Sounds like they are sick of having to defend good people against getting felonies.
NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Sounds like they are sick of having to defend good people against getting felonies.
Another brief filed to the NY case by the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) stating restrictions on the right to bear arms are racist.
https://thereload.com/black-gun-owner-group-decries-racist-origins-of-strict-carry-laws-in-supreme-court-brief
https://thereload.com/black-gun-owner-group-decries-racist-origins-of-strict-carry-laws-in-supreme-court-brief
Bullfrog
Ultimate Member
wjackcooper
Active Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 689
Patrick Charles, Amicus
Amicus brief:
“PATRICK J. CHARLES HISTORIAN IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY”
Charles describing himself as a “historian in support of neither party” displays (once again) his gift for self-deception.* Charles is a go to supporting “authority” for those who claim the 2A does not mean what it says. The Progressive Judges on the Peruta and Young en banc panels (in part with the Charles “research” as cover) predictably found “public carry . . . [concealed and open] not entitled to constitutional protection.”
Judge O’Scannlain dissented.** An article in Reason picks Charles based “history” apart. *** The PROFESSORS OF SECOND AMENDMENT LAW Amicus brief (among others) refutes Charles allegation by allegation.****
Regards
Jack
*https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184310/20210719174301985_40977 pdf Charles br.pdf
**O’Scannlain: in dissent: “It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
***Reason: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/01/ninth-circuit-holds-there-is-no-right-to-bear-arms/ Scroll down to “English Legal History.”
****Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...558628_20-843-Law Professors-Amicus Brief.pdf See pages 10, 11 and 12 for example.
Amicus brief:
“PATRICK J. CHARLES HISTORIAN IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY”
Charles describing himself as a “historian in support of neither party” displays (once again) his gift for self-deception.* Charles is a go to supporting “authority” for those who claim the 2A does not mean what it says. The Progressive Judges on the Peruta and Young en banc panels (in part with the Charles “research” as cover) predictably found “public carry . . . [concealed and open] not entitled to constitutional protection.”
Judge O’Scannlain dissented.** An article in Reason picks Charles based “history” apart. *** The PROFESSORS OF SECOND AMENDMENT LAW Amicus brief (among others) refutes Charles allegation by allegation.****
Regards
Jack
*https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184310/20210719174301985_40977 pdf Charles br.pdf
**O’Scannlain: in dissent: “It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
***Reason: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/01/ninth-circuit-holds-there-is-no-right-to-bear-arms/ Scroll down to “English Legal History.”
****Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...558628_20-843-Law Professors-Amicus Brief.pdf See pages 10, 11 and 12 for example.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
The reason the progressive judges find "public carry .. not entitled to constitutional protection" has as much to do with how the cases are argued. In Peruta they never rebutted the historical prohibition on CCW and this prohibition was used against them. Young did slightly better, but never really addressed the other sides points directly. I was the only one to point out why the historical prohibition existed, which was incorporated into O'scannlain's dissent.
The 2A is more nuanced than the text of the amendment suggests. There are nuances as to prohibitions that have occurred and need proper explanations to properly understand them. Clement's main brief does not really provide these explanations. I have not read all the amicus briefs, but they don't provide a lot of explanation either. I am pretty disappointed in the briefs. They all seem to want to answer the original question about carry in general and downplay the revised question, which addressed concealed carry specifically.
The amicus briefs coming in about 2 months will be much more biased towards this anti carry position.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
The briefs are about the right to carry in general, because Heller looked favorably on laws that banned one form of carry as long as the other was readily available. In both Peruta and NYSRPA II, the state has banned open carry, so the issuance of a carry permit is the only way for a citizen to exercise that right.
In Woollard, one permit covered both open and concealed carry, but I'm sure you'll find a way to negative Nancy that away as the fault of counsel because they didn't hire you.
And the amicus briefs due in two months will be in support of the state, so of course they will be against carry.
In Woollard, one permit covered both open and concealed carry, but I'm sure you'll find a way to negative Nancy that away as the fault of counsel because they didn't hire you.
And the amicus briefs due in two months will be in support of the state, so of course they will be against carry.
wjackcooper
Active Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 689
Progressive opinions / conservative dissents
Peruta
Justice Thomas dissenting:
“The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf p. 3
Young
Judge O’Scannlain: dissenting:
“It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
Just two of the almost all “untenable” and “baffling” opinions produced by the unshakable progressive notion that “gun control” is a good thing.
Regards
Jack
Peruta
Justice Thomas dissenting:
“The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf p. 3
Young
Judge O’Scannlain: dissenting:
“It is utterly baffling for the majority to contend that, merely because the lawful manner of open public carry has historically been regulated in certain respects, we may conclude that the practice of public carry itself is not entitled to constitutional protection.” Young, p.172, para 1.
(Google: Young v. Hawaii) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
Just two of the almost all “untenable” and “baffling” opinions produced by the unshakable progressive notion that “gun control” is a good thing.
Regards
Jack
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
The briefs are about the right to carry in general, because Heller looked favorably on laws that banned one form of carry as long as the other was readily available. In both Peruta and NYSRPA II, the state has banned open carry, so the issuance of a carry permit is the only way for a citizen to exercise that right.
In Woollard, one permit covered both open and concealed carry, but I'm sure you'll find a way to negative Nancy that away as the fault of counsel because they didn't hire you.
And the amicus briefs due in two months will be in support of the state, so of course they will be against carry.
The question before the court is limited to concealed carry.
Whether open carry is allowed in no longer relevant to this case. The ultimate conclusion of this case may be the same as Peruta, you cannot claim that concealed carry is part of the right. You may need to challenge the ban on open carry only.
Why should concealed carry be allowed given the historic prohibition mentioned in Heller? The briefs don't really answer that question directly. It is sad because the Young dissent answers the question.
Maybe you are content with the ever growing restrictions on our 2A rights. I am not and want to find better ways to remove these restrictions. The current ways do not seem to be working.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Yet the SCOTUS did exactly the same thing in this case
This is the key part of the quote
and needs to be addressed otherwise it will be spun in a very negative context., which is what these progressive judges have done.
If that's the case then were back to the other question and that's why would they even take the case knowing that a Peruta-style opinion guarantees another challenge on open carry?
Isn't it possible the question is just re-written to its bare facts, and not that they are going to rule on CCW in a vacuum?
Good thing Young is before the court. IIRC, that is an OC case.
wjackcooper
Active Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 689
The 2A - “open or concealed”
The basic controlling law is not complicated:
(1)
In Heller (2008) Scalia pointed out by quoting Ginsberg that: * “[T]he Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of … defensive action in a case of conflict with another person . .. .” * Note: “upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket.”
(2)
In McDonald (2010) Alito pointed out that: ** “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller . . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense . . . . ** Note: “bear arms for” . . . “self-defense.”
The 2A right to bear "in a pocket" and N.Y.’s right to regulate the method are not seriously debatable. N.Y. has opted for “concealed;” but denies permits for “self-defense.” The SC’s question is - does this violate the 2A? Arguments are rarely decisive (and are often misleading). For sure, all of the Justices understood the fundamental controlling law (Heller/McDonald) and what the arguments would be long before they obviously decided the case while agreeing upon the question.
2A supporters have reason to be optimistic.
Regards
Jack
*Heller: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (syllabus) p. 10 and p. 11
“In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”
**McDonald: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#tab-opinion-1963369 p. 1, para.1
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.
The basic controlling law is not complicated:
(1)
In Heller (2008) Scalia pointed out by quoting Ginsberg that: * “[T]he Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate
(2)
In McDonald (2010) Alito pointed out that: ** “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller . . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense . . . . ** Note: “bear arms for” . . . “self-defense.”
The 2A right to bear "in a pocket" and N.Y.’s right to regulate the method are not seriously debatable. N.Y. has opted for “concealed;” but denies permits for “self-defense.” The SC’s question is - does this violate the 2A? Arguments are rarely decisive (and are often misleading). For sure, all of the Justices understood the fundamental controlling law (Heller/McDonald) and what the arguments would be long before they obviously decided the case while agreeing upon the question.
2A supporters have reason to be optimistic.
Regards
Jack
*Heller: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (syllabus) p. 10 and p. 11
“In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “
**McDonald: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#tab-opinion-1963369 p. 1, para.1
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,208
Has young been granted cert? Or only petitioning at this point?
Keeping the open and concealed cases separate allows the scotus 2 step to happen… maybe..
Saying you have other options, but ignoring that the state outlaws the other option.
When carrying, aside from open or concealed, what other option is there? (Aside from just don’t…)
Keeping the open and concealed cases separate allows the scotus 2 step to happen… maybe..
Saying you have other options, but ignoring that the state outlaws the other option.
When carrying, aside from open or concealed, what other option is there? (Aside from just don’t…)
Maestro Pistolero
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2012
- 876
Small and concealable does not necessarily mean concealed, am I right?
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
I don't think they were envisioning a Peruta style opinion when they took the case. I would like to think the dissent in Young played a factor in the decision, especially in the choice to change the question to focus on concealed carry.
Concealed carry is still an unresolved question given the historical prohibitions identified in Heller. It is also at the heart of the case.
I suspect they changed to question so that concealed carry issue would be better addressed. We will wait and see what happens between now and the oral arguments.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
They have also said in Heller that the right is not unlimited and that concealed carry has been historically prohibited.
Bear certainly includes open or concealed carry, but does the actual right, which Heller acknowledges is not unlimited, include concealed carry? Heller suggests that it may be historically prohibited. That history, and tradition does not seem to be helping in this situation.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Young has not been granted cert, they are currently still petitioning at this point and have yet to be distributed to conference.
There are currently are 601 cases for the next conference (27 Sept) https://certpool.com/conferences
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
The ninth circuit in Young would disagree with you, but I believe most people here would agree with you.
The court would have to produce those arguments. NY’s position agrees that concealed carry is a viable means of public carry, they just think they can pick and choose who does so.
DanGuy48
Ultimate Member
How did this distinction of concealed vs. open carry arise in the first place? The second amendment simply says “bear” and it seems to me it shouldn’t matter in what manner one bears a weapon. I would also think the left would prefer, if it’s forced on them, that people carry concealed so they don’t have to be exposed to the sight of the murderous devices.
