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!
  • delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,146
    So, to paraphrase the process for getting a concealed carry permit in NJNYHIetc is:

    Apply locally, pay, get rejected, spend for lawyers to appeal for every court from local/state, through federal courts/districts, loosing at every turn over the course of 9 years, in the case of HIvYoung.

    Appeal to the Supreme Court, when they take the case… say… ok, we’ll give mr young, or in this case the NJ guy a permit. And ask that the case be dismissed.

    All this to get a 5 year permit. When the permit expires, if the guy is still alive, he can restart the multi year and $$$ process all over again.

    If you ask the politician in NYNJHI, the system is functioning exactly as designed. Feature, not a bug.

    /rant my apologies… and not aimed at you! Just observing. And agreeing. I think.

    press1280,

    Some lawyers will say that a party can “moot” a case, but only a Court can make a binding determination that a petitioner’s claim (i.e., pending litigation) is (1) “resolved” and only then can the claim be said, in a strictly legal sense (2) “therefore moot.”*

    As indicated above (post # 474) my guess is N.Y.’s lawyers will recommend that an attempt be made to have the court “moot” the case. Any recommendation will be confidential. N.Y.’s politicians may (or may not) take the advice . . . you have pointed out some of the considerations.

    Regards
    Jack

    *“Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule had changed is therefore moot.”
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf page 1

    "Because Federal Courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy) legal actions cannot be brought or continued after the matter at issue has been resolved, leaving no live dispute for a court to resolve. In such a case, the matter is said to be "moot". For Supreme Court decisions focusing on mootness, see, e.g., Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) and Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)."
     

    wjackcooper

    Active Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    delaware_export

    The Court’s question is:

    “Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

    Seems to me “the State’s denial,” based on not accepting “self-defense” as “proper cause” “for concealed-carry licenses” is a clear violation of the 2A and that any attempt by N.Y. to have the Court “moot” the case would necessarily include: (1) That pending “self-defense” applications be approved and (2) Changing the State’s license process to “self-defense” is “proper cause” requiring “shall-issue.” (see post 474)

    Only then might the Court determine the case to be “therefore moot.”

    If the five Conservative Justices had intended to let “no proper cause,” or “no particular need” remain intact . . . there was no reason for a cert grant. No “right” to “carry” is already law in N.Y.

    Regards
    Jack
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,146
    I gotcha. I wasn’t aiming at you, just observing, with just a touch of sarcasm on what I think the states I mention will try to do. Including NY.

    Ya know, we have months until the first possible hearing, and probably just about a year until a ruling. And lots of idle time for amateurs like me to ask questions. Observe. Sarcas.

    I Appreciate your explanation.

    If they are required to issue, it’ll be interesting to see where they would go.

    Weekly permits
    $1m application fee
    Weekly renewed training certs

    General distrust of .gov here.

    delaware_export

    The Court’s question is:

    “Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

    Seems to me “the State’s denial,” based on not accepting “self-defense” as “proper cause” “for concealed-carry licenses” is a clear violation of the 2A and that any attempt by N.Y. to have the Court “moot” the case would necessarily include: (1) That pending “self-defense” applications be approved and (2) Changing the State’s license process to “self-defense” is “proper cause” requiring “shall-issue.” (see post 474)

    Only then might the Court determine the case to be “therefore moot.”

    If the five Conservative Justices had intended to let “no proper cause,” or “no particular need” remain intact . . . there was no reason for a cert grant. No “right” to “carry” is already law in N.Y.

    Regards
    Jack
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Not on October’s argument list

    They requested a second extension
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0749395_FINAL Letter re Briefing Schedule.pdf

    This extension indicates that they would allow a November argument schedule.

    The NYSPRA brief has been officially submitted.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP....13 FINAL NYSRPA v. Corlett Opening Brief.pdf

    There is also a joint appendix and two amicus briefs;
    Alabama Center for Law and Liberty
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...09171639308_Bruen ACLL Amicus Brief pdf-a.pdf
    and Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...906355_20-843-Law Professors-Amicus Brief.pdf

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html
     

    rob

    DINO Extraordinaire
    Oct 11, 2010
    3,099
    Augusta, GA
    Don't worry. The libs will pack the court long before this is decided.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    They requested a second extension
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0749395_FINAL Letter re Briefing Schedule.pdf

    This extension indicates that they would allow a November argument schedule.

    The NYSPRA brief has been officially submitted.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP....13 FINAL NYSRPA v. Corlett Opening Brief.pdf

    There is also a joint appendix and two amicus briefs;
    Alabama Center for Law and Liberty
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...09171639308_Bruen ACLL Amicus Brief pdf-a.pdf
    and Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...906355_20-843-Law Professors-Amicus Brief.pdf

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

    Thanks, some very good reads on early reading of the text/history of #2A…
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    The amicus for National African American Gun Association, written by Stephen Halbrook, was a very interesting read with a ton of Reconstruction history I was not aware of. Many important figures from that time argued for, and passed, laws to protect the ability of freedmen to carry arms, which were then ignored during Jim Crow.

    Six more briefs were filed today:
    -The Buckeye Institute
    -Representative Claudia Tenney and 175 Additional Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (Tenney is from NY)
    -Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups
    -Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    - The DC Project Foundation; Operation Blazing Sword—Pink Pistols; Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
    -Patrick J. Charles (historian in support of neither party, also did the same in NYSRPA v NYC)
     

    Decoy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2007
    4,927
    Dystopia
    Cruz and 24 Senate Republicans file amicus brief defending Second Amendment right to carry

    Sen. Ted Cruz and two dozen Senate Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, filed an amicus brief Tuesday in a Second Amendment case the Supreme Court is set to hear this fall, arguing that New York gun law violates the right to bear arms under the Constitution.

    Cruz and his GOP colleagues filed a brief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which the Supreme Court granted cert for in April.

    The high court, in its October 2021 term, is set to consider whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    46 Amicus Briefs
    Jul 09 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty filed.
    Jul 13 2021 Brief amici curiae of Professors of Second Amendment Law, et al. filed.
    Jul 14 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institutional Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
    Jul 14 2021 Brief amici curiae of Bay Colony Weapons Collectors, Inc. filed.
    Jul 15 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. filed.
    Jul 15 2021 Brief amici curiae of Italo-American Jurists and Attorneys filed.
    Jul 16 2021 Brief amicus curiae of National African American Gun Association, Inc. filed.
    Jul 16 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms filed.
    Jul 16 2021 Amicus brief of George K. Young Jr. submitted.
    Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of The Buckeye Institute submitted.
    Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Representative Claudia Tenney and 175 Additional Members of the U.S. House of Representatives submitted.
    Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups submitted.
    Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms submitted.
    Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of The DC Project Foundation; Operation Blazing Sword—Pink Pistols; Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership submitted.
    Jul 19 2021 Amicus brief of Patrick J. Charles submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of J. Joel Alicea submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Second Amendment Foundation, et al. submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of American Constitutional Rights Union submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Cato Institute submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Firearms Policy Coalition and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of American Center for Law and Justice submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of California Gun Rights Foundation submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of William English, Ph.D. and The Center for Human Liberty submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, et al. submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of National Foundation for Gun Rights and National Association for Gun Rights submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Independent Institute submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, Marsha Blackburn, John Boozman, Mike Braun, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, Kevin Cramer, Mike Crapo, Steve Daines, Josh Hawley, John Hoeven, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, James Lankford, Mike Lee, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, Jerry Moran, Jim Risch, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Thom Tillis submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Madison Society Foundation, Inc. submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Crime Prevention Resource Center submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Governor Greg Abbott submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Second Amendment Law Professors submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of FPC American Victory Fund, Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, Orange County Gun Owners, Riverside County Gun Owners, California County Gun Owners, and Knife Rights Foundation, Inc. submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Lambert Henry, Russell Davenport, and Peter Fusco submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of THE LEAGUE FOR SPORTSMEN, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DEFENSE submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Korte Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Korte Tree Care submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Heller Foundation submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of State of Arizona submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Buckeye Firearms Association submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Goldwater Institute submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Rutherford Institute submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of The Liberal Gun Club, Inc. submitted.
    Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Black Guns Matter submitted.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,946
    Messages
    7,259,815
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom