NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

Allen65 · Aug 1, 2021

DanGuy48 said:
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.

In Heller, Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. Some states, and courts, have misinterpreted this to mean any regulations short of outright bans on possession in the home are constitutionally acceptable.

I'd argue the opposite about statists (it's about proponents of State authority, not purely Left vs Right), that they'd love to see the only carry allowed to be open carry, because they could then identify, harass, and socially isolate (ostracize, "cancel", shun, whatever you want to call it) carriers into not carrying at all. No carry at all is their goal.

DanGuy48 · Aug 1, 2021

Allen65 said:
In Heller, Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. Some states, and courts, have misinterpreted this to mean any regulations short of outright bans on possession in the home are constitutionally acceptable.

I'd argue the opposite about statists (it's about proponents of State authority, not purely Left vs Right), that they'd love to see the only carry allowed to be open carry, because they could then identify, harass, and socially isolate (ostracize, "cancel", shun, whatever you want to call it) carriers into not carrying at all. No carry at all is their goal.

Thanks. One way or the other, I think we’re in for some interesting developments. I’m pretty nervous about how this could go.

Bob A · Aug 1, 2021

DanGuy48 said:
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.

In the early days of this nation, bearing arms was commonplace. There was no organised police force, and people provided their own protection in what was a less densely populated and far more homogeneous society. Concealing your arms at that time was considered dishonorable, as the only reason you would hide your firearms was that you intended to use them against the unsuspecting citizenry.

Today the situation has been stood on its head; carrying arms openly, at least in big cities on the coasts, is seen as threatening to the concerned, even frightened, public. They are subject to being preyed on by protected classes of thugs, and have been made fearful by design, and taught by the organs of information that guns - not people - are evil.

Between then and now, before we became so multicultural, there was little need for an armed citizenry, as most people were on the same page regarding crimes against people, and it was understood that the police were there to benefit society, and enforce the rules that most everyone agreed were necessary.

jcutonilli · Aug 1, 2021

Allen65 said:
In Heller, Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. Some states, and courts, have misinterpreted this to mean any regulations short of outright bans on possession in the home are constitutionally acceptable.

I'd argue the opposite about statists (it's about proponents of State authority, not purely Left vs Right), that they'd love to see the only carry allowed to be open carry, because they could then identify, harass, and socially isolate (ostracize, "cancel", shun, whatever you want to call it) carriers into not carrying at all. No carry at all is their goal.

Technically time, place and manner are 1A concepts. Scalia talked about the right not being unlimited and the "Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions". Concealed carry prohibition was given as a example of a regulation that has historically been upheld.

Most courts have misinterpreted this to mean any regulation that does not absolutely ban all possession in the home is constitutionally acceptable.

jcutonilli · Aug 1, 2021

Bob A said:
In the early days of this nation, bearing arms was commonplace. There was no organised police force, and people provided their own protection in what was a less densely populated and far more homogeneous society. Concealing your arms at that time was considered dishonorable, as the only reason you would hide your firearms was that you intended to use them against the unsuspecting citizenry.

Today the situation has been stood on its head; carrying arms openly, at least in big cities on the coasts, is seen as threatening to the concerned, even frightened, public. They are subject to being preyed on by protected classes of thugs, and have been made fearful by design, and taught by the organs of information that guns - not people - are evil.

Between then and now, before we became so multicultural, there was little need for an armed citizenry, as most people were on the same page regarding crimes against people, and it was understood that the police were there to benefit society, and enforce the rules that most everyone agreed were necessary.

While I agree about the concealed carry paragraphs, I would take exception about the need for an armed citizenry. I think we started with the thought that an organized armed citizenry was needed. Over time we have realized that we no longer need an organized army citizenry. We still need an armed citizenry though because the police don't actually protect individual citizens. It is still up to the individual citizen to protect themselves.

Yet another issue that is missing from the amicus briefs in this case.

777GSOTB · Aug 1, 2021

DanGuy48 said:
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.

Justice Scalia, set concealed carry is not protected in concrete, when he states that the right is not unlimited and the VERY FIRST example he gives, is the fact that a majority of 19th century courts have ruled that carrying concealed firearms is NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment. For those that have concluded that, the opposite of that statement is true, are really a bunch of dingdongs. Remember, there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for the court to bring that up as an example, as Heller had nothing to do with concealed carry.

DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

There is no right to carry concealed firearms, and the court in this case will NOT conclude that there is a right to carry concealed firearms outside the home. Open carry is the protected right to carry firearms outside the home.

press1280 · Aug 1, 2021

Allen65 said:
In Heller, Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. Some states, and courts, have misinterpreted this to mean any regulations short of outright bans on possession in the home are constitutionally acceptable.

I'd argue the opposite about statists (it's about proponents of State authority, not purely Left vs Right), that they'd love to see the only carry allowed to be open carry, because they could then identify, harass, and socially isolate (ostracize, "cancel", shun, whatever you want to call it) carriers into not carrying at all. No carry at all is their goal.

I have heard a few of these lefties suggest doing this, however, in the 2 cases where no-carry jurisdictions were forced into one or the other, both opted for CC.

press1280 · Aug 1, 2021

777GSOTB said:
Justice Scalia, set concealed carry is not protected in concrete, when he states that the right is not unlimited and the VERY FIRST example he gives, is the fact that a majority of 19th century courts have ruled that carrying concealed firearms is NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment. For those that have concluded that, the opposite of that statement is true, are really a bunch of dingdongs. Remember, there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for the court to bring that up as an example, as Heller had nothing to do with concealed carry.

DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

There is no right to carry concealed firearms, and the court in this case will NOT conclude that there is a right to carry concealed firearms outside the home. Open carry is the protected right to carry firearms outside the home.

Ok so this will be another Peruta?
Why would the court waste their time? They could be denied cert and waited for Young or another open carry case.

777GSOTB · Aug 1, 2021

Allen65 said:
In Heller, Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. Some states, and courts, have misinterpreted this to mean any regulations short of outright bans on possession in the home are constitutionally acceptable.

I'd argue the opposite about statists (it's about proponents of State authority, not purely Left vs Right), that they'd love to see the only carry allowed to be open carry, because they could then identify, harass, and socially isolate (ostracize, "cancel", shun, whatever you want to call it) carriers into not carrying at all. No carry at all is their goal.

Where in Heller did Scalia say, " Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. "

777GSOTB · Aug 1, 2021

press1280 said:
Ok so this will be another Peruta?
Why would the court waste their time? They could be denied cert and waited for Young or another open carry case.

No, the court appears to have decided that states using self-defense, as not being a sufficient need to receive a permit, is not going to fly any more. That's it...That's my take anyway.

press1280 · Aug 1, 2021

777GSOTB said:
Where in Heller did Scalia say, " Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. "

Whether he said it or not pretty much all rights are subject to these regulations

press1280 · Aug 1, 2021

777GSOTB said:
No, the court appears to have decided that states using self-defense, as not being a sufficient need to receive a permit, is not going to fly any more. That's it...That's my take anyway.

I’d agree with that. They wouldn’t find that CC is necessarily protected, merely the state has chosen to regulate public carry by outlawing open and allowing concealed.
The state doesn’t disagree with this but Scotus will find a rationing system doesn’t pass the smell test.

Allen65 · Aug 1, 2021

777GSOTB said:
Where in Heller did Scalia say, " Scalia wrote that time, place, and manner of carry could be subject to regulation. "

Sorry, I was off a bit and should have just paraphrased from the get-go. As JCUTONILLI corrected me on above, Scalia said the right was not unlimited and that the decision was not meant to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions.

777GSOTB · Aug 1, 2021

press1280 said:
I’d agree with that. They wouldn’t find that CC is necessarily protected, merely the state has chosen to regulate public carry by outlawing open and allowing concealed.
The state doesn’t disagree with this but Scotus will find a rationing system doesn’t pass the smell test.

They won't address open carry, because the plaintiffs did NOT seek to open carry, they sought a permit to conceal carry. The right to carry outside the home isn't on the table here.

Bob A · Aug 1, 2021

jcutonilli said:
While I agree about the concealed carry paragraphs, I would take exception about the need for an armed citizenry. I think we started with the thought that an organized armed citizenry was needed. Over time we have realized that we no longer need an organized army citizenry. We still need an armed citizenry though because the police don't actually protect individual citizens. It is still up to the individual citizen to protect themselves.

Yet another issue that is missing from the amicus briefs in this case.

Well, that's pretty much what I said; open with armed citizens, stable society in the middle years, new need now that we're no longer of one mind about how the society should function.

Putting the middle years paragraph last made sense to me when writing it; it seemed important to contrast the extremes before mentioning the more civilised portion of our existence; most readers here never experienced life in the US before 1968.

777GSOTB · Aug 1, 2021

Allen65 said:
Sorry, I was off a bit and should have just paraphrased from the get-go. As JCUTONILLI corrected me on above, Scalia said the right was not unlimited and that the decision was not meant to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions.

Ok, I was curious, as on the time aspect that many have stated, if he actually said that. I don't believe a right can have a time limit on it, such as from 2am to 6am one can't carry for self defense. Really don't see how, time, plays into the regulation of the right. The other 2, place and manner, are more appropriate to just regulation. As places like schools and public buildings they can regulate and manner of carry, they can't prohibit open carry, but can prohibit concealed carry. The consensus that believes a state can actually prohibit the PROTECTED right, open carry, in favor of the licensed privileged endeavor of concealed carry, as long as they allow one way or the other, is just ridiculous.

press1280 · Aug 1, 2021

777GSOTB said:
They won't address open carry, because the plaintiffs did NOT seek to open carry, they sought a permit to conceal carry. The right to carry outside the home isn't on the table here.

It’s not?

So you’re saying plaintiffs win on an equal protection basis?

777GSOTB · Aug 1, 2021

press1280 said:
It’s not?

So you’re saying plaintiffs win on an equal protection basis?

Actually, I'm hoping that the plaintiffs lose on the basis that they sought the privileged activity of carrying concealed weapons, of which a state can prohibit altogether. It only makes sense that a state can place whatever restrictions it wants on a licensed activity, if it can prohibit that activity outright...But the progressive courts are getting wishy washy on this stuff. As they stated, they will address the, self defense need issue at hand, for getting a permit. So, I guess it would be an equal protection issue.

lazarus · Aug 1, 2021

777GSOTB said:
Ok, I was curious, as on the time aspect that many have stated, if he actually said that. I don't believe a right can have a time limit on it, such as from 2am to 6am one can't carry for self defense. Really don't see how, time, plays into the regulation of the right. The other 2, place and manner, are more appropriate to just regulation. As places like schools and public buildings they can regulate and manner of carry, they can't prohibit open carry, but can prohibit concealed carry. The consensus that believes a state can actually prohibit the PROTECTED right, open carry, in favor of the licensed privileged endeavor of concealed carry, as long as they allow one way or the other, is just ridiculous.

Time doesn’t simply refer to time of day, but what else is occurring. For example in Maryland you can open carry a long gun almost anywhere with just a few limitations. But you can’t within a certain distance of a protest if LE tells you can’t.

That’s a “time” prohibition more than a “place” prohibition.

During a protest. Just like during certain states of emergency open carry can be suspended. That’s also a time prohibition.

I could probably think of some other examples.

Oh, while school is in session can/could be another one. Time prohibitions often overlap with place prohibitions.

777GSOTB · Aug 1, 2021

lazarus said:
Time doesn’t simply refer to time of day, but what else is occurring. For example in Maryland you can open carry a long gun almost anywhere with just a few limitations. But you can’t within a certain distance of a protest if LE tells you can’t.

That’s a “time” prohibition more than a “place” prohibition.

During a protest. Just like during certain states of emergency open carry can be suspended. That’s also a time prohibition.

I could probably think of some other examples.

Oh, while school is in session can/could be another one. Time prohibitions often overlap with place prohibitions.

Ok, got the point on time, but I didn't know the law abusement community could set policy on a fundamental right...Maybe with a voluntarily signed permit application(surrendered rights) they can. So, let me get this straight. If I'm walking down the sidewalk open carrying a firearm, and a bunch of protestors decide to turn and come down the street I'm walking on, their right to free speech trumps my right to self defense? I don't think that would fly at the SCOTUS.

I also doubt the state can set a "time" restriction, such as a state emergency, to prohibit ones right to self defense. I don't think the SCOTUS would let that fly either. A state can say, nobody outside from 10pm-5am in such a serious emergency, but to say no carry of firearms at all other times? Don't see that passing muster with SCOTUS. If the general population is allowed out in about, one has a right to self defense.

Of course the government will do what they want, and if there is no challenge to the trampled upon right, they get away with it. Pretty much like when they went through everyone's homes in that Boston neighborhood where the marathon bomber supposedly was. No challenge to 4th Amendment protections by anyone, but most people don't have $200,000 to take a $5,000-$10,000 case to the SCOTUS, so they go along for the ride.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

όυ φροντισ

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics