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!

    • Register Log in
    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,905
    Sun City West, AZ
    All it will take is at least one mass shooting to occur at the time the case is heard and the media will blow it up even more than they are now plus the politicians all working in unison to pressure the court. Then we'll see if the justices can withstand the pressure and stand by the Constitution.

    During the run-up to the case being heard we'll see much "investigative reporting" in the media showing how expanding gun rights is the "wrong" thing for the Court to do.
     
    E

    ed bernay

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2011
    184
    lazarus said:
    I don’t think they’ll allow it to be mooted and I don’t think NY really will go shall issue.

    But I don’t think SCOTUS is going to issue a broad 2A take down. I think they’ll issue a more narrow opinion, but broadly on “bear arms”. I think they will likely tell all states the right extends outside of the home, but limited restrictions are allowable in balance test of public good. So things like reasonable training or a nominal fee are are okay. As would a background check. Similar things are allowed for other rights in public, such as nominal fees and permits for 1st amendment related protests and gatherings that might disrupt traffic, etc.

    So I don’t think they’ll issue a blank check for OC and CC. I think they will tell states and courts a state must allow carry of all legal arms outside of the home and that any restrictions must meet the public good test on any restrictions. So they must be shall issue, and the encumbrances have to be limited. I think some like Thomas are damned fed up and I think if they say it can be limited, they’ll make sure to give proper examples as well as make sure his limited is pretty well spelled out this time.

    It’ll also likely take states awhile to comply.

    I wouldn’t expect “constitutional carry” to be a thing. In a fantasy, best case world.

    I think permits might end up getting respected 50 state wide, but for the method allowed in that state (and I think most states will do shall issue concealed carry. Because guns scary. Of course some will allow OC also. But I don’t see a state like Maryland deciding that to comply let’s just allow OC of handguns). Or at least states would need to recognize other states permits if they are at least as stringent.

    I do think justices will be clear enough that Maryland’s law allowing OC of long guns is not sufficient under their decision for NYSRPA.

    I do think things like a 2-4hr training class with live fire, fingerprint background check and a nominal fee and wait (like less than $100 and 30 days or less) would probably be deemed okay with whatever the justices decision says.

    I think whatever results is going to take years and possibly a few other court cases to “settle” things.

    Now of course a worse case is NY managed to successfully moot the case. I don’t see the justices handing a defeat on this. I just don’t think we will get the miracle slap down or all the various 2A infringements.
    Click to expand...

    I said earlier in this thread about hoping SCOTUS uses retired/off duty cops as the standard for the maximum limitations that NYC can place on CC by citizens. Is Deblasio going to argue that a citizen with a concealed carry permit that meets the LEOSA standard is less qualified than the average retired NYPD officer when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon? I know that requiring a permit/test/fees in exercising a fundamental right is wrong but if meeting LEOSA qualification means I can carry in Times Square, that is a start in whittling down the BS.
     
    eruby

    eruby

    Confederate Jew
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 25, 2008
    33,495
    Carroll County, People's Republic of Maryland
    It worked for Tom Hagen, it might work for us.

    I'm an attorney for the Corleone family. These men are private detectives hired to protect Vito Corleone. They are licensed to carry firearms. If you interfere you'll have to appear before a judge in the morning and show cause.
     
    teratos

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,831
    Bel Air
    frogman68 said:
    NY's Ego wont allow them to go shall issue. Now we have 5 "solid" pro 2a justices dont think mooting will happen
    Click to expand...

    Maybe, but imagine the implications of losing. All of the "May Issue" States will now be "Shall Issue". That will take out MD, HI, NJ, NY etc.....forever.
     
    S

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    lazarus said:
    I think permits might end up getting respected 50 state wide, but for the method allowed in that state (and I think most states will do shall issue concealed carry. Because guns scary. Of course some will allow OC also. But I don’t see a state like Maryland deciding that to comply let’s just allow OC of handguns). Or at least states would need to recognize other states permits if they are at least as stringent. .
    Click to expand...

    The beauty is that once (if) 2A is recognized as a right outside the home, Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) opens the door for mandatory national reciprocity.
     
    S

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    Lalez said:
    Just wanted to pop in and say, on behalf of all Floridians that we are really pulling for you guys to rejoin the United States and have shall issue. Carrying a pistol is a human right, and these 8 felonious states have for far too long suppressed their flock.

    On a side note, if this passes we will pray for you guys because we know the MSP will be pissing themselves and probably unloading on people at the first sign of a small bulge in your waist.

    Also on a side note, I just read on the FL gun forums down here that one of our Reps in Tallahassee is pushing a bill soon that will ban any law-enforcement from one of those 8 states, Maryland included, from carrying their pistol while visiting FL due to none of those states honoring Floridians right to carry. Federal Law be damned.

    Godspeed Marylanders, rejoin the United States, we’ll let you, we promise
    Click to expand...

    As much as I hate “the war on cops,” I wouldn’t shed a single tear for a NJ state trooper that has arrested citizens transporting firearms under FOPA and saying “tell it to the judge,” spending a weekend in lockup in FL for carrying under LEOSA and being forced to use an affirmative defense himself.

    Some of the worst gun control laws (CA is famous for this) are those that exempt off-duty government agents.
     
    K

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,579
    Hazzard County
    teratos said:
    Maybe, but imagine the implications of losing. All of the "May Issue" States will now be "Shall Issue". That will take out MD, HI, NJ, NY etc.....forever.
    Click to expand...

    But two in a row of mooting the case? I hope the court would appoint an amicus to defend the former policy and say enough with the games. And make it clear that mooting civil rights cases after cert grants may be met with the same response to ensure important questions are answered and that plaintiffs are eligible for the 1983/1988 funds they are due.
     
    P

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,912
    WV
    swamplynx said:
    As much as I hate “the war on cops,” I wouldn’t shed a single tear for a NJ state trooper that has arrested citizens transporting firearms under FOPA and saying “tell it to the judge,” spending a weekend in lockup in FL for carrying under LEOSA and being forced to use an affirmative defense himself.

    Some of the worst gun control laws (CA is famous for this) are those that exempt off-duty government agents.
    Click to expand...

    It’s a big racket in NJ BTW. Many cops leave the force to get more lucrative pay as private security since they have a monopoly on legal carry in the state.
     
    7

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    kcbrown said:
    They were commonly carried concealed by criminals and not by law abiding citizens. Or so the claim goes. The thinking was that if you wanted to carry concealed, it must have been because you had ill intent.

    But here, we're talking about concealed carry by law abiding citizens, after having decades of experience with millions of law abiding people carrying in that fashion without demonstrating ill intent.

    Put another way, more recent experience blows the original justification for concealed carry prohibitions out of the water, and since the purpose of punitive law is to deal with people of ill intent and not people with no ill intent, it follows that while general concealed carry prohibitions may have had some valid reason in the past, they no longer do.
    Click to expand...

    Sure, that's some sound reasoning and I agree with most of it, but law abiding folks no doubt, concealed their firearms in inclement weather, so I would say it was common practice for them when needed. I'm sure there was a lot of concealment going on from both sides of the law. My understanding of the prohibition on carrying concealed firearms, is that people in the immediate area of one carrying a firearm, should have notice that there is a deadly weapon nearby, thus the open carry requirement. That would certainly still apply in this day and age. But if concealed carry is to now be considered the, more appropriate way to carry in the exercise of ones fundamental right to self-defense, I don't agree with the licensing requirements. We'll surely know where the SCOTUS stands on the issue before the end of the year..It'll be a long wait.
     
    kcbrown

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    777GSOTB said:
    Sure, that's some sound reasoning and I agree with most of it, but law abiding folks no doubt, concealed their firearms in inclement weather,
    Click to expand...

    And were, apparently, in violation of the very laws that the courts in question upheld, right?

    Saying that law abiding folks regularly violated the very laws that courts upheld on the basis of only criminals engaging in the targeted behavior doesn't exactly make for a good argument in favor of those laws ... :D


    so I would say it was common practice for them when needed. I'm sure there was a lot of concealment going on from both sides of the law. My understanding of the prohibition on carrying concealed firearms, is that people in the immediate area of one carrying a firearm, should have notice that there is a deadly weapon nearby, thus the open carry requirement.
    Click to expand...

    That might have been the thinking, but that's impractical (and, I'd argue, incorrect) thinking. What good does it do to see that someone's got a deadly weapon on them? Either they're a criminal with ill intent, in which case the absence of a visible weapon tells you nothing, or they're not a criminal with ill intent, in which case it's irrelevant whether they're carrying a firearm in the first place. And nothing prevents a criminal with ill intent from carrying openly. Either way, the presence of a visible firearm tells you nothing of use.

    Unless, that is, it is you who have ill intent. If that's the case, then by all means, you'll be interested in whether or not someone has a firearm. But that only means that a concealed carry prohibition helps you, because it makes it easier for you to identify prey. A law which helps criminals to a greater degree than it helps the citizenry is an illegitimate law, period.


    That would certainly still apply in this day and age. But if concealed carry is to now be considered the, more appropriate way to carry in the exercise of ones fundamental right to self-defense, I don't agree with the licensing requirements. We'll surely know where the SCOTUS stands on the issue before the end of the year..It'll be a long wait.
    Click to expand...

    I am in absolute agreement with you with respect to licensing requirements.

    Licensing's only legitimate purpose is to deal with a collision of rights, like you'd get with a parade making use of the streets. That interferes with right to travel, and so it's a legitimate thing to require a permit for that.

    Carrying a firearm simultaneously is a Constitutionally-protected right and interferes with nobody's rights. As such, it's illegitimate to demand a permit for it. It doesn't matter if the government wants to weed out criminals from carrying guns. Criminals that are intent on committing crimes will do so irrespective of the law, thus making a permit system worthless against them, and "criminals" that are not intent on committing crimes are irrelevant. End result: there is no logical justification for a permit system covering carry of firearms, and that's pretty much that. Lack of logical justification means no true rational basis, which means it must fail a Constitutional challenge.
     
    Last edited:
    T

    Tebonski

    Active Member
    Jan 23, 2013
    633
    Harford County
    This is a win for concealed carry in commie states. The Good Five won't be intimidated and Schumer knows he can't do anything to stop it. Dems do not have the power this Congress to add additional seats. And he knows his side will lose the House next fall. We have a reprieve for a few more years.
     
    F

    Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    Gelding the NY Decision

    Considering in advance what we may have to manage in the future, if you wished to emasculate a SCOTUS decision in favor of (i) shall issue and (ii) national reciprocity, what approach would you take?

    Gun-free zones within one mile of a school, perhaps?
     
    Bertfish

    Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    17,663
    White Marsh, MD
    Fedora said:
    Considering in advance what we may have to manage in the future, if you wished to emasculate a SCOTUS decision in favor of (i) shall issue and (ii) national reciprocity, what approach would you take?

    Gun-free zones within one mile of a school, perhaps?
    Click to expand...

    High fees

    Severe restrictions on where you can carry violation of which makes you a prohibited person

    Lengthy training classes
     
    Hyper-W

    Hyper-W

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 24, 2010
    1,189
    Cooksville
    So correct me if I am wrong here but SCOTUS is in session (for lack of a better term) from September 27th to June 27th.
    Should we then expect a decision by June 27th?
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
    Busted Gun in MD ad

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,428
    Messages
    7,281,322
    Members
    33,452
    Latest member
    J_Gunslinger

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom