NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[delaware_export]

Regarding what May happen; yeah a lot of unknowns. Even states that are more friendly then some, and are shall issue play games. The mentality and disdain for your rights will see all kinds of crap thrown against the wall to see what sticks… case in point, the mooted nyc permit thing from the last session. Crap. Throw and stuck, years… until scotus steps in. Scraped off, finally, but at what cost and delay?

My SHALL issue state plays games. Evident among differences in blue vs red counties. Counties issue licenses according to state laws.

For example, they have maximum 120 days from application submission to approval (or rejection of disqualified person). This is in the state law! Hard coded.

Some counties get the permit processed in 3 weeks. Or less. Some, 1-2, the bluest, go to 119, regularly.

That said, SOME put an appointment process on the front end. You must submit they app in person. They make it so you can not submit the app. You must schedule an appointment first. 3 month-year wait for appointments. They they argue that technically, legally, they’re not violating state law, because the app has not been submitted.

California is also know for long appointment delays. Based on Cali permit stories I’ve read.

Thinking the states we know are a2a will go into this willingly, IF scotus rules pro2a, that’s nonsense. Stupidity.

That left wing hit article quoted a page or two back, is spot on as far as the logic that will be used to passive (or not so passively) aggressively fight any pro2a ruling. High costs, long waits, short term validity, excessive place and time restrictions. And more… All of these will be the next cases.

App fee? 100?500?5k? Valid time? 1week?year? 5 years?

Delaware had a similar issue with state parks. DNREC tried to make entire state parks off limits. Thankfully DESCOTUS (SCoDE?) said NO!!! And only after multiple levels of hearings and lots of delay. That was a state case, not federal, but it proves the point.

Thomas is right. Disfavored. And it needs a firm ruling that says LOOK MFER. We will hear any challenges to this ruling faster than an abortion case from the south.

That said… if they go anti2a.. sux to be us.

 

[Fedora]

Even states that are more friendly then some, and are shall issue play games.

I would be surprised if the Supreme Court does not consider the likelihood of this in their final decision.

 

[clandestine]

I really hope SCOTUS looks at and considers the burden AND cost that come with acquiring Carry/Weapon Permits from some/many States.

It's not something most low income Americans or Americans on a tight budget can afford.

My Wife and I have or are about to be approved for the following Carry Permits:

Maryland (Initial is 2 Years/3 Renewal)
Pennsylvania (5 Years)
Florida (7 Years)
Utah (5 Years)
New Hampshire (5 Years)
Washington D.C.(In Process - Initial is 2 Years/Unknown for Renewal)
Rhode Island (In Process - 4 Years)
Connecticut (In Process - 5 Years)

When you add up the Training/Class Fees, Travel Fees (Gas/Tolls/Lodging), Ammunition (Practice & Live Fire Qualifications) Range Fees, Copies/Digital Scanning of Required Documents, Fingerprints/Livescan, Passport Photos, Notary Fees, Postage, and the Application Fees/Background Checks we have spent...

$4000.00 +/- a few hundred dollars to carry in 42 States

That's not a typo... $4000.00. That # does not count the cost of the firearm, licensing/ paperwork fees, or carry equipment/garments.

My wife and I both plan to apply for a Massachusetts LTC but we will use an Attorney when that day comes. We may wait for this SCOTUS Ruling before applying. That will run us $950 each for the Attorney, $100 each per year for the MA LTC Application, we must appear in person in Chelsea MA to apply, and we have to take a Massachusetts Specific Training Class in Massachusetts. So two trips to Massachusetts.

We are also considering New Jersey Carry Permits if the SCOTUS ruling is favorable. We will hire an Attorney for that one too, so $950 each for the Attorney, and the Application Fees for a 2 year permit. Based on the wording of their current Laws, we won't need additional Training.

Even if we get the Massachusetts and New Jersey Permits, we still can't get Permits to Carry in HI, NY, IL, CO, CA and OR because they either don't issue to Non-Residents, or they only issue to Non-Residents of particular States (Oregon and Illinois).

So let's say we are successful with NJ and MA. We would have spent approximately $8000.00 to be able to Carry in 44 States.

 

[press1280]

I really hope SCOTUS looks at and considers the burden AND cost that come with acquiring Carry/Weapon Permits from some/many States.

It's not something most low income Americans or Americans on a tight budget can afford.

My Wife and I have or are about to be approved for the following Carry Permits:

Maryland (Initial is 2 Years/3 Renewal)
Pennsylvania (5 Years)
Florida (7 Years)
Utah (5 Years)
New Hampshire (5 Years)
Washington D.C.(In Process - Initial is 2 Years/Unknown for Renewal)
Rhode Island (In Process - 4 Years)
Connecticut (In Process - 5 Years)

When you add up the Training/Class Fees, Travel Fees (Gas/Tolls/Lodging), Ammunition (Practice & Live Fire Qualifications) Range Fees, Copies/Digital Scanning of Required Documents, Fingerprints/Livescan, Passport Photos, Notary Fees, Postage, and the Application Fees/Background Checks we have spent...

$4000.00 +/- a few hundred dollars to carry in 42 States

That's not a typo... $4000.00. That # does not count the cost of the firearm, licensing/ paperwork fees, or carry equipment/garments.

My wife and I both plan to apply for a Massachusetts LTC but we will use an Attorney when that day comes. We may wait for this SCOTUS Ruling before applying. That will run us $950 each for the Attorney, $100 each per year for the MA LTC Application, we must appear in person in Chelsea MA to apply, and we have to take a Massachusetts Specific Training Class in Massachusetts. So two trips to Massachusetts.

We are also considering New Jersey Carry Permits if the SCOTUS ruling is favorable. We will hire an Attorney for that one too, so $950 each for the Attorney, and the Application Fees for a 2 year permit. Based on the wording of their current Laws, we won't need additional Training.

Even if we get the Massachusetts and New Jersey Permits, we still can't get Permits to Carry in HI, NY, IL, CO, CA and OR because they either don't issue to Non-Residents, or they only issue to Non-Residents of particular States (Oregon and Illinois).

So let's say we are successful with NJ and MA. We would have spent approximately $8000.00 to be able to Carry in 44 States.

Well if you move to say, WV, you won’t need several of those other permits as WV has reciprocity. MD not having reciprocity screws people in more ways than one.
I would say once Scotus rules here we will see the next low hanging fruit as being non resident permits.

 

[DaytonaGreg]

There is another 2A SCOTUS NY PHOTO thread that has multiple photos of Dick Heller with these same folks from yesterday. Good luck.

 

[lazarus]

Well if you move to say, WV, you won’t need several of those other permits as WV has reciprocity. MD not having reciprocity screws people in more ways than one.
I would say once Scotus rules here we will see the next low hanging fruit as being non resident permits.

And maybe just reciprocity. That said, if SCOTUS doesn’t make it clear in the ruling, I’ve got a hard time them not taking a case quick with a very simple decision issued on non-resident permits.

Reciprocity would be nice and as I remarked in another thread, if states have to accept other states drivers and marriage licenses, they should have to accept other states carry permits. I hope SCOTUS includes it in their NYSRPA ruling, but I have little hope for that. I do hope they will take it up soon after.

 

[clandestine]

Well if you move to say, WV, you won’t need several of those other permits as WV has reciprocity. MD not having reciprocity screws people in more ways than one.
I would say once Scotus rules here we will see the next low hanging fruit as being non resident permits.

WV Residents definitely have it better for CCW Reciprocity.

Since our NH no longer adds any special reciprocity we planned on dropping that when it expires. It will save us $200.00 every 5 years.

If we were to move to WV, we could get rid of our Non-Resident Florida and Pennsylvania Permits. We would gain Colorado and it would save us about $75.00 every 5 years when we account for the cost of the WV Permit,

We would still need the states below:

Maryland
Utah (Adds Washington State)
Washington D.C.
Rhode Island
Connecticut

Our cost would go from about $4000 to about $3700.

 

[press1280]

WV Residents definitely have it better for CCW Reciprocity.

Since our NH no longer adds any special reciprocity we planned on dropping that when it expires. It will save us $200.00 every 5 years.

If we were to move to WV, we could get rid of our Non-Resident Florida and Pennsylvania Permits. We would gain Colorado and it would save us about $75.00 every 5 years when we account for the cost of the WV Permit,

We would still need the states below:

Maryland
Utah (Adds Washington State)
Washington D.C.
Rhode Island
Connecticut

Our cost would go from about $4000 to about $3700.

You should not need any attorney after (or shortly after) a favorable SCOTUS ruling. The dominoes for these other states will fall quickly after SCOTUS rules. It is possible those states try to throw up other roadblocks (like crazy training requirements) but they won't be able to stop you like they can right now.

The other states that don't offer non-res permits will likely be sued and will either have to issue permits or reciprocity. Likely they will issue the permits IMO.

 

[Uncle Duke]

I really hope SCOTUS looks at and considers the burden AND cost that come with acquiring Carry/Weapon Permits from some/many States.

It's not something most low income Americans or Americans on a tight budget can afford.

My Wife and I have or are about to be approved for the following Carry Permits:

Maryland (Initial is 2 Years/3 Renewal)
Pennsylvania (5 Years)
Florida (7 Years)
Utah (5 Years)
New Hampshire (5 Years)
Washington D.C.(In Process - Initial is 2 Years/Unknown for Renewal)
Rhode Island (In Process - 4 Years)
Connecticut (In Process - 5 Years)

When you add up the Training/Class Fees, Travel Fees (Gas/Tolls/Lodging), Ammunition (Practice & Live Fire Qualifications) Range Fees, Copies/Digital Scanning of Required Documents, Fingerprints/Livescan, Passport Photos, Notary Fees, Postage, and the Application Fees/Background Checks we have spent...

$4000.00 +/- a few hundred dollars to carry in 42 States

That's not a typo... $4000.00. That # does not count the cost of the firearm, licensing/ paperwork fees, or carry equipment/garments.

My wife and I both plan to apply for a Massachusetts LTC but we will use an Attorney when that day comes. We may wait for this SCOTUS Ruling before applying. That will run us $950 each for the Attorney, $100 each per year for the MA LTC Application, we must appear in person in Chelsea MA to apply, and we have to take a Massachusetts Specific Training Class in Massachusetts. So two trips to Massachusetts.

We are also considering New Jersey Carry Permits if the SCOTUS ruling is favorable. We will hire an Attorney for that one too, so $950 each for the Attorney, and the Application Fees for a 2 year permit. Based on the wording of their current Laws, we won't need additional Training.

Even if we get the Massachusetts and New Jersey Permits, we still can't get Permits to Carry in HI, NY, IL, CO, CA and OR because they either don't issue to Non-Residents, or they only issue to Non-Residents of particular States (Oregon and Illinois).

So let's say we are successful with NJ and MA. We would have spent approximately $8000.00 to be able to Carry in 44 States.

In a more perfect world, each member of the Supreme Court would read this post. Perhaps their collective heads would hurt, as mine does from the insanity illustrated here . When I think about the amount of time and research that had to take place to formulate this post, it is absolutely mind boggling. And that is before consideration of any monetary expense.

I am likely dreaming, or perhaps I'm delusional. But I hope the Supreme Court rules that the words "right" and "permit" are incongruous, and especially so when the ramifications of permitting schemes are multiplied by the whims of each of 50 US states.

 

[rbird7282]

In a more perfect world, each member of the Supreme Court would read this post. Perhaps their collective heads would hurt, as mine does from the insanity illustrated here . When I think about the amount of time and research that had to take place to formulate this post, it is absolutely mind boggling. And that is before consideration of any monetary expense.

I am likely dreaming, or perhaps I'm delusional. But I hope the Supreme Court rules that the words "right" and "permit" are incongruous, and especially so when the ramifications of permitting schemes are multiplied by the whims of each of 50 US states.

Not to mention that there should be no training requirements at all, anywhere. It is time this country went back to personal responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[camo556]

Clement did not ask for constitutional carry. He did not challenge the existence of the permit. I am optimistic but I am not *that* optimistic. He only asked for a non-discretionary permit to be issued, so what we get will be a gradual step. Constitutional carry has been very difficult to get passed even in pretty pro gun states. Law enforcement being the #1 group lobbying against it.

I think it's interesting that the NJ magazine ban case is being held. Are they going to GVR that case when they issue the opinion in this one? That would be huge since this one seems to have nothing to do with that.

 

[Allen65]

Not to mention that there should be no training requirements at all, anywhere. It is time this country went back to personal responsibility.

That may be a bridge too far for this case; it wasn't part of the relief asked for, IIRC. The issue argued was the equal protection issue of may-issue schemes for concealed carry.

During Q&A, several Justices mentioned using the date of ratification of 14A as the period to be used for a historical understanding of 2A rights as applied to the States. Training requirements that apply equally to everyone probably don't have any 14A implications.

 

[rbird7282]

That may be a bridge too far for this case; it wasn't part of the relief asked for, IIRC. The issue argued was the equal protection issue of may-issue schemes for concealed carry.

During Q&A, several Justices mentioned using the date of ratification of 14A as the period to be used for a historical understanding of 2A rights as applied to the States. Training requirements that apply equally to everyone probably don't have any 14A implications.

Understood, just venting. I don’t see them knocking training requirements out any time soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[camo556]

Not only wont they knock out training requirements, but the number of "pro gun" people esp *cough* trainers who are *cough* former / current law enforcement who are "I dont want assholes carrying in public without training" prevents constitutional carry from being a thing even in "pro gun" states. Some of them apparently think that because they cant hit the side of a barn I cant either.

 

[hodgepodge]

OK, my expert opinion, based on the fact that my daughter worked at SCOTUS one summer: Self defense is a valid reason for a carry permit. But states may impose 'reasonable' training or other restrictions. Any such restriction will face strict scrutiny. And will tie us up in courts from now until the cows come home.

 

[Allen65]

Any such restriction will face strict scrutiny. And will tie us up in courts from now until the cows come home.

Not necessarily. Strict scrutiny is what we've needed all along. Judges don't like being overruled, and strict scrutiny might finally move the needle from blind, unquestioning deference to unsubstantiated GOV claims of "public safety" towards favoring the right by default. We should see a lot more quick wins at District and appellate levels.

Under strict scrutiny, the state needs to demonstrate their law not only serves a significant public interest, but that there is no less intrusive way to achieve that interest. That's a tough standard for a lot of the anti-2A laws, especially now that there are a large number of shall issue states daily disproving many of the supposed public safety arguments used by NY, MD, CA, HI, et al.

 

[OneGunTex]

I'll admit, I've tended to favor some training requirements based on some very poor behavior I've witnessed by people with handguns. But I understand the argument that, like 1A, you first start out with everyone has nearly-unlimited right, and then you limit/prosecute it when it is abused (fire in a crowded theater).

So my question to the group is: what conditions would you find acceptable for banning a person's future right to carry publicly?
Perhaps brandishing? Discharge when not in self defence scenario? Carrying while intoxicated? Non-felony battery or assault? Etc?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

 

[eruby]

I'll admit, I've tended to favor some training requirements based on some very poor behavior I've witnessed by people with handguns. But I understand the argument that, like 1A, you first start out with everyone has nearly-unlimited right, and then you limit/prosecute it when it is abused (fire in a crowded theater).

So my question to the group is: what conditions would you find acceptable for banning a person's future right to carry publicly?
Perhaps brandishing? Discharge when not in self defence scenario? Carrying while intoxicated? Non-felony battery or assault? Etc?

Under NO conditions. If you're free to walk the streets, you're free to carry a gun.

If you're convicted of a crime, you go to jail, and thus cannot carry a gun.

When you get, you can carry.

Yes, yes, yes, I realize this an idealistic way of looking at things, but freedom is a scary thing at times.

 

[Occam]

So my question to the group is: what conditions would you find acceptable for banning a person's future right to carry publicly?

Are they banned from possession in the first place? That’s the only standard needed.

I can’t concoct a situation where the standard is, “This person is too criminally/morally broken or mentally dangerous to carry in public, but it’s still fine to send them home from the gun store with a new purchase.”

 

[Inigoes]

Are they banned from possession in the first place? That’s the only standard needed.

Concur, that is the easiest and most logical standard to enforce by government.