. The first part allows very limited carry as stated in the NY brief. The petitioners were granted the first part but were denied the second part of the license, the CCW part. NYS is simply pointing out that there is not a complete ban on CCW when the first part is granted.

    The case you are thinking of is a NYC case where the city denied the first part of the license and then granted the first part of the license when the case reached SCOTUS.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    This case is about NY State law, specifically about the Sullivan Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act The case originated in Rensselaer County, which is next to Albany NY. Rensselaer County can get very rural in many areas.



    I think you are misunderstanding the Sullivan Act. If I am understanding it correctly then it is really a two part act. The first part is like the MD HQL where a license is required just to own a handgun. The second part ("unrestricted" license) is like a CCW permit. The first part is easy to get, the second is difficult. The first part allows very limited carry as stated in the NY brief. The petitioners were granted the first part but were denied the second part of the license, the CCW part. NYS is simply pointing out that there is not a complete ban on CCW when the first part is granted.

    The case you are thinking of is a NYC case where the city denied the first part of the license and then granted the first part of the license when the case reached SCOTUS.

    wut? No.


    In the may 10th reply brief NY framed the question as "Whether the Second Amendment prohibits New York from requiring residents who wish to carry a concealed firearm in public to have an actual and articulate need to do so."

    New York magically and spontaneously seems to have granted the these applicants restricted licenses and now changed the question.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    wut? No.


    In the may 10th reply brief NY framed the question as "Whether the Second Amendment prohibits New York from requiring residents who wish to carry a concealed firearm in public to have an actual and articulate need to do so."

    New York magically and spontaneously seems to have granted the these applicants restricted licenses and now changed the question.

    There is no May 10th Reply Brief for this case. There is a MARCH 10th reply brief but NY would not have framed a question in that brief as it was a petitioner brief. NYS did frame the question in their Feb 22 Brief in Opposition.

    Respondents (NYS) are free to pose a different question and it appears that it likely influenced SCOTUS into accepting a different question than was posed by the petitioners.

    The question posed by NYS did not specifically mention a license. They are talking about the requirements for an unrestricted license, which includes an actual and articulate need to do so. The restricted license does not have those requirements. My understanding of the Sullivan Law is that a restricted license is required just to own a handgun and that these restricted licenses are routinely granted.

    This case is about unrestricted licenses and the state's ability to restrict unrestricted licenses.
     

    E.Shell

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 5, 2007
    10,244
    Mid-Merlind
    ...Basically NY says you can't carry (concealed or otherwise) in public, but you can CCW for hunting (why?) or back and forth to work, that's it.
    When hunting is bad weather, it's nice to be able to pull your jacket over your pistol and optics to protect them. Concealment is not the goal, but merely a side-effect.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    There is no May 10th Reply Brief for this case. There is a MARCH 10th reply brief but NY would not have framed a question in that brief as it was a petitioner brief. NYS did frame the question in their Feb 22 Brief in Opposition.

    Respondents (NYS) are free to pose a different question and it appears that it likely influenced SCOTUS into accepting a different question than was posed by the petitioners.

    The question posed by NYS did not specifically mention a license. They are talking about the requirements for an unrestricted license, which includes an actual and articulate need to do so. The restricted license does not have those requirements. My understanding of the Sullivan Law is that a restricted license is required just to own a handgun and that these restricted licenses are routinely granted.

    This case is about unrestricted licenses and the states ability to restrict unrestricted licenses.

    Simple question. Did the Petitioners have restricted licenses to carry outside the home with the above named restrictions prior to Apr 26th or not? Yes/no/dont know.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I am really confused. NY seems to be arguing a completely different case: The restrictions on the licenses we gave them are ok. tf?

    It boils down to this. NY is trying to make the case that if you can carry in one or two locations that are public, then the right to bear arms isn’t infringed. That’s the inverse of how it works. The unrestricted permit doesn’t allow carry in ALL places of course but has very few limitations, which is how it should work.

    And another thing I see is that NY is implying that an unrestricted license means you can carry in sensitive places. It’s like they are using that license as a poison pill. The obvious answer would be if a place is that sensitive why would anyone with ANY license be allowed to carry there in the first place?
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    It boils down to this. NY is trying to make the case that if you can carry in one or two locations that are public, then the right to bear arms isn’t infringed. That’s the inverse of how it works. The unrestricted permit doesn’t allow carry in ALL places of course but has very few limitations, which is how it should work.

    And another thing I see is that NY is implying that an unrestricted license means you can carry in sensitive places. It’s like they are using that license as a poison pill. The obvious answer would be if a place is that sensitive why would anyone with ANY license be allowed to carry there in the first place?

    They changed the argument from "we can deny licenses" to "we can restrict them." Those are very different questions and I am pretty sure the latter is new.

    They have done this before. I have a very bad feeling about this.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Simple question. Did the Petitioners have restricted licenses to carry outside the home with the above named restrictions prior to Apr 26th or not? Yes/no/dont know.

    Yes

    See Appendix 6-8 of the Cert Petition (District Court Opinion) that documents this. It appears that both individual plaintiffs had hunting and target restrictions on their licenses. They wanted these restrictions removed and that is what this case is about.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Yes

    See Appendix 6-8 of the Cert Petition (District Court Opinion) that documents this. It appears that both individual plaintiffs had hunting and target restrictions on their licenses. They wanted these restrictions removed and that is what this case is about.

    The appendix says that both were denied licenses to carry outside the home for self defense.

    NY is now arguing the licenses are good for self defense outside the home. "Koch’s license also allows him to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while traveling to and from work"

    idk who who is right but i have a bad feeling. Watch as NY waves their magic wand and the case goes away.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,345
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom