New York rifle and Pistol case: what's next?

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!
  • Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    What’s next?

    The following cases being decided as well, while not all are on hold pending this case, most are.
    31 total cases pending in our federal courts over various issues of Gun Permitting and Carrying in public.

    Suffice it to say this case will impact to some degree every single one of these cases. Thus in most cases overturning many aspects of many of these state laws.
    Once this case is decided an the opinion is released, it won’t take very long for laws to be invalidated around the country. It won’t be an instant process. But the at least the ball is rolling.

    Most of the cases are on Hold or pending. They are as follows.

    1 other case pending with SCOTUS

    young v Hawaii, 9th, Hawaii, on hold

    Circuit courts 6 cases

    2 for California 9th
    Nichols v Newsome - On hold
    Flanagan v Bonita - On Hold

    4th Circuit Maryland 2 cases
    Call v Jones, On Hold
    Maryland Shall Issue v Hogan, On Hold

    2nd Circuit, New York, 2 cases
    Tavernas V NYC Oral Argumnts held, Decesion on Hold
    Sibley v Watches , on but pending

    In The District courts there are an additional 23 cases pending or on hold

    7 in the 2nd Circuit, all for New York and NYC

    6 in the 3rd Circuit, 5 for New Jersey, 1 for PA

    4 in the 7th, All Illinois

    1 in the 8th for Minnesota

    3 in the 9th, 2 for California, 1 for Hawaii

    2 in the D.C. Circuit
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I agree with you 100% however it will of course take a few legal battles sadly to force some states to do so.

    Most other states are slowly jumping on the bandwagon of reciprocity for all other states by either passing constitutional carry, or recognizing all other permits.

    South Carolina for example still has a constitutional carry bill that’s still alive, as well as a bill to recognize all other states LTC’s

    Forcing reciprocity through the courts will be a tough one at this point, unless it's a pinpoint strike on each state and not a blanket case asking for a state to recognize all other state's permits.
    For example, some states have dropped reciprocity with others due to the fact those states issued CCWs to 18-20 Y/O. Well, that's kind of stupid considering they could just not recognize those particular permits. That would seem to pass even rational basis scrutiny.
    In other cases like CA & NY they could be sued on an and/or basis; make non-resident CCWs available and/or grant reciprocity. I doubt those states take the reciprocity but if they really don't want to deal with it it's still an option. SC & CO (specifically Denver) may opt for reciprocity though.
    I think Congress is probably going to be the way through on reciprocity. The NYSRPA opinion will help set things in motion.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Forcing reciprocity through the courts will be a tough one at this point, unless it's a pinpoint strike on each state and not a blanket case asking for a state to recognize all other state's permits.
    For example, some states have dropped reciprocity with others due to the fact those states issued CCWs to 18-20 Y/O. Well, that's kind of stupid considering they could just not recognize those particular permits. That would seem to pass even rational basis scrutiny.
    In other cases like CA & NY they could be sued on an and/or basis; make non-resident CCWs available and/or grant reciprocity. I doubt those states take the reciprocity but if they really don't want to deal with it it's still an option. SC & CO (specifically Denver) may opt for reciprocity though.
    I think Congress is probably going to be the way through on reciprocity. The NYSRPA opinion will help set things in motion.

    I don’t understand how this is going to be difficult. I have a civil right to carry in the US…how can another State deprive me of the right and survive the legal challenge?
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    I don’t understand how this is going to be difficult. I have a civil right to carry in the US…how can another State deprive me of the right and survive the legal challenge?

    Currently, the court(s) have not recognised "bear". After Heller, they only recognised "keep".
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,530
    Columbia
    I thought it was 2 years for first renewal and then every 3 there after?

    That being said, yeah I think everyone should be required to recertify for a driver’s license test. Fail it and you’ve got 45 days to retake and pass it or your license gets pulled.

    Call it once a decade till 65. Then every 5 years after that. Probably save a lot of lives. A heck of a lot more than CCW license renewals every couple of years ever would or could. Also if we want to get in to doctors reporting on gun owners. We should make it mandatory that doctors report to state MVAs if a patient has a health condition that would disqualify them from driving.
    Yes because what we need is more big brother….:sad20:
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Forcing reciprocity through the courts will be a tough one at this point, unless it's a pinpoint strike on each state and not a blanket case asking for a state to recognize all other state's permits.
    For example, some states have dropped reciprocity with others due to the fact those states issued CCWs to 18-20 Y/O. Well, that's kind of stupid considering they could just not recognize those particular permits. That would seem to pass even rational basis scrutiny.
    In other cases like CA & NY they could be sued on an and/or basis; make non-resident CCWs available and/or grant reciprocity. I doubt those states take the reciprocity but if they really don't want to deal with it it's still an option. SC & CO (specifically Denver) may opt for reciprocity though.
    I think Congress is probably going to be the way through on reciprocity. The NYSRPA opinion will help set things in motion.

    I know exactly what you mean. For example.. as another example…

    washington State will recognize a Utah Permit, but not their professional permit, as the professional permit is issued to those between 18-21.

    Washington State won’t recognize Texas LTC simply because we issue a LTC to 18-21 if they are in the military, Or if they have a protective order against someone.

    My personal opinion is While a state having reciprocity or constitutional carry is the ideal choice, I am happy if they allow one to have a non-resident LTC. Preferably one that can be done through the mail/online with NRA instruction for training.

    I have 11 LTC’s. 3 that cover 4 states that don’t recognize a Texas LTC. (Illinois, Connecticut, Washington)

    Just My opinion, but I do think this case will lead to more states either opening up and having more reciprocity, or at least open them up to issuing Non-Resident LTC’s.

    The court cases will be very pin pointed towards those few states as violating both the 2A and 14th for not allowing US Citizens who have a right to visit for business or pleasure another state the right to self defense and equal protection under the law. It violates the 14th by allowing some US Citizens to carry, but not other Law abiding US citizens simply because they reside in another state.

    Just like what happened many years ago in Georgia, where the Georgia Supreme Court said that the state legislature could ban either open carry, or conceal carry but can’t ban both at the same time.

    The court case will push the issue that a state should either allow reciprocity with all states, or allow someone to apply for a non-resident.

    Paul Clement even hinted to the Supreme Court, that a state should either have a “shall issue” LTC for open carry or conceal carry, as long as it’s one or the other and not ban both.

    So while ideally it should be constitutional carry, followed by reciprocity, then shall issue of non-resident. Any one of those is still better then None of the above for a non resident Law abiding US citizen.

    One last note… there are at least 5 cases in federal courts over the under 21 having a gun. If those make it to the Supreme Court, and they find in our favor. Then it for a state to refuse reciprocity based on one being under 21 won’t be an issue anymore either.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    I thought it was 2 years for first renewal and then every 3 there after?

    That being said, yeah I think everyone should be required to recertify for a driver’s license test. Fail it and you’ve got 45 days to retake and pass it or your license gets pulled.

    Call it once a decade till 65. Then every 5 years after that. Probably save a lot of lives. A heck of a lot more than CCW license renewals every couple of years ever would or could. Also if we want to get in to doctors reporting on gun owners. We should make it mandatory that doctors report to state MVAs if a patient has a health condition that would disqualify them from driving.

    That would be challenged under the HIPPA act.

    If Doctors started to be required to report my medical health condition to the state. I would stop seeing the doctor, or go to one in a different state.

    There would be many doctors, making money under the table for seeing patients “ anonymously“

    The way the system is now, many people aren’t getting th mental healthcare treatment they need because they are afraid the state will somehow find out and revoke, suspend or not issue them their LTC. Even though their condition isn’t or won’t be an issue.

    We don’t want those to far gone from having firearms, but on the other hand we want people to get the help they need too.

    At least in Texas… if you get mental health care voluntarily. No one knows. Records are sealed and destroyed. And you can keep your firearms and your LTC.

    If you get mental healthcare involuntary by being legally committed that’s another story.

    So it becomes an an incentive to get help and treatment before it is to late and becomes an issue where someone else steps in and forces the issue.
     

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    I don’t understand how this is going to be difficult. I have a civil right to carry in the US…how can another State deprive me of the right and survive the legal challenge?

    Exactly. Obergefell v. Hodges (Gay marriage) already set the precedent for national reciprocity on equal protection and due process grounds. It’s not even a 2A question any more if the decision in NYSRP is favorable to us. Once bear is recognized, reciprocity should be a slam dunk if we are to be logically consistent (not guaranteeing the lower courts or even this SOCTUS will be).
     
    Last edited:

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I don’t understand how this is going to be difficult. I have a civil right to carry in the US…how can another State deprive me of the right and survive the legal challenge?

    I just don't see the courts mandating National reciprocity right now. They'll howl about other states' training requirements (or lack thereof) or "lax" permit requirements posing a threat to their citizens.
    You'll have an avenue to carry in all states if you're willing to jump through hoops and get additional permits. And perhaps a lawsuit gets partial reciprocity, specifically those states that recognize FL permits for FL residents but not MD residents.
    I get where you're coming from but that may take some time and I think getting it through Congress is the easier route (of course when the numbers are in our favor).
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    I just don't see the courts mandating National reciprocity right now. They'll howl about other states' training requirements (or lack thereof) or "lax" permit requirements posing a threat to their citizens.
    You'll have an avenue to carry in all states if you're willing to jump through hoops and get additional permits. And perhaps a lawsuit gets partial reciprocity, specifically those states that recognize FL permits for FL residents but not MD residents.
    I get where you're coming from but that may take some time and I think getting it through Congress is the easier route (of course when the numbers are in our favor).

    If I didn’t allready know of at least 4 suits getting readied to be filed once this opinion on this case is released I would agree with you.

    However, These 4 suits will be directed at Hawaii, California, New York, and Oregon. Those 4 states neither allow you to apply for a non resident, nor do they have reciprocity for any other states.

    One may also be filed against Illinois as well.

    Oregon and Illinois though may have a slight issue in winning, because Illinois allows 5 states to apply for a non resident, but has no reciprocity. Oregon, will allow those from neighboring states to apply providing they have some reason to be in Oregon.

    Then again those two states might be the highest risk as they would be violating one’s 14th ammendment even more and have a harder time explaining to the courts why they allow some states but not all.

    Hawaii, California and New York don’t recognize anyones LtC and they don’t do NR LTC’s either. So like I said courts may say you have to allow one or the other, don’t have to allow both, but can’t deny both either. Just like Georgia Supreme Court did years ago with open/conceal carry. State had to allow one or the other. But could not ban both.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    If I didn’t allready know of at least 4 suits getting readied to be filed once this opinion on this case is released I would agree with you.

    However, These 4 suits will be directed at Hawaii, California, New York, and Oregon. Those 4 states neither allow you to apply for a non resident, nor do they have reciprocity for any other states.

    One may also be filed against Illinois as well.

    Oregon and Illinois though may have a slight issue in winning, because Illinois allows 5 states to apply for a non resident, but has no reciprocity. Oregon, will allow those from neighboring states to apply providing they have some reason to be in Oregon.


    Then again those two states might be the highest risk as they would be violating one’s 14th ammendment even more and have a harder time explaining to the courts why they allow some states but not all.

    Hawaii, California and New York don’t recognize anyones LtC and they don’t do NR LTC’s either. So like I said courts may say you have to allow one or the other, don’t have to allow both, but can’t deny both either. Just like Georgia Supreme Court did years ago with open/conceal carry. State had to allow one or the other. But could not ban both.

    These suits should succeed. For IL and OR just need plaintiffs from states that aren't eligible to apply.
     

    MigraineMan

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 9, 2011
    19,109
    Frederick County

    Attachments

    • mlp_gouge_eyeballs_300x225.png
      mlp_gouge_eyeballs_300x225.png
      19.4 KB · Views: 145

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    I just don't see the courts mandating National reciprocity right now. They'll howl about other states' training requirements (or lack thereof) or "lax" permit requirements posing a threat to their citizens.
    You'll have an avenue to carry in all states if you're willing to jump through hoops and get additional permits. And perhaps a lawsuit gets partial reciprocity, specifically those states that recognize FL permits for FL residents but not MD residents.
    I get where you're coming from but that may take some time and I think getting it through Congress is the easier route (of course when the numbers are in our favor).


    this.

    States (and DC) will say that they can require training in the peculiar laws of self defense in that jurisdiction, along with training on where the sensitive places are. What you are allowed to do in FL and TX is not the same as what you can lawfully do in a duty to retreat state like MD. The counter argument of course is that hunting training is almost universally recognized, for example the TX online course counts to a MD hunting license (and apparently HQL), while hunting and game laws are completely different. A lot of reciprocity we see (like Drivers licenses) is not through courts forcing the issue, its through state compacts and uniform agreement on training standards. Congress could impose universal training requirements, but would we really want that? I cant see any state thats now constitutional carry wanting Congress to impose standards.

    States may be forced to offer non resident permits, and also be forced to cut training some like 4 hours, but I am skeptical courts will force full reciprocity. If you want to carry in NYC, the 2nd circuit will say "gee we dont want a lot of vigilantes from the south, you need to prove you know the law before you carry" and allow NYC specific training. And btw NY gun laws are byzantine, so 16 hours seems appropriate. :lol2:

    I am not saying i agree with this, but asking CCW permit holders to know the law before they carry seems like an ask a judge will have a hard time turning down.
     

    Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    I am not saying i agree with this, but asking CCW permit holders to know the law before they carry seems like an ask a judge will have a hard time turning down.

    Cannot active / retired police carry widely without knowing the particular carry restrictions of the states they are transiting? How does the LEOSA address this issue?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,473
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom