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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    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.

    The court needs to go somewhere. NY is certainly fighting on the CCW restriction front because it is part of the historical prohibition. NY is even arguing that they allow some form carry outside the home. The fact that there is no open carry may not matter based on the question that is before the court. The arguments presented don't really prevent the court from adopting the historical prohibition, which the court has already provided some discussion on in Heller.

    The long conference is on Mon and we will likely hear any grants by the end of next week. There will also be a response by NYSRPA in about 3 weeks that may better address these issues. Something may also get introduces at oral argument. We need to wait and see what happens during these events to better understand how the court may resolve these issues.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    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 being off limits to licensed upstate residents without the special permission of the police commissioner hopefully unsettles the conservative Justices.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    NYC being off limits to licensed upstate residents without the special permission of the police commissioner hopefully unsettles the conservative Justices.

    If plaintiffs win the NYC endorsement should be automatic with good cause no longer enforceable.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    If plaintiffs win the NYC endorsement should be automatic with good cause no longer enforceable.

    While it should, it may not be. The current arguments make the determination more subjective. This may lead to a narrower ruling with carveouts for NYC.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    While it should, it may not be. The current arguments make the determination more subjective. This may lead to a narrower ruling with carveouts for NYC.

    How so? Perhaps individual locations like schools & government buildings being packed like sardines may make things a bit tricky in NYC compared to upstate but a total carve out (like they have now) seems a non-starter unless the court is essentially willing to take defendants position that the 2A doesn't apply in urban areas.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    How so? Perhaps individual locations like schools & government buildings being packed like sardines may make things a bit tricky in NYC compared to upstate but a total carve out (like they have now) seems a non-starter unless the court is essentially willing to take defendants position that the 2A doesn't apply in urban areas.

    I think Roberts is going to push the court to accept a narrower ruling than what you are suggesting. I don't think they are going to go so far as to say that the 2A doesn't apply in urban areas, but they may allow some kind of additional restrictions for urban areas.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I think Roberts is going to push the court to accept a narrower ruling than what you are suggesting. I don't think they are going to go so far as to say that the 2A doesn't apply in urban areas, but they may allow some kind of additional restrictions for urban areas.

    What could that be?

    NY already has off limits areas which plaintiffs aren’t challenging.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Line in Heller I found while trying to cross reference it against the respondent's brief:

    "It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense."

    The respondents seem like they're throwing spaghetti on the wall, using text, history, and tradition, or intermediate scrutiny, or a newspaper can't prove the legislature was racist, or the English were disarmed, or carrying a gun itself is causing terror, or if you're not hunting you're in Times Square or a school, so uphold or remand for full fact finding.

    They also ignored Vermont being constitutional carry since a court decree in 1903.
     

    Devil Dog

    Active Member
    Sep 20, 2013
    587
    I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts is left to concur in the judgement while Thomas writes his magnum opus.
    If Roberts is in the majority he gets to assign the opinion to whomever he wants.

    Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts is left to concur in the judgement while Thomas writes his magnum opus.

    If Thomas doesn't get Scalia'd in the meantime.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Line in Heller I found while trying to cross reference it against the respondent's brief:

    "It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense."

    The respondents seem like they're throwing spaghetti on the wall, using text, history, and tradition, or intermediate scrutiny, or a newspaper can't prove the legislature was racist, or the English were disarmed, or carrying a gun itself is causing terror, or if you're not hunting you're in Times Square or a school, so uphold or remand for full fact finding.

    They also ignored Vermont being constitutional carry since a court decree in 1903.

    The full fact finding is a distraction in that NY will claim that there's some magical percentage of permit grants (based on good cause only) that is the line between constitutional and non-constitutional. The court simply isn't going to say, well if you approve 50% or more of permits you're GTG.
    The pre and post civil war state cases (almost all Southern states) pretty much found for a public carry right, only difference is some ruled that cheap pocket pistols were gangbanger instruments and didn't get protection. With Heller, I don't think those particular cases against concealable pistols are good law anymore.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    If Roberts is in the majority he gets to assign the opinion to whomever he wants.

    Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

    Only if the majority agree with him.

    If his opinion would give a shall-issue right to carry while on your own property, woods/hunting/fishing, and as the licensing official decides for populated areas, but Thomas gets the other four to agree that shall-issue means statewide carry as the citizen chooses to exercise their right and no licensing official discretion, then Roberts is out in the cold (with a concurring or dissenting opinion) and Thomas has the controlling majority opinion.

    Barrett is the toss up. Do we get a Roberts/Barrett vs Thomas/Alito/Kavanaugh/Gorsuch plurality (maybe R/K/B vs T/A/G, but I doubt it based on Heller II), or a Thomas majority with Roberts whining.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,144
    Agree. Fact finding must include the fact that people have been told NO WAY, NEVER for so long, all but the well connected (political, famous, employees by political or famous, or big business interests) have stopped applying or almost all… suppression.

    The full fact finding is a distraction in that NY will claim that there's some magical percentage of permit grants (based on good cause only) that is the line between constitutional and non-constitutional. The court simply isn't going to say, well if you approve 50% or more of permits you're GTG.
    The pre and post civil war state cases (almost all Southern states) pretty much found for a public carry right, only difference is some ruled that cheap pocket pistols were gangbanger instruments and didn't get protection. With Heller, I don't think those particular cases against concealable pistols are good law anymore.
     
    Last edited:

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Line in Heller I found while trying to cross reference it against the respondent's brief:

    "It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense."

    The respondents seem like they're throwing spaghetti on the wall, using text, history, and tradition, or intermediate scrutiny, or a newspaper can't prove the legislature was racist, or the English were disarmed, or carrying a gun itself is causing terror, or if you're not hunting you're in Times Square or a school, so uphold or remand for full fact finding.

    They also ignored Vermont being constitutional carry since a court decree in 1903.

    The respondents are not randomly selecting things in hopes that something will stick. They are selectively demonstrating that text, history, and tradition (our sides argument) can be used to demonstrate something exactly opposite of our sides arguments. It is a good way to blunt our argument. It is even more effective than it should be because our side does not directly put those parts of text, history, and tradition into perspective.

    NY is not arguing that you can't use arms for self-defense. They are arguing that you cannot use particular arms in particular places. Namely you cannot use those historically prohibited arms in public places.

    They want full fact finding because they know the lower courts will defer to the legislature over this issue and that our side can't articulate a proper argument as to why that is wrong.

    The full fact finding is a distraction in that NY will claim that there's some magical percentage of permit grants (based on good cause only) that is the line between constitutional and non-constitutional. The court simply isn't going to say, well if you approve 50% or more of permits you're GTG.
    The pre and post civil war state cases (almost all Southern states) pretty much found for a public carry right, only difference is some ruled that cheap pocket pistols were gangbanger instruments and didn't get protection. With Heller, I don't think those particular cases against concealable pistols are good law anymore.

    The problem is that there is not a big difference between concealable pistols and those that were historically prohibited. NY is counting on the fact that it is hard to distinguish between the two. Our side had not really addressed the question presented as to why concealed carry should be allowed given the historical prohibition.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Kavanaugh is a cuck and will follow Roberts.

    Based on this term, Kavanaugh and Robert do vote together 94% of the time (highest similarity between justices, see https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/)

    The problem is that Kavanaugh is in the majority 97% of the time while Roberts is in the majority 91% of the time. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/07/...onservative-majority-is-dominant-but-divided/

    Kavanaugh is not really following Roberts.

    Based on Kavanaugh's concurrence in NYSRPA v NYC, and dissents in Rogers and Heller II, I suspect he is more pro gun than Roberts.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The respondents are not randomly selecting things in hopes that something will stick. They are selectively demonstrating that text, history, and tradition (our sides argument) can be used to demonstrate something exactly opposite of our sides arguments. It is a good way to blunt our argument. It is even more effective than it should be because our side does not directly put those parts of text, history, and tradition into perspective.

    NY is not arguing that you can't use arms for self-defense. They are arguing that you cannot use particular arms in particular places. Namely you cannot use those historically prohibited arms in public places.

    They want full fact finding because they know the lower courts will defer to the legislature over this issue and that our side can't articulate a proper argument as to why that is wrong.



    The problem is that there is not a big difference between concealable pistols and those that were historically prohibited. NY is counting on the fact that it is hard to distinguish between the two. Our side had not really addressed the question presented as to why concealed carry should be allowed given the historical prohibition.

    This would seem to be a non-starter. Almost all pistols today are concealable, including presumably the ones at issue in Heller and McDonald. People simply don't carry the horseman's pistols or army-navy repeaters anymore, which were the only ones that got protection in the cases NY wants to rely on.
    Their arguments want to build up a boogeyman of concealed carry, yet they choose concealed carry over open carry.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Based on this term, Kavanaugh and Robert do vote together 94% of the time (highest similarity between justices, see https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/)

    The problem is that Kavanaugh is in the majority 97% of the time while Roberts is in the majority 91% of the time. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/07/...onservative-majority-is-dominant-but-divided/

    Kavanaugh is not really following Roberts.

    Based on Kavanaugh's concurrence in NYSRPA v NYC, and dissents in Rogers and Heller II, I suspect he is more pro gun than Roberts.
    Yes. We really don't know much about Roberts' positions other than his questions in orals of Heller & McDonald and the fact he signed onto those opinions. But he's been completely silent on the issue otherwise.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,483
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom