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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    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.

    Carry outside the home for self defense means an unlimited license.

    App-7
    On or about September 2014, Plaintiff Nash “applied to the Licensing Officer . . . for a license to carry a handgun in public”; his application was granted on March 12, 2015, but he was “issued a license marked ‘Hunting, Target only.’” (Id. ¶ 25). Nash’s license does not permit him to “carry a firearm outside of his home for the purpose of self-defense.”

    ...

    Plaintiff Koch “was granted a license to carry a handgun in public by the Licensing Officer” in 2008. (Id. ¶ 34). The license, however, was “marked
    ‘Hunting & Target’”; Koch is therefore unable “to carry a firearm outside of his home for the purpose of self-defense.” (Id. ¶¶ 34-35)

    They both have restricted licenses. This apparently allows very limited carry such as to and from work based on the NYS quote.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Carry outside the home for self defense means an unlimited license.

    App-7

    They both have restricted licenses. This apparently allows very limited carry such as to and from work based on the NYS quote.

    NY laws are byzantine. I hope the SC can cut through it.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    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.

    This is smoke and mirrors and the court should see through it.
    There is a denial of a specific license here. NY cannot change that fact and also the fact that NYs unrestricted license mirrors that of all the shall issue license schemes around the country.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    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?

    Hardly naive. The Heller court drew the line on mode of carry when they stated a majority of 19th century courts to rule on the matter, have ruled the carrying of concealed weapons can be prohibited. Therefore, it would be within sound reasoning, to look to that same 19th century time period and courts, for rulings on open carry and licensing. Though this is from a 1921 case, this state supreme court ruled a permit could not be required to open carry a firearm. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there was a single state that required a license to open carry a firearm in the 19th century.

    STATE v. KERNER. (No. 345.)

    (Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 11, 1921.)

    7. Weapons--Statute requiring permit for carrying of pistol, though unconcealed, is invalid.

    Pub. Loc. Laws 1919, c. 317, so far as it prohibits the carrying of a pistol unconcealed off of one's own premises without a permit for which a fee of $5 and a bond in the sum of $500 is required, is invalid under Const. art. 1, § 24.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Hardly naive. The Heller court drew the line on mode of carry when they stated a majority of 19th century courts to rule on the matter, have ruled the carrying of concealed weapons can be prohibited. Therefore, it would be within sound reasoning, to look to that same 19th century time period and courts, for rulings on open carry and licensing. Though this is from a 1921 case, this state supreme court ruled a permit could not be required to open carry a firearm. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there was a single state that required a license to open carry a firearm in the 19th century.

    STATE v. KERNER. (No. 345.)

    (Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 11, 1921.)

    7. Weapons--Statute requiring permit for carrying of pistol, though unconcealed, is invalid.

    Pub. Loc. Laws 1919, c. 317, so far as it prohibits the carrying of a pistol unconcealed off of one's own premises without a permit for which a fee of $5 and a bond in the sum of $500 is required, is invalid under Const. art. 1, § 24.

    Would you honestly see the current court striking down a shall issue law, let’s just say GA since the license entails open and concealed carry and there is no training requirement, just pay the fee and do the BG check?
    And which justices rule this way?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Hardly naive. The Heller court drew the line on mode of carry when they stated a majority of 19th century courts to rule on the matter, have ruled the carrying of concealed weapons can be prohibited. Therefore, it would be within sound reasoning, to look to that same 19th century time period and courts, for rulings on open carry and licensing. Though this is from a 1921 case, this state supreme court ruled a permit could not be required to open carry a firearm. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there was a single state that required a license to open carry a firearm in the 19th century.

    STATE v. KERNER. (No. 345.)

    (Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 11, 1921.)

    7. Weapons--Statute requiring permit for carrying of pistol, though unconcealed, is invalid.

    Pub. Loc. Laws 1919, c. 317, so far as it prohibits the carrying of a pistol unconcealed off of one's own premises without a permit for which a fee of $5 and a bond in the sum of $500 is required, is invalid under Const. art. 1, § 24.

    You do seem very naive. Heller did not draw a line on the mode of carry. It was demonstrating that the right was not unlimited and used concealed carry as an example. When you actually read and understand the reasoning behind the historical prohibitions, you find that concealed carry was not a method that was considered common. It was looked at as something only criminals did. In today's society, the opposite is true. Open carry is prohibited by NYS law and concealed carry is the preferred method. You fail to account for changes in societal preferences over time.

    Your analysis on permits has the same flaw. While there may have been a ruling against permits in the 20's, courts now a days seem to accept permits as long as they are reasonable.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Carry outside the home for self defense means an unlimited license.

    App-7

    They both have restricted licenses. This apparently allows very limited carry such as to and from work based on the NYS quote.

    I believe Camo is getting at this:


    After holding individual hearings, the licensing
    officer issued letter determinations. The determinations declined to remove the “hunting and target”
    restrictions from each license, but clarified that petitioners could carry for self-defense in certain places.
    Specifically, the licensing officer “note[d] that the
    restrictions DO ALLOW you to carry concealed for
    purposes of off road back country, outdoor activities
    similar to hunting, for example fishing, hiking &
    camping etc.” J.A. 41, 114.


    The question is whether this was done before or after cert was granted. I don't recall this mentioned in the briefings before cert was granted. NY is putting a lot of weight on this and if done after the cert grant, it's an obvious attempt to try and moot the case by giving petitioners a place outside the home to carry.
    This follows a strategy that governments were playing for a while claiming that as long as you could carry in a small narrowly defined space outside the home, then it wasn't a ban and the right is satisfied.
    I don't think this will work as there's still a mile apart between what petitioners are asking for and what NY is giving in return. The 2A isn't about hunting, hiking, and outdoor activities and can't be vetoed simply because other people may be around.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I believe Camo is getting at this:


    After holding individual hearings, the licensing
    officer issued letter determinations. The determinations declined to remove the “hunting and target”
    restrictions from each license, but clarified that petitioners could carry for self-defense in certain places.
    Specifically, the licensing officer “note[d] that the
    restrictions DO ALLOW you to carry concealed for
    purposes of off road back country, outdoor activities
    similar to hunting, for example fishing, hiking &
    camping etc.” J.A. 41, 114.


    The question is whether this was done before or after cert was granted. I don't recall this mentioned in the briefings before cert was granted. NY is putting a lot of weight on this and if done after the cert grant, it's an obvious attempt to try and moot the case by giving petitioners a place outside the home to carry.
    This follows a strategy that governments were playing for a while claiming that as long as you could carry in a small narrowly defined space outside the home, then it wasn't a ban and the right is satisfied.
    I don't think this will work as there's still a mile apart between what petitioners are asking for and what NY is giving in return. The 2A isn't about hunting, hiking, and outdoor activities and can't be vetoed simply because other people may be around.

    I believe he was confused about whether a restricted license was issued before or after cert was granted. A restricted license was issued before the case was filed in the district court.

    The text you quoted suggests that those clarifications you identified were made prior to the case being filed. The petitioners have the opportunity to clarify any misstatements or overstatements about where the petitioners are able to carry in their reply brief.

    I certainly do not believe that the limited amount of concealed carry that is allowed will moot the case.

    I think there are bigger issues with this case. The plaintiff/petitioners have not rebutted the historical prohibitions, which is the main argument of the respondents. They also have not really explained why the lower courts were wrong when they found the law constitutional under intermediate scrutiny, which is another argument of the respondents.

    In about two weeks, we will see how the court will handle other 2A cases. This may indicate how narrow or broad the decision may be.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    I believe Camo is getting at this:


    After holding individual hearings, the licensing
    officer issued letter determinations. The determinations declined to remove the “hunting and target”
    restrictions from each license, but clarified that petitioners could carry for self-defense in certain places.
    Specifically, the licensing officer “note[d] that the
    restrictions DO ALLOW you to carry concealed for
    purposes of off road back country, outdoor activities
    similar to hunting, for example fishing, hiking &
    camping etc.” J.A. 41, 114.


    The question is whether this was done before or after cert was granted. I don't recall this mentioned in the briefings before cert was granted. NY is putting a lot of weight on this and if done after the cert grant, it's an obvious attempt to try and moot the case by giving petitioners a place outside the home to carry.
    This follows a strategy that governments were playing for a while claiming that as long as you could carry in a small narrowly defined space outside the home, then it wasn't a ban and the right is satisfied.
    I don't think this will work as there's still a mile apart between what petitioners are asking for and what NY is giving in return. The 2A isn't about hunting, hiking, and outdoor activities and can't be vetoed simply because other people may be around.

    ^^^ this.

    When did the clarification "that petitioners could carry for self-defense in certain places" outside the home happen.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I believe Camo is getting at this:


    After holding individual hearings, the licensing
    officer issued letter determinations. The determinations declined to remove the “hunting and target”
    restrictions from each license, but clarified that petitioners could carry for self-defense in certain places.
    Specifically, the licensing officer “note[d] that the
    restrictions DO ALLOW you to carry concealed for
    purposes of off road back country, outdoor activities
    similar to hunting, for example fishing, hiking &
    camping etc.” J.A. 41, 114.


    The question is whether this was done before or after cert was granted. I don't recall this mentioned in the briefings before cert was granted. NY is putting a lot of weight on this and if done after the cert grant, it's an obvious attempt to try and moot the case by giving petitioners a place outside the home to carry.
    This follows a strategy that governments were playing for a while claiming that as long as you could carry in a small narrowly defined space outside the home, then it wasn't a ban and the right is satisfied.
    I don't think this will work as there's still a mile apart between what petitioners are asking for and what NY is giving in return. The 2A isn't about hunting, hiking, and outdoor activities and can't be vetoed simply because other people may be around.

    ^^^ this.

    When did the clarification "that petitioners could carry for self-defense in certain places" outside the home happen.

    The quote literally says it was made as part of the letter determinations. The quote references the joint appendix (J.A) that was filed with the plaintiffs merit brief. You can verify this yourself when you look at those letters that were sent prior to litigation.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    No read footnote 9. The brief says the letters were sent "subsequent", "attached as exhibits" to an amended complaint, but mysteriously not included due to a "clerical error."

    But we sure did tell you! kek. Really, truly we did, just look at the mysteriously disappeared exhibit. /sarc
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The quote literally says it was made as part of the letter determinations. The quote references the joint appendix (J.A) that was filed with the plaintiffs merit brief. You can verify this yourself when you look at those letters that were sent prior to litigation.

    Does the hunting and target restriction normally allow for carry in these places or is this something the licensing official just threw in?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    No read footnote 9. The brief says the letters were sent "subsequent", "attached as exhibits" to an amended complaint, but mysteriously not included due to a "clerical error."

    But we sure did tell you! kek. Really, truly we did, just look at the mysteriously disappeared exhibit. /sarc

    I don't know where the quote came from or which footnote 9 you are referring to.

    What I do know is that both letters are dated before the initial complaint was filed. See Joint Appendix. This indicates that both plaintiffs were informed of other avenues of concealed carry before litigation began.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Does the hunting and target restriction normally allow for carry in these places or is this something the licensing official just threw in?

    I don't know. It would seem that these carry allowances are consistent with hunting type activities and covered by this restriction.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I don't know. It would seem that these carry allowances are consistent with hunting type activities and covered by this restriction.

    I just wonder where the border is between these activities and something that falls outside of your permit? This would seem to be specific geographical locations (you're not going camping in NYC or Buffalo). They also seem to be making the case that if you get caught in a place which isn't covered by your permit, then at least you just lose your license and aren't prosecuted.

    In any event NY is emphasizing this "exception", and their theory is that any public building or street where people are is basically a sensitive place which can be off limits to carry. It doesn't square at all with Heller's sensitive places explanation.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    I really like the brief date July 13th NYSRPA. I'm wondering how many on both side's presented have different meaning of words like.... "longstanding".. and yes the different meanings of " restrictions and or limitations"!

    Agreed upon.. page 41...
    Heller, 554 U.S. at 580. In other words, “the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Id. at 581.
    New York’s restrictive licensing scheme cannot be reconciled with that guarantee.
    Because “the [Second] Amendment is for law-abiding citizens as a rule, … it must secure gun access at least for each typical member of that class.” Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 665. Yet, in contrast to the constitutionally compliant norm in the vast majority of the country, the default in New York is that law-abiding citizens may not carry
    handguns for self-defense; that exercise of a fundamental constitutional right is instead a crime.

    2nd Agreed here.... Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, et al. filed.\\

    ARGUMENT
    Drawing on our experience in New York criminal courts, we urge the Court to issue a clear rule,
    consistent with its precedent and the Constitution, that New York’s licensing regime violates the right to keep and bear arms.
    I. New York’s licensing regime criminalizes the exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    When someone in New York City is prosecuted for exercising their right to keep and bear arms—either at home or outside—they are almost always charged with
    second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a “violent felony” punishable by 3.5 to 15 years in prison.
    N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.03; 70.02(1)(b). That statute criminalizes possessing a loaded firearm outside of the
    home or possessing a loaded firearm anywhere with the intent to use it unlawfully. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.03(3), 265.03(1)(b). It is a more severe charge than
    possession of an unloaded firearm, which is a lower level, “non-violent” felony. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-B(1).

    Second-degree criminal possession of a weapon applies to virtually all firearm possession cases—both at home and outside—because of broad provisions
    within the Penal Law. First, the Penal Law considers a firearm “loaded” if a person possesses it “at the same time” they possess ammunition, regardless of whether
    the firearm is, in fact, loaded. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(15); People v. Gordian, 952 N.Y.S.2d 46, 47
    (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (finding it “legally irrelevant”whether cartridges were in a firearm at the time of the arrest). As a result, New York prosecutors rarely
    charge firearm-possession cases as a lower-level offense alleging an “unloaded” firearm. Second, the Penal Law dictates that unlicensed “possession” of a
    firearm is, on its own, “presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another.” N.Y. Penal Law § 265.15(4). As a result, unlicensed
    possession, on its own, is legally sufficient evidence to establish the heightened violent felony of second

    Not sure IF this will be corrected.

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

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,214
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom