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!
  • OneGunTex

    Escaped Member
    Jan 12, 2021
    232
    Southern Maryland, no longer
    Are they banned from possession in the first place? That’s the only standard needed.

    OK fine, but that argument is semantic. If you want to frame it like that, I'll re-ask, what if any actions while exercising 2A rights should make you prohibited entirely?

    Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    So my question to the group is: what conditions would you find acceptable for banning a person's future right to carry publicly?

    Brandishing a High Point in 45 AARP.

    Appendix carry without a holster.

    Also: anything involving a Yeet Cannon and alcohol.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    OK fine, but that argument is semantic. If you want to frame it like that, I'll re-ask, what if any actions while exercising 2A rights should make you prohibited entirely

    That’s not the right question. What if you have a record of felonious assault from beating store clerks with your fists while while shoplifting? That’s not about the 2A, but it is certainly going to leave you prohibited.

    We can pick nits about which crimes of ANY kind should leave you untrusted with weapons, sensitive jobs, a vote, or a hundred other things that get damaged in the wake of being convicted of a crime.

    But any gun-carrying-specifically offense (brandishing, for example) that currently leaves you likely to be prohibited would rule out legal carry already because it rules out possession in the first place.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Clement did not ask for constitutional carry. He did not challenge the existence of the permit. I am optimistic but I am not *that* optimistic. He only asked for a non-discretionary permit to be issued, so what we get will be a gradual step. Constitutional carry has been very difficult to get passed even in pretty pro gun states. Law enforcement being the #1 group lobbying against it.

    I think it's interesting that the NJ magazine ban case is being held. Are they going to GVR that case when they issue the opinion in this one? That would be huge since this one seems to have nothing to do with that.

    The magazine ban case will likely be remanded. What may happen is the standard of review will be changed effectively wiping out all the “intermediate scrutiny” rulings. So the NJ mag case goes back to step one for re litigation
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,867
    AA County
    Clement did not ask for constitutional carry. He did not challenge the existence of the permit. I am optimistic but I am not *that* optimistic. He only asked for a non-discretionary permit to be issued, so what we get will be a gradual step. Constitutional carry has been very difficult to get passed even in pretty pro gun states. Law enforcement being the #1 group lobbying against it.

    I think it's interesting that the NJ magazine ban case is being held. Are they going to GVR that case when they issue the opinion in this one? That would be huge since this one seems to have nothing to do with that.
    I think that the ruling will define a level of scrutiny for the 2A that will help answer other held cases. Scrutiny will solve any shinanagins the States might attempt as well.



    .

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,867
    AA County
    Not necessarily. Strict scrutiny is what we've needed all along. Judges don't like being overruled, and strict scrutiny might finally move the needle from blind, unquestioning deference to unsubstantiated GOV claims of "public safety" towards favoring the right by default. We should see a lot more quick wins at District and appellate levels.

    Under strict scrutiny, the state needs to demonstrate their law not only serves a significant public interest, but that there is no less intrusive way to achieve that interest. That's a tough standard for a lot of the anti-2A laws, especially now that there are a large number of shall issue states daily disproving many of the supposed public safety arguments used by NY, MD, CA, HI, et al.
    X-Actly....


    .

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,538
    Columbia
    Under NO conditions. If you're free to walk the streets, you're free to carry a gun.

    If you're convicted of a crime, you go to jail, and thus cannot carry a gun.

    When you get, you can carry.

    Yes, yes, yes, I realize this an idealistic way of looking at things, but freedom is a scary thing at times.


    This. If someone is breaking the law while carrying, (intoxicated, brandishing-where it’s illegal, etc.) there are already laws against that.
    Laws and training won’t stop criminals or stupid people from being stupid. Let us be free and penalize to dipsh*ts who break the law


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Not to mention that there should be no training requirements at all, anywhere. It is time this country went back to personal responsibility.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I mean, the reason training is required (the excuse at least) is because it isn’t a personal responsibility issue. It is my safety depends on someone else doing the right thing. Therefore we need to ensure that other person has the proper training.

    Pretty sure that doesn’t stack with 2A. However I can understand that logic. We don’t rely on personal responsibility to ensure you are a good driver before you can get behind the wheel of a car. We mandate training classes and experience with a supervisory driver for every state.

    Of course driving is not a right. Gun ownership is. But saying “going back to personal responsibility” makes no sense in this context. Unless it is that gun owners should be responsible and society should rely on people being personally responsible. Another way to look at it is we should have vaccine mandates, because everyone should be personally responsible and thus would have gotten vaccinated.

    Butttt the 2A doesn’t say “well we can make sure people are responsible gun owners”. We have to take it on faith they will be and if they aren’t, then society punishes them.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Under NO conditions. If you're free to walk the streets, you're free to carry a gun.

    If you're convicted of a crime, you go to jail, and thus cannot carry a gun.

    When you get, you can carry.

    Yes, yes, yes, I realize this an idealistic way of looking at things, but freedom is a scary thing at times.

    I think the problem is the cost to society. If that was the case we would need to keep millions more locked up for life probably. Or we could release them as we do now and not restrict ownership to violent former criminals. And we’d like have a lot more murders and violent crimes as a result.

    As it stands, there is a reasonably high rate of recidivism for violent criminals. Never releasing them would of course fix those issues of them ever repeating. However, as I mentioned, those costs of millions being incarcerated for life. That’s hundreds of billions a year between the incarcerations costs and loss of productivity for those people.

    Sure many of those people would be decent people. Could own guns without ever committing crimes again. Etc. but they’ve shown they are less trust worthy and more likely to end up abusing access to firearms.

    I do have a strong argument that criminals who never committed violent crimes should be allowed access to firearms once their sentence and any post incarceration probation is complete.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    I mean, the reason training is required (the excuse at least) is because it isn’t a personal responsibility issue. It is my safety depends on someone else doing the right thing. Therefore we need to ensure that other person has the proper training.

    Pretty sure that doesn’t stack with 2A. However I can understand that logic. We don’t rely on personal responsibility to ensure you are a good driver before you can get behind the wheel of a car. We mandate training classes and experience with a supervisory driver for every state.

    Of course driving is not a right. Gun ownership is. But saying “going back to personal responsibility” makes no sense in this context. Unless it is that gun owners should be responsible and society should rely on people being personally responsible. Another way to look at it is we should have vaccine mandates, because everyone should be personally responsible and thus would have gotten vaccinated.

    Butttt the 2A doesn’t say “well we can make sure people are responsible gun owners”. We have to take it on faith they will be and if they aren’t, then society punishes them.


    I vehemently disagree.

    Drivers can test out without supervision.

    As for the government mandating vaccinations in the private sector, that is unconstitutional overreach.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,538
    Columbia
    I think the problem is the cost to society. If that was the case we would need to keep millions more locked up for life probably. Or we could release them as we do now and not restrict ownership to violent former criminals. And we’d like have a lot more murders and violent crimes as a result.

    As it stands, there is a reasonably high rate of recidivism for violent criminals. Never releasing them would of course fix those issues of them ever repeating. However, as I mentioned, those costs of millions being incarcerated for life. That’s hundreds of billions a year between the incarcerations costs and loss of productivity for those people.

    Sure many of those people would be decent people. Could own guns without ever committing crimes again. Etc. but they’ve shown they are less trust worthy and more likely to end up abusing access to firearms.

    I do have a strong argument that criminals who never committed violent crimes should be allowed access to firearms once their sentence and any post incarceration probation is complete.
    If we made the penalties more severe and actually kept people in prison, fewer people would behave that way. When society gets rid of morals and promotes criminal behavior without consequences, this is the sh*t sandwich we end up with. We could easily afford to keep these people in prison instead of wasting money on any number of programs that don't benefit the public at all (or at least very little)
    Why do you think so many criminals carry guns in Baltimore? Because there's little to no penalty to do so.
    When the three strikes program was instituted, violent crime went down. Criminals were not carrying as many guns because they didn't want to get an automatic 10 years
    There just isn't a very strong deterrent in place right now.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Pretty sure that doesn’t stack with 2A. However I can understand that logic. We don’t rely on personal responsibility to ensure you are a good driver before you can get behind the wheel of a car. We mandate training classes and experience with a supervisory driver for every state.

    That's because driving is a cooperative activity that requires predictability on the part of the participants in order to work at all. This is very different from carry, where predictability isn't required in the same way and certainly not to the same degree.

    Here's the thing: in a society where people carry, things that people perceive as unsafe will quickly be eliminated, sometimes through elimination of the offender from the gene pool. This is so because if we're carrying and perceive our life to be at risk, we'll respond appropriately. That the other person endangered our life because they were being an idiot isn't our fault, it's theirs.

    And so, personal responsibility is very much in play at the end of the day for this.

    Training is good to have, but the primary reason is so that the person who is carrying can be more effective in a self-defense encounter. It can easily make the difference between whether the defender lives or dies.

    In any case, accidents and dumb actions will always happen, training or no training. Remember the DEA agent who went off about how he was the only person in the room "professional enough" to carry a .40 Glock, only to shoot himself moments later? I rest my case.


    If you want to insist on training, then put it in the mandatory school curriculum (replacing Critical Race Theory with firearms training will do nicely for this), and make it mandatory for anyone who immigrates into the country. Problem solved.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    I believe it's incumbent on and simply good practice for every gun owner (if not every citizen to receive firearms training and safety instruction...that includes actors). I just don't believe the government should mandating such to exercise an enumerated Constitutional right.
     

    F5guy

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    440
    Annapolis
    wondering how long arguments are expected to go and then how long afterwards until a ruling. TIA


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,538
    Columbia
    I believe it's incumbent on and simply good practice for every gun owner (if not every citizen to receive firearms training and safety instruction...that includes actors). I just don't believe the government should mandating such to exercise an enumerated Constitutional right.

    Exactly.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    I'll admit, I've tended to favor some training requirements based on some very poor behavior I've witnessed by people with handguns. But I understand the argument that, like 1A, you first start out with everyone has nearly-unlimited right, and then you limit/prosecute it when it is abused (fire in a crowded theater).

    So my question to the group is: what conditions would you find acceptable for banning a person's future right to carry publicly?
    Perhaps brandishing? Discharge when not in self defence scenario? Carrying while intoxicated? Non-felony battery or assault? Etc?

    Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

    In my experience training does not make one safe. People either make an effort to be safe or they don't.

    Just because I pass a class does not mean I'll keep doing what I did in front of the instructor after that class is complete.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    wondering how long arguments are expected to go and then how long afterwards until a ruling. TIA


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Arguments (at the Supreme Court) already happened. Expect a ruling late June.

    Arguments (in this forum) are expected to go until 2024.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    In a more perfect world, each member of the Supreme Court would read this post. Perhaps their collective heads would hurt, as mine does from the insanity illustrated here . When I think about the amount of time and research that had to take place to formulate this post, it is absolutely mind boggling. And that is before consideration of any monetary expense.

    I am likely dreaming, or perhaps I'm delusional. But I hope the Supreme Court rules that the words "right" and "permit" are incongruous, and especially so when the ramifications of permitting schemes are multiplied by the whims of each of 50 US states.


    Thank you for the kind words. I hope they are reading and doing research because the regulations are absurd.

    All of this nonsense to exercise a Constitutional Right.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,491
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom