NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

Hyper-W said:

So correct me if I am wrong here but SCOTUS is in session (for lack of a better term) from September 27th to June 27th.
Should we then expect a decision by June 27th?

Click to expand...

It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

Link

Decoy said:

It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

Click to expand...

Nevermind. Replied to wrong person.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Let's not start celebrating yet. Someone could die, even if they rule in our favor it might not go as far as we want, etc..

kcbrown said:

I am in absolute agreement with you with respect to licensing requirements.

Licensing's only legitimate purpose is to deal with a collision of rights, like you'd get with a parade making use of the streets. That interferes with right to travel, and so it's a legitimate thing to require a permit for that.

Carrying a firearm simultaneously is a Constitutionally-protected right and interferes with nobody's rights. As such, it's illegitimate to demand a permit for it. It doesn't matter if the government wants to weed out criminals from carrying guns. Criminals that are intent on committing crimes will do so irrespective of the law, thus making a permit system worthless against them, and "criminals" that are not intent on committing crimes are irrelevant. End result: there is no logical justification for a permit system covering carry of firearms, and that's pretty much that. Lack of logical justification means no true rational basis, which means it must fail a Constitutional challenge.

Click to expand...

Carrying is not necessarily a constitutionally protected right. There has been a historical prohibition on concealed carry so a blanket statement that carrying is protected is false. Carrying certainly can interfere with someone's rights if they do it for nefarious purposes.

Laws don't prevent crime, but they do allow the government to prosecute it. There may not be a lot of benefit to a permit system, but it is certainly not worthless either.

It is because of these limitations that make it very difficult to demonstrate that some type of licensing is unreasonable.

While I think a number of these licensing/permit requirements are unreasonable, I don't believe you will ever be able to justify no licensing or permits due to how the government's police power interest intersect with the right.

jcutonilli said:

There may not be a lot of benefit to a permit system, but it is certainly not worthless either.

.

Click to expand...

Please name me one benefit from the permitting system other than revenue generation.

Nobody

Nobody said:

Please name me one benefit from the permitting system other than revenue generation.

Nobody

Click to expand...

It makes it a little bit easier to determine if someone is a prohibited person.

jcutonilli said:

It makes it a little bit easier to determine if someone is a prohibited person.

Click to expand...

Prohibited people don't get permits.

They just carry illegally if they want to.

Try again.

Nobody

Nobody said:

Prohibited people don't get permits.

They just carry illegally if they want to.

Try again.

Nobody

Click to expand...

I never claimed that a permit prevents a prohibited person from carrying.

The claim is that "it makes it a little bit easier to determine if someone is a prohibited person." If they have a permit then you know they are not a prohibited person.

jcutonilli said:

It makes it a little bit easier to determine if someone is a prohibited person.

Click to expand...

I get pulled over for speeding, cop looks at my ID, but then he calls it in to verify that it's good and I have no warrants.

Prohibited persons should have a record that will pop up. We live in an age of instant records checks. Permits are not useful as long as you have ID.

JMangle said:

I get pulled over for speeding, cop looks at my ID, but then he calls it in to verify that it's good and I have no warrants.

Prohibited persons should have a record that will pop up. We live in an age of instant records checks. Permits are not useful as long as you have ID.

Click to expand...

There is no need to do a record check because the permit has already done that. There still is some usefulness to a permit.

jcutonilli said:

There is no need to do a record check because the permit has already done that. There still is some usefulness to a permit.

Click to expand...

Can you give me an example?

I guess having been in a Constitutional Carry state so long that's my mindset. And being someone who is often pulled over (Mega dark tint, including windshield, for medical reasons) the cops down here don't care one bit - I have a permit and they've never asked for it. They just want to see my tint exemption certificate.

I only bother to have a permit because then "no gun" signs don't apply.

Once you embrace your rights as the rights they are, any extra hoops and red tape become repugnant.

jcutonilli said:

There is no need to do a record check because the permit has already done that. There still is some usefulness to a permit.

Click to expand...

Permit doesn't reflect a crime committed after receiving it. Record is always updated.

JMangle said:

Can you give me an example?

I guess having been in a Constitutional Carry state so long that's my mindset. And being someone who is often pulled over (Mega dark tint, including windshield, for medical reasons) the cops down here don't care one bit - I have a permit and they've never asked for it. They just want to see my tint exemption certificate.

I only bother to have a permit because then "no gun" signs don't apply.

Once you embrace your rights as the rights they are, any extra hoops and red tape become repugnant.

Click to expand...

Some place that has a "no gun" sign and wants to validate that you have a permit.

jcutonilli said:

Carrying is not necessarily a constitutionally protected right.

Click to expand...

So "bear" means from the dining room to the kitchen, then, does it?

The Supreme Court was explicit about the meaning of "bear" in the 2nd Amendment. And the 2nd Amendment is explicit that there is a right to it, and that furthermore that said right shall not be infringed.

The text is plain in its meaning. The only thing that's left open to question is the specific scope of the right. The Supreme Court was explicit about that as well: Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have at their adoption. The right to carry might not encompass certain places, or certain times, etc., depending on what those who adopted the right understood of it, but it is there, plain as day in the 2nd Amendment itself.

So yes, it is necessarily a Constitutionally protected right.

There has been a historical prohibition on concealed carry so a blanket statement that carrying is protected is false. Carrying certainly can interfere with someone's rights if they do it for nefarious purposes.

Click to expand...

The historical prohibition on concealed carry had as its basis the idea that only criminals would entertain such a notion. Modern experience blows that notion straight out of the water, and leaves such blanket prohibitions without a valid rational basis.

Carrying cannot interfere with someone's rights even if it is done for nefarious purposes. Brandishing can. Using the firearm can. But mere carrying cannot. Not as the Supreme Court defined it, at any rate.

Laws don't prevent crime, but they do allow the government to prosecute it. There may not be a lot of benefit to a permit system, but it is certainly not worthless either.

Click to expand...

Really?

Explain the worth of a carry permit system, then. I've already explained the logic for how a carry permit system does nothing to prevent criminals from carrying firearms. What possible other compelling purpose can there be for it, that makes its worth greater than its cost? Training? That can be mandated independently of any imposition on the right itself. We already do that for speech, after all, seeing how education is compulsory.

And it is illegitimate to pass a law solely for the purpose of manufacturing more criminals.

It is because of these limitations that make it very difficult to demonstrate that some type of licensing is unreasonable.

Click to expand...

For a licensing regime to be reasonable, it has to have a truly valid reason for existing that exceeds the costs it imposes. And the courts have already established that mere imposition upon a Constitutional right is a very high cost by itself. But that just gets you past the hurdle of "reasonable". Being "reasonable" is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to imposing upon a Constitutionally-protected right. And that presumes that imposition is permissible in the first place, something that the wording of the Constitution puts in grave doubt as regards the right to arms.

We've come to accept that Constitutional rights can be almost arbitrarily imposed upon by government if only the correct magic words of justification are uttered by the government in the correct way. That way lies the destruction of all rights.

While I think a number of these licensing/permit requirements are unreasonable, I don't believe you will ever be able to justify no licensing or permits due to how the government's police power interest intersect with the right.

Click to expand...

Police powers do not legitimately extend arbitrarily in the face of a Constitutionally-protected right. The entire point of the Constitutional protection is to place that which the right encompasses beyond the reach of the government. That's what "shall not be infringed" means when it is uttered by the supreme law of the land. It is certainly reasonable to insist that the scope of the right is limited, and show what limitations were understood to be in place by those who adopted the right (which, here, is the founding generation, i.e. the people who drafted and ratified the 2nd Amendment). But once you establish that the activity controlled by the law in question falls within that understanding of the right, "shall not be infringed" becomes operative, and its proper meaning, as with the meaning of all written works, is that which the authors intended or, if that cannot be established, that which the authors' audience understood.

jcutonilli said:

I never claimed that a permit prevents a prohibited person from carrying.

The claim is that "it makes it a little bit easier to determine if someone is a prohibited person." If they have a permit then you know they are not a prohibited person.

Click to expand...

You don't need a permit system for that. A driver's license can indicate prohibited status.

Furthermore, a permit creates a "guilty until proven innocent" standard, which is an anathema to our ordered system of liberty.

A permit is something you get for a privilege, not a right, unless it is for some kind of exercise of a right that would otherwise interfere with another right.

kcbrown said:

So "bear" means from the dining room to the kitchen, then, does it?

The Supreme Court was explicit about the meaning of "bear" in the 2nd Amendment. And the 2nd Amendment is explicit that there is a right to it, and that furthermore that said right shall not be infringed.

The text is plain in its meaning. The only thing that's left open to question is the specific scope of the right. The Supreme Court was explicit about that as well: Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have at their adoption. The right to carry might not encompass certain places, or certain times, etc., depending on what those who adopted the right understood of it, but it is there, plain as day in the 2nd Amendment itself.

So yes, it is necessarily a Constitutionally protected right.




The historical prohibition on concealed carry had as its basis the notion that only criminals would entertain such a notion. Modern experience blows that notion straight out of the water, and leaves such blanket prohibitions without a valid rational basis.

Carrying cannot interfere with someone's rights even if it is done for nefarious purposes. Brandishing can. Using the firearm can. But mere carrying cannot. Not as the Supreme Court defined it, at any rate.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to grasp the concept that "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have at their adoption."

There was no unlimited right to carry whatever, wherever, and for however you want. One of the restrictions on carry was concealed carry. The historical understanding for why concealed carry was prohibited is to prevent arms from being used for "nefarious purposes". Today one should be allowed to conceal carry because it is not exclusively associated with "nefarious purposes", but that does not change the fact that carrying for "nefarious purposes" is still prohibited because that is what was historically prohibited. Heller associated "bear" with carrying for a particular purpose, and the historical prohibition was on "nefarious purposes" so carrying for "nefarious purposes" today is prohibited because that is the historical understanding.

Really?

Explain the worth of a carry permit system, then. I've already explained the logic for how a carry permit system does nothing to prevent criminals from carrying firearms. What possible other compelling purpose can there be for it, that makes its worth greater than its cost? Training? That can be mandated independently of any imposition on the right itself. We already do that for speech, after all, seeing how education is compulsory.

And it is illegitimate to pass a law solely for the purpose of manufacturing more criminals.




For a licensing regime to be reasonable, it has to have a truly valid reason for existing that exceeds the costs it imposes. And the courts have already established that mere imposition upon a Constitutional right is a very high cost by itself. But that just gets you past the hurdle of "reasonable". Being "reasonable" is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to imposing upon a Constitutionally-protected right. And that presumes that imposition is permissible in the first place, something that the wording of the Constitution puts in grave doubt as regards the right to arms.

We've come to accept that Constitutional rights can be almost arbitrarily imposed upon by government if only the correct magic words of justification are uttered by the government in the correct way. That way lies the destruction of all rights.




Police powers do not legitimately extend arbitrarily in the face of a Constitutionally-protected right. The entire point of the Constitutional protection is to place that which the right encompasses beyond the reach of the government. That's what "shall not be infringed" means when it is uttered by the supreme law of the land. It is certainly reasonable to insist that the scope of the right is limited, and show what limitations were understood to be in place by those who adopted the right (which, here, is the founding generation, i.e. the people who drafted and ratified the 2nd Amendment). But once you establish that the activity controlled by the law in question falls within that understanding of the right, "shall not be infringed" becomes operative, and its proper meaning, as with the meaning of all written works, is that which the authors intended or, if that cannot be established, that which the authors' audience understood.

Click to expand...

The carry permit is simply an extension on the "nefarious purposes" to make it easier to identify those that do not commit "nefarious" acts. It is consistent with the historical understanding of the right.

jcutonilli said:

You don't seem to grasp the concept that "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have at their adoption."

There was no unlimited right to carry whatever, wherever, and for however you want. One of the restrictions on carry was concealed carry. The historical understanding for why concealed carry was prohibited is to prevent arms from being used for "nefarious purposes". Today one should be allowed to conceal carry because it is not exclusively associated with "nefarious purposes", but that does not change the fact that carrying for "nefarious purposes" is still prohibited because that is what was historically prohibited. Heller associated "bear" with carrying for a particular purpose, and the historical prohibition was on "nefarious purposes" so carrying for "nefarious purposes" today is prohibited because that is the historical understanding.




The carry permit is simply an extension on the "nefarious purposes" to make it easier to identify those that do not commit "nefarious" acts. It is consistent with the historical understanding of the right.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't any police officer who stops someone determine on the spot whether they are a prohibited person?
And as far as the carrying for a "nefarious purpose", aren't there laws on the books already for carrying while committing a crime (transporting narcotics,exc.)?
So don't we sort of already have what you're saying without the actual permit?

AliasNeo07 said:

Let's not start celebrating yet. Someone could die, even if they rule in our favor it might not go as far as we want, etc..

Click to expand...

The issue will be can the good cause requirement be used to deny someone a permit. I'm not sure how that could be split down the middle. Perhaps they don't add much guidance otherwise, but by far this would be the most sweeping 2A decision to date.

This is what the left really thinks. I really don't care of the lefts thinking or how they feel. Sure they don't take my feeling into consideration.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...eyes-gun-laws-reach/ar-BB1g6jiG?ocid=msedgdhp

We’ve come so far to try to keep guns out of the hands of New Yorkers, particularly young people, and the Supreme Court, it looks like they’re working overtime to put guns right back in those hands,” de Blasio said Monday. “That really worries me.”

Click to expand...

Really??

press1280 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't any police officer who stops someone determine on the spot whether they are a prohibited person?
And as far as the carrying for a "nefarious purpose", aren't there laws on the books already for carrying while committing a crime (transporting narcotics,exc.)?
So don't we sort of already have what you're saying without the actual permit?

Click to expand...

I personally do not think a permit is needed to properly regulate carry, but I am not in charge.

The courts seems to allow reasonable restrictions (ie permits) when there is a police power interest involved. I think it will be difficult to demonstrate that permits are completely worthless.