NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

jcutonilli · Sep 21, 2021

Today is the day that the amici briefs that support NY are due. The two themes seem to center around guns are bad and NY is right.

Kharn · Sep 21, 2021

SG amicus is up.

"And even if that tradition left any doubt, New York’s
proper-cause requirement would also satisfy intermedi-
ate scrutiny. It serves public-safety interests of the
highest order. It applies only to the carrying of arms in
public. It covers handguns, but not most rifles and shot-
guns."

I'm not so sure they have thought that argument through...

Kharn

camo556 · Sep 21, 2021

open carry rifles and shotguns in NYC. lol.

delaware_export · Sep 21, 2021

Long gun carry is also banned. Just not covered by this. It’s a separate law. That bans carry of those. (I’d bet… not a lawyer, just figuring how they’d justify such a comment from a legal point of view)

Kharn said:
SG amicus is up.

"And even if that tradition left any doubt, New York’s
proper-cause requirement would also satisfy intermedi-
ate scrutiny. It serves public-safety interests of the
highest order. It applies only to the carrying of arms in
public. It covers handguns, but not most rifles and shot-
guns."

I'm not so sure they have thought that argument through...

Kharn

fred55 · Sep 21, 2021

So between this case and Roe v. Wade, and the SC rulings, is next year when we see the SC stacking occur? Or will it be a preemptive action this year? fred55

rbird7282 · Sep 21, 2021

fred55 said:
So between this case and Roe v. Wade, and the SC rulings, is next year when we see the SC stacking occur? Or will it be a preemptive action this year? fred55

It's not going to happen

Blacksmith101 · Sep 21, 2021

fred55 said:
So between this case and Roe v. Wade, and the SC rulings, is next year when we see the SC stacking occur? Or will it be a preemptive action this year? fred55

Too late for this case no way they can pack the court and get the justices approved before this case is heard.

tallen702 · Sep 21, 2021

fred55 said:
So between this case and Roe v. Wade, and the SC rulings, is next year when we see the SC stacking occur? Or will it be a preemptive action this year? fred55

Given just how much Biden's approval rating is in the crapper right now (lower than any modern president in the recent Iowa poll is my understanding) I don't think you'll see enough Dems in the Senate to push through ANY justices.

Ssblugsr · Sep 23, 2021

Maybe this has been said or covered. But is there any plans to maybe have a peaceful protest or rally outside the Supreme Court on a certain date?

Kharn · Sep 23, 2021

Bruen's response:

"While many historical public-carry laws would not have permitted even this, no jurisdiction would have allowed what petitioners seek: the right to carry a handgun everywhere (or virtually everywhere) - including the crowded and populous areas of cities and towns- based on speculation that a confrontation warranting the use of deadly force might suddenly arise."

Dred Scott:
"... persons ... who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to ... keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Are the petitioners citizens?

press1280 · Sep 23, 2021

Kharn said:
Bruen's response:

"While many historical public-carry laws would not have permitted even this, no jurisdiction would have allowed what petitioners seek: the right to carry a handgun everywhere (or virtually everywhere) - including the crowded and populous areas of cities and towns- based on speculation that a confrontation warranting the use of deadly force might suddenly arise."

Dred Scott:
"... persons ... who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to ... keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Are the petitioners citizens?

Is Bruen not aware that over 40 states and DC allow for handgun carry based on speculation that a confrontation may arise, or does he think he can pull a fast one on Scotus????

jcutonilli · Sep 23, 2021

Kharn said:
Bruen's response:

"While many historical public-carry laws would not have permitted even this, no jurisdiction would have allowed what petitioners seek: the right to carry a handgun everywhere (or virtually everywhere) - including the crowded and populous areas of cities and towns- based on speculation that a confrontation warranting the use of deadly force might suddenly arise."

Dred Scott:
"... persons ... who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to ... keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Are the petitioners citizens?

I think you are misinterpreting what Bruen is saying.

Bruen is exagerating NYSRPA's argument to suggest that NYSRPA is advocating for an unlimited right and stating that NYSPRA's reasoning is based on speculation.

I don't believe that NYSRPA is suggesting that it is an unlimited right. One of the many things that is missing from NYSRPA's argument is that self defense is part of public safety. If NYSRPA's justification is based on speculation then so is the state's basis as they are based on the same dangers. If the basis is really speculation then the state's argument fails intermediate scrutiny.

Dred Scott is talking about generalities and not about specifics about when and where there are restrictions on the right.

Kharn · Sep 24, 2021

jcutonilli said:
I think you are misinterpreting what Bruen is saying.

Bruen is exagerating NYSRPA's argument to suggest that NYSRPA is advocating for an unlimited right and stating that NYSPRA's reasoning is based on speculation.

I don't believe that NYSRPA is suggesting that it is an unlimited right. One of the many things that is missing from NYSRPA's argument is that self defense is part of public safety. If NYSRPA's justification is based on speculation then so is the state's basis as they are based on the same dangers. If the basis is really speculation then the state's argument fails intermediate scrutiny.

Dred Scott is talking about generalities and not about specifics about when and where there are restrictions on the right.

"Shall not be infringed" and "wherever they went" are both petty clear cut, or at least they were 150+ years ago.

Now, NY says because you have no right inside a government building or school, you have no right to carry on the sidewalks of your neighborhood as you put your kid on the bus. But the entire world is not a sensitive place, the TSA does not wand and fondle us as we leave our dwellings, only a limited number of places can be more sensitive than the rest.

Allen65 · Sep 24, 2021

Kharn said:
But the entire world is not a sensitive place, the TSA does not wand and fondle us as we leave our dwellings, only a limited number of places can be more sensitive than the rest.

Could NY insist a sensitive place is anywhere snowflakes and the easily triggered are present? That's pretty much the entire NYC area plus Albany. :lol2:

camo556 · Sep 24, 2021

DC seems like every place is a sensitive place, embassy, residence.

And yet.

rbird7282 · Sep 24, 2021

Kharn said:
"Shall not be infringed" and "wherever they went" are both petty clear cut, or at least they were 150+ years ago.

Now, NY says because you have no right inside a government building or school, you have no right to carry on the sidewalks of your neighborhood as you put your kid on the bus. But the entire world is not a sensitive place, the TSA does not wand and fondle us as we leave our dwellings, only a limited number of places can be more sensitive than the rest.

This. SCOTUS needs to put an end to this BS

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kharn · Sep 24, 2021

camo556 said:
DC seems like every place is a sensitive place, embassy, residence.

And yet.

Especially with their expansive First Amendment zones, school zones, etc. You can't carry if anyone else is exercising any other right in the constitution.

jcutonilli · Sep 24, 2021

Kharn said:
"Shall not be infringed" and "wherever they went" are both petty clear cut, or at least they were 150+ years ago.

Now, NY says because you have no right inside a government building or school, you have no right to carry on the sidewalks of your neighborhood as you put your kid on the bus. But the entire world is not a sensitive place, the TSA does not wand and fondle us as we leave our dwellings, only a limited number of places can be more sensitive than the rest.

That is not correct. If everything were really clear cut 150+ years ago, Bliss would never have been written. Bliss was written with "shall not be infringed" (technically it was "shall not be questioned") in mind yet KY changed their constitution to clarify that it did not include concealed carry. Other courts seem to confirm that concealed carry was not part of the right. Heller acknowledges these historical limitations based on other courts.

NY is simply exaggerating the extent of these historical limitations. They are putting together the text of the Statute of Northampton and the historical prohibition on concealed carry to articulate an argument that implies wide ranging prohibitions.

The problem is that nobody has really clarified what these historical limitations actually mean today. NYSRPA has presented bits and pieces of history to dispute what NY is saying, but they don't directly explain away what NY is saying. The text of the Statute of Northampton shows up in a number of our early laws, yet our side says it was something not really enforced. NYSRPA does not explain the historical limitations on concealed carry and simply rely on some type of carry is allowed.

NY is wrong, but stating that "shall not be infringed" is the reason they are wrong is not going to win the case.

press1280 · Sep 24, 2021

jcutonilli said:
That is not correct. If everything were really clear cut 150+ years ago, Bliss would never have been written. Bliss was written with "shall not be infringed" (technically it was "shall not be questioned") in mind yet KY changed their constitution to clarify that it did not include concealed carry. Other courts seem to confirm that concealed carry was not part of the right. Heller acknowledges these historical limitations based on other courts.

NY is simply exaggerating the extent of these historical limitations. They are putting together the text of the Statute of Northampton and the historical prohibition on concealed carry to articulate an argument that implies wide ranging prohibitions.

The problem is that nobody has really clarified what these historical limitations actually mean today. NYSRPA has presented bits and pieces of history to dispute what NY is saying, but they don't directly explain away what NY is saying. The text of the Statute of Northampton shows up in a number of our early laws, yet our side says it was something not really enforced. NYSRPA does not explain the historical limitations on concealed carry and simply rely on some type of carry is allowed.

NY is wrong, but stating that "shall not be infringed" is the reason they are wrong is not going to win the case.

Does the court need to really go there though?

As explained before NY can't fight on the CCW restriction front since they offer no alternative. The court can simply accept both parties' belief that CCW is a form of carry that each can live with.
As far as the limitations go plaintiffs are simply wanting to carry in areas already deemed non-sensitive by the state by virtue of allowing carry with the proper license. Most other states don't have the myriad of licenses that NY does. It's full carry or nothing.
A case dealing with sensitive places will be for another day. NY just can't simply claim that other people nearby automatically nixes the right.

press1280 · Sep 24, 2021

jcutonilli said:
I think you are misinterpreting what Bruen is saying.

Bruen is exagerating NYSRPA's argument to suggest that NYSRPA is advocating for an unlimited right and stating that NYSPRA's reasoning is based on speculation.

I don't believe that NYSRPA is suggesting that it is an unlimited right. One of the many things that is missing from NYSRPA's argument is that self defense is part of public safety. If NYSRPA's justification is based on speculation then so is the state's basis as they are based on the same dangers. If the basis is really speculation then the state's argument fails intermediate scrutiny.

Dred Scott is talking about generalities and not about specifics about when and where there are restrictions on the right.

They are of course arguing this, however, the argument fails when we see that NY has off limits areas even with a full carry license.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Senior

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics