NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[Bob A]

My supposition (4-syllable word for "guess") is they'll use an amicus if it supports the decision they want to hand down.

 

[press1280]

My supposition (4-syllable word for "guess") is they'll use an amicus if it supports the decision they want to hand down.

My guess as well. If Clement hasn’t covered it I’m sure the dozens of amici have covered every possible angle. As long as amici aren’t contradicting plaintiffs message then it should be GTG

 

[Kharn]

An arrest isn't required for standing. Denial of a license qualifies as an injuiry.

And that's why it's DC v Heller instead of DC v Parker.
The other six plaintiffs had not applied, knowing it was hopeless, while Heller had applied and been denied. So Heller alone survived on standing.

 

[Kharn]

It depends on what you are asking for. It seems the plaintiffs are asking for the ability to carry concealed. They need to demonstrate that CCW is part of the right. If you don't, you set up Pertua.

Bliss seems to be more of an anomaly. The reasoning in Bliss suggests a more unlimited right compared to Heller's acknowledgement that it is not unlimited.

All that really need to be done is to point out the consistent reasoning in most/all of the concealed carry cases. They are really about banning the criminal use of unusual arms. This is consistent with dangerous and unusual pointed out by Heller. CCW is simply not considered unusual anymore. The dissent in Young figured this out. I don't understand why any of the other 2A lawyers can't figure this out.

They're asking for the ability to carry in the only way NY law allows.
NY state law says no one can carry openly, and the anointed few can carry concealed. There is no mechanism to seek a permanent exemption from the state ban on open carry. So they applied to carry concealed and were denied.

 

[jcutonilli]

Not to beat a dead horse but what a waste of the court's time to pull a Peruta knowing full well our side will be back (in fact Young's there right now) again for open carry. 2 judges are on record opposing Peruta and I don't see a majority either 1) Enforcing open carry over concealed OR 2) Ruling the 2A doesn't extend past the doorstep

I agree for the most part on Bliss, but the best case made for CCW is the fact no state outright bans it anymore, at least statutorily. That and when open carry is banned the state has made it's bed, now it's time to sleep in it. Amici have covered this. The LEO brief is all about stats on CCW licensees, exc. Now I don't know how the court views amici briefs vs the plaintiff/defendant briefs. If Clement doesn't bring it up but amici does, what does that mean?

While no one (other than SCOTUS) knows exactly why this case was chosen, I suspect that at least part of the reason was the dissent in Young providing a reasoned explanation as to why CCW is acceptable today. I see the reason they modified the question was to focus the arguments around why CCW is actually part of the right.

I don't think SCOTUS had any way to know that Clement (and other amici) would not really answer the question that they accepted. Now that the case has been argued the way it has, it certainly opens the possibility of a Peruta type opinion. I would like to think that is not going to happen based on the makeup of the Court. There are certainly other possible ways that SCOTUS can recognize the why CCW is actually part of the right. We will need to wait and see how SCOTUS addresses the issue of the historic prohibitions on CCW.

Amicus briefs certainly do provide additional insight into what ever issue the Court is examining. Heller acknowledges the fact that some of the amici have contributed insight into the cases. Most amici do not really contribute to additional insight and simply get brushed aside.

The problem with stats is that both sides have their favorite stats that purport to demonstrate what they claim is correct. No one has really articulated an argument as to how to determine which stats are correct. Heller dismissed a number of statistics because they believe the 2A takes certain policy choices off the table. Providing stats certainly does not hurt, but I am not sure they will really sway anyone.

 

[press1280]

While no one (other than SCOTUS) knows exactly why this case was chosen, I suspect that at least part of the reason was the dissent in Young providing a reasoned explanation as to why CCW is acceptable today. I see the reason they modified the question was to focus the arguments around why CCW is actually part of the right.

I don't think SCOTUS had any way to know that Clement (and other amici) would not really answer the question that they accepted. Now that the case has been argued the way it has, it certainly opens the possibility of a Peruta type opinion. I would like to think that is not going to happen based on the makeup of the Court. There are certainly other possible ways that SCOTUS can recognize the why CCW is actually part of the right. We will need to wait and see how SCOTUS addresses the issue of the historic prohibitions on CCW.

Amicus briefs certainly do provide additional insight into what ever issue the Court is examining. Heller acknowledges the fact that some of the amici have contributed insight into the cases. Most amici do not really contribute to additional insight and simply get brushed aside.

The problem with stats is that both sides have their favorite stats that purport to demonstrate what they claim is correct. No one has really articulated an argument as to how to determine which stats are correct. Heller dismissed a number of statistics because they believe the 2A takes certain policy choices off the table. Providing stats certainly does not hurt, but I am not sure they will really sway anyone.

They have the blueprint laid down in Wrenn. Although NY tries to argue that it is apples to oranges, we all know the DC scheme was the same; CCW-only, may issue.
As far as the stats go I agree they get twisted, mostly by the other side, although one big stat which can't be argued with is the overwhelming majority of states are shall issue at a minimum, and constitutional carry is one state away from becoming a plurality. This has to be taken into consideration.

 

[Kharn]

While no one (other than SCOTUS) knows exactly why this case was chosen, I suspect that at least part of the reason was the dissent in Young providing a reasoned explanation as to why CCW is acceptable today. I see the reason they modified the question was to focus the arguments around why CCW is actually part of the right.

I don't think SCOTUS had any way to know that Clement (and other amici) would not really answer the question that they accepted. Now that the case has been argued the way it has, it certainly opens the possibility of a Peruta type opinion. I would like to think that is not going to happen based on the makeup of the Court. There are certainly other possible ways that SCOTUS can recognize the why CCW is actually part of the right. We will need to wait and see how SCOTUS addresses the issue of the historic prohibitions on CCW.

Amicus briefs certainly do provide additional insight into what ever issue the Court is examining. Heller acknowledges the fact that some of the amici have contributed insight into the cases. Most amici do not really contribute to additional insight and simply get brushed aside.

The problem with stats is that both sides have their favorite stats that purport to demonstrate what they claim is correct. No one has really articulated an argument as to how to determine which stats are correct. Heller dismissed a number of statistics because they believe the 2A takes certain policy choices off the table. Providing stats certainly does not hurt, but I am not sure they will really sway anyone.

I think they modified the question to prevent another NYSRPA v NYC, it's now focused on previous conduct instead of allowing NY to moot the case at the 11th hour.

 

[delaware_export]

Is nyc trying the moot tactic again? Bearing arms had a story about reviving a dead permit request, after a denial in 2019, MAYBE to say it issued one…

See what you think.

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/08/26/nyc-playing-legal-games-with-gun-licenses-n49350

 

[press1280]

Is nyc trying the moot tactic again? Bearing arms had a story about reviving a dead permit request, after a denial in 2019, MAYBE to say it issued one…

See what you think.

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/08/26/nyc-playing-legal-games-with-gun-licenses-n49350

Perhaps although from a quick glance it deals with “suitablility” issues, not the “need” statute in this immediate case going to orals in November.

 

[777GSOTB]

An arrest isn't required for standing. Denial of a license qualifies as an injuiry.

That's funny, because the SCOTUS certainly didn't think so in Peruta, and there was absolutely no way to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to self defense outside the home. The court here, is most likely taking up the case because of the circuit split. I wish they would rule in the states favor, but don't think that will happen. When the court sides with the plaintiffs here, the state will just come up with other creative ways to minimize permit holders. Higher permit fees, insurance requirements and other restrictions like time and place, is what I see coming out of this.

 

[press1280]

That's funny, because the SCOTUS certainly didn't think so in Peruta, and there was absolutely no way to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to self defense outside the home. The court here, is most likely taking up the case because of the circuit split. I wish they would rule in the states favor, but don't think that will happen. When the court sides with the plaintiffs here, the state will just come up with other creative ways to minimize permit holders. Higher permit fees, insurance requirements and other restrictions like time and place, is what I see coming out of this.

A denial of cert doesn't translate into them believing Peruta didn't have standing. He clearly had standing.

Definitely possible, however, it'll be harder to justify if let's say, the fees were $50 and after this decision they jack it up to 1000$. We saw this happen with the US district court in Marianas slapping them down when they tried to charge 1k for a license after their ban was struck down.

 

[jcutonilli]

That's funny, because the SCOTUS certainly didn't think so in Peruta, and there was absolutely no way to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to self defense outside the home. The court here, is most likely taking up the case because of the circuit split. I wish they would rule in the states favor, but don't think that will happen. When the court sides with the plaintiffs here, the state will just come up with other creative ways to minimize permit holders. Higher permit fees, insurance requirements and other restrictions like time and place, is what I see coming out of this.

There was a dissent in Peruta, but I cannot find any mention of a lack of standing in the dissent. Two of the Justices felt that it was worthy of cert. Why would they say that if there was a standing issue?

There has been a split over CCW since Wrenn (decided shortly after Peruta was denied cert). Rogers was a similar case that was held by SCOTUS for almost a year, yet was denied cert with a split.

This is the first case that was accepted since NYSRPA v NYC. There are two differences that I see. First is ACB, the second is the dissent in Young that addresses the historical prohibition. I am not sure it is about ACB because there has always been a majority since Heller.

It seems more about the arguments. Peruta certainly did not rebut the historical prohibition. Neither did Rogers. It was rebutted in the Young dissent. There is now a way to address the historical prohibitions that was not present in Peruta or Rogers.

We will have to wait to see if I am correct. It certainly is not about standing or a split based on what is currently known.

 

[Kharn]

Rogers was held for a year because it petitioned for cert after NYSRPA v NYC was granted, then it was denied along with nine other cases on the same day three months after NYSRPA was declared moot: Worman v. Healey, Malpasso v. Pallozzi, Culp v. Raoul, Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois, Mance v. Barr, Pena v. Horan, Cheeseman v. Polillo, Ciolek v. New Jersey, and Gould v. Lipson

 

[jcutonilli]

Rogers was held for a year because it petitioned for cert after NYSRPA v NYC was granted, then it was denied along with nine other cases on the same day three months after NYSRPA was declared moot: Worman v. Healey, Malpasso v. Pallozzi, Culp v. Raoul, Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois, Mance v. Barr, Pena v. Horan, Cheeseman v. Polillo, Ciolek v. New Jersey, and Gould v. Lipson

I am not sure that is exactly correct. They started to hold cases after NYC indicated that it was possibly going to moot the case due to proposed rulemaking. I suspect the holding of cases was related to potential mootness given the wide variety of cases that were held.

There is a big difference between Rogers and the rest of the nine other cases. Rogers has a dissent associated with it indicating that several Justices (Thomas and Kavanaugh) would have granted cert in the case. None of the other nine cases had a dissent so there is no indication if any of the Justices would have granted cert to those cases.

There was a claim made about standing being a reason 2A cases were being denied cert. There was also a claim that this case was taken because of a split. I believe Rogers helps demonstrate that neither claim is likely true.

 

[777GSOTB]

A denial of cert doesn't translate into them believing Peruta didn't have standing. He clearly had standing.

He clearly didn't have standing according to a majority of 19th-century courts and what the US Supreme court said in Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.."

Not sure how you believe just the opposite of what the concluded reasoning is of an overwhelming majority of courts...No doubt, it's not your money being used to litigate.

Definitely possible, however, it'll be harder to justify if let's say, the fees were $50 and after this decision they jack it up to 1000$. We saw this happen with the US district court in Marianas slapping them down when they tried to charge 1k for a license after their ban was struck down.

It was actually an excise tax, but that's exactly what they'll do, and each excessive regulation will have to be litigated. It'll be 15yrs down the road before anyone gets a permit, if New York plays their cards right.

 

[jcutonilli]

He clearly didn't have standing according to a majority of 19th-century courts and what the US Supreme court said in Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.."

Not sure how you believe just the opposite of what the concluded reasoning is of an overwhelming majority of courts...No doubt, it's not your money being used to litigate.



It was actually an excise tax, but that's exactly what they'll do, and each excessive regulation will have to be litigated. It'll be 15yrs down the road before anyone gets a permit, if New York plays their cards right.

You clearly do not understand standing. "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." quoting SCOTUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

The 9CA resolved the case on the merits. They would have clearly stated that the plaintiffs had no standing if that were an issue. They made no mention of standing. They clearly state "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

The plaintiffs had standing because they were prevented from any kind of carry by CA law. Essentially the same reasons in this case. The 9CA sidestepped the issue by focusing just on the concealed carry aspect of the case and ignored the fact that CA prohibits open carry.

I believe the reason that SCOTUS did not take Peruta or Rogers had to do with the fact that they did not really put the historical prohibitions into context. SCOTUS did not really know how to address it so it decided to wait for a better case to put the historical prohibitions into context. While I don't think that this case presented the appropriate arguments, the dissent in Young does. We will see how this case gets resolved.

The one thing that is clear is that the plaintiff in this case and Peruta did have standing to bring the case.

 

[JMangle]

It'll be 15yrs down the road before anyone gets a permit, if New York plays their cards right.

Tyrants always have the time. Look at China with their long-play of basically every aspect of world affairs. Look at the Taliban, all they had to do was wait.

And when tyrants see an opportunity to speed things up, like Hitler with the post WWI depression, or the Far Left with the Coronavirus - they just use anarchy and violence (Night of the Long Knives, Kristallnacht, and Reichstag Fire for Hitler - COVID lab leak for China - 2020 orchestrated riots for the far Left) - that's when they strike.

Point is, when things drag out in the courts forever, people forget their freedoms. When there is panic, people forget their freedoms.

New York is playing their cards right, as unfortunate as that is.

 

[Inigoes]

No more zoom calls, the court is going back to in person setting.

https://apnews.com/article/health-courts-coronavirus-pandemic-3d8f33e6db3d31e09ff102b7d6ccf285

However:

“Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Courtroom sessions will not be open to the public.”

 

[Kharn]

Well, at least we won't have to get up super early and race for that first Metro train.

It also puts Clement back on familiar turf.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

No more zoom calls, the court is going back to in person setting.

https://apnews.com/article/health-courts-coronavirus-pandemic-3d8f33e6db3d31e09ff102b7d6ccf285

However:

But they also said they would be broadcasting the arguments live since they are not open to the public.