NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

My thinking they will rule it’s a privilege vs a right.

What the court news is saying, it's a good omen.

Supreme Court leans toward expanding gun rights

https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-leans-toward-expanding-gun-rights/

This all sounds amazing for freedom , i wonder what a percentage of this being granted or won by the plaintiffs . What i read sounds like it is more possible then not .

KevinK said:

Inconceivable.

Click to expand...

The funny thing for me was I listened to her on audio before I knew what she looked like. And her voice and way of speaking totally matches her appearance.

AKbythebay said:

The funny thing for me was I listened to her on audio before I knew what she looked like. And her voice and way of speaking totally matches her appearance.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. the picture matched the mental image I had in my head listening to her struggle through the hearing.
ETA:, I did, however, incorrectly assume she was blond.

welder516 said:

This all sounds amazing for freedom , i wonder what a percentage of this being granted or won by the plaintiffs . What i read sounds like it is more possible then not .

Click to expand...

As long as strict scrutiny it to be applied to carry laws outside the home. It's a huge win for all of us.

It will take a while to knock down unjust laws at the state levels though...

pilotguy said:

It is hard to believe that I read this about what Roberts said today:





Is he arguing against permits?

Click to expand...

There, yeah I think so. However, he has another quote about permits comparing them to permits to exercise your first amendment rights and you don't have to prove anything unusual or exceptional about that.

Just the reminder, in some contexts you DO need a permit for that. For example, permits to hold peaceful demonstrations have been upheld for AGES.

So I am not sure Roberts is really arguing against it entirely. Or else his mind isn't entirely made up. But he does seem very clearly against having to PROVE you need a permit to be able to get a permit.

I still wouldn't be surprised if the court comes out against may issue, but doesn't endorse permitless carry. It certainly doesn't sound like they'll endorse explicitly (or at least implicitly, like Heller did that the right isn't unlimited, implying states can enact all the restrictions until SCOTUS has said they went too far) that the state can ban WHERE one carries. But hopefully between a strongly written opinion(s) or even a clear test or unambiguous examples it'll strongly limit where a state CAN ban carry.

I don't see any of the justices, well maybe Thomas, saying the state can't restrict carry anywhere. The ole example of court and prisons. But I am really worried they'll not be super explicit leaving it open for NJ, HI, MD, et al to effectively restrict carry most places, even if they have to give a permit or even if permits cannot be required for carry moving forward.

Another concern is that justices will leave it open for states to regulate what type of carry or what is carried.

Okay, you can carry, but only concealed, and it has to be an enclosed holster, with a trigger lock on the gun and the gun has to be unloaded. Also it has to be a S&W model 3 in 32s&w. No other firearms or reproductions of said firearm may be carried. You think some place like NJ or HI wouldn't try that?

Sure I'd rather unrestricted concealed carry then some watered down right to OC, but I am still just worried any opinion striking down the NY law will just open an even bigger door for states to be giant man genitalia (either massive hoops to jump through to get a permit, extreme limits on where to carry or extreme limits on how to carry. Or all of that).

I am hopeful based on the tenor of the justices comments that isn't going to happen with the opinion. Even a watered down one sounds like it might be somewhat air tight. Roberts even sounded pretty exasperated by NY. But I don't feel like the opinion is going to open us up to strict scrutiny and easily striking down many of the other firearms restrictions out there. Sigh.

Inigoes said:

As long as strict scrutiny it to be applied to carry laws outside the home. It's a huge win for all of us.

It will take a while to knock down unjust laws at the state levels though...

Click to expand...

That might be the tightest way to rule if it is narrowly focused on just carry and not any other firearms rights.

If they rule permits are okay, but they need to be shall issue and permit requirements, where and how a firearm can be carried outside of the home must have strict scrutiny applied to it, that would (if the lower courts bothered to listen AT ALL to SCOTUS) severely limit what states could do and would likely make even most of the conservative justices happy.

If lower court judges actually listen, I am not sure it'll take that long. It'll take longer than I think we'd all like, but I could see lawsuits coming quick and probably also resolved pretty quick. If district courts hand down quick wins, I have a hard time seeing most state AGs fighting this back up to SCOTUS with a strong opinion and lower courts listening.

Not a fan of Roberts and never have been. Thank god we have a 5-4 Conservative majority in the SC. A narrow victory is what I foresee and hopefully just the beginning…

I'd rather see a 5-4 majority ruling broadly for the Second Amendment than a 6-3 with a narrow ruling. Still...a win is a win...and I hope that's not premature. We won't know until next June.

AliasNeo07 said:

Very morbid question for those more knowledgeable about SCOTUS than I -- what if a justice dies after casting the his or her vote, but before the opinion is released? Would his or her vote still be counted?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting Arkancide is in the future of the Supreme Court?

As Kopel pointed out persuasively on the video (if you did not see it go back to post #1197 https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=6466783#post6466783), the case will be 6-3. Roberts wont let Thomas write the 5-4 opinion, so he will join it so he can assign it to Barrett. We will get some dicta about sensitive places, that seems to be the thing Barrett and Roberts were the most concerned with. Kavanaugh said we don't need to decide sensitive places now. We will see how Barrett does with her first landmark decision. You might not be able to carry on the Subway or Times Square during New Years Eve. meh, the next frontier should be licensing. 16 hours training for a carry permit is absurd. I guess I need to sign up for it.

Add: If Barrett writes the decision, I also see a concurrence by Thomas joined by some others, and a few like Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh wont join the dicta about sensitive places. I think Roberts has real work keeping it 6-3 without Thomas's concurrence becoming the majority opinion.

As far as sensitive places, it will mostly be dicta, and I am not losing sleep. In MD you cant carry anywhere now. So, progress. Sensitive places will become a frontier for endless litigation, like the buffer zones around abortion clinics.

Mostly I think "meh so what." progress is progress. Being able to carry is progress, plus if ppl know you are concealed carrying you are doing it wrong lmao. I think that a lot of those sensitive place prosecutions will amount to a whole lot of nolle prosse. If no one knows you are carrying does it even matter?

pilotguy said:

It is hard to believe that I read this about what Roberts said today:





Is he arguing against permits?

Click to expand...

I think it is more dangerous than that.


They rewrote the question to be specifically about the denial of the permit.

He doesn’t have to go into other forms of carry only if the denial of the permit was against the 2nd.

What are the odds of a quiet per curium decision, like what happened in Caetano?

Inigoes said:

What are the odds of a quiet per curium decision, like what happened in Caetano?

Click to expand...

per curium only happen before oral argument so 0%

Inigoes said:

What are the odds of a quiet per curium decision, like what happened in Caetano?

Click to expand...

About the same as the odds of Maryland providing a free AR-15 to every resident.

This might be a little bit off track but I wonder if Herr Frosh was listing to the arguments and i bet he was shaking his head when the AG from NY was speaking. I can imagine that he was shaking his head NOOOO..... you need to say it this way and or bring up this point instead of the very poor performance she projected during her time to speak and while being questioned by SCOTUS.. I wonder if he got a massive migraine after it was all said and done??? HAHA I hope we do get a favorable ruling doing away with needing to show a good reason why we need to carry...

Inigoes said:

What are the odds of a quiet per curium decision, like what happened in Caetano?

Click to expand...

camo556 said:

per curium only happen before oral argument so 0%

Click to expand...

jrosenberger said:

About the same as the odds of Maryland providing a free AR-15 to every resident.

Click to expand...

The correct answer is that the odds are very low for a per curium decision, but they are not zero.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

They are not commonly used. While they are mostly used at the petition stage, there have been several per curium decisions in argued cases.

jcutonilli said:

The correct answer is that the odds are very low for a per curium decision, but they are not zero.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

They are not commonly used. While they are mostly used at the petition stage, there have been several per curium decisions in argued cases.

Click to expand...

For some reason I have a feeling that portions Caetano will be melded with Heller and McDonald, to give us "Bear" outside of the home.

Inigoes said:

For some reason I have a feeling that portions Caetano will be melded with Heller and McDonald, to give us "Bear" outside of the home.

Click to expand...

Caetano didn't really decide anything. All they really did was say the three reasons MA cited explicitly conflict with Heller. They sent the case back to MA to determine more appropriate reasons.

I don't see how that would be relevant to this case.