NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[DC-W]

I agree that it’s Kavanaugh or Barrett.

Both have analyzed gun laws in dissents as lower court judges by way of applying restrictions against the text, history, and tradition of the 2nd Amendment.

Kavanaugh in Heller II and Barrett in Kanter v. Barr.

Kavanaugh was also part of the en banc panel that denied rehearing Wrenn/Grace v. DC, which struck as unconstitutional DC’s good reason requirement for issuance of a carry permit — exactly what’s at issue here.

 

[DC-W]

It is interesting to note the number of gun permitting cases that have been put on hold because of this case. Besides Young v Hawaii, there are at least 3 in California. (One being Nichols case), one out of New Jersey, two out of Maryland, and a couple out of NYC. There is probably at least one or more that I have forgotten about as well.

Once SCOTUS rules on this case. Give it about 30-45 days for those other cases to be decided on as well. It will be an interesting domino falling.

You will see a few more NEW cases on some of those 8 states being filed within 30-45 days after the SCOTUS opinion to get states like MA, DE, and RI’s May issue laws enjoined and overturned. You will see the 8 states legislatures rushing to imitate new bills as well.

Remember when D.C. went a couple of months with “Constitutional Carry” until D.C. could get their new laws enacted? Same thing might happen in a few of those 8 states.

One other thought… in the process of doing research on this.

I am wondering how this case will effect US Territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, US virgin islands, etc on gun laws there.

Puerto Rico isn’t as big a deal. They are falling inline already with their new act effective 2020. Heller is requiring them to allow firearms in the home. But other then Puerto Rico, several of the Territories are “NO ISSUE” when it comes to carry permits. Guam is also May Issue currently.

DC was constitutional carry for three days due to Grace when the District was enjoined from enforcing its gun laws before a stay against the injunction was issued. Here’s a former MDS’r enjoying himself during that time. It’s the first know photo of a regular citizen legally carrying a gun in DC in generations.

 

[boothdoc]

Good times we’re had by many folks for three days.

 

[delaware_export]

Regardless of who writes it, doesn’t it have to meet with approval those who sign on / agree?

Wasn’t the issue with heller was that Scalia had to water some things down to get a majority?

And what about here? If we have 4 hard, 2 soft defending the 2a, 3 expected dissenters.

So 6 (4/2) - 3 ruling… how hard could someone push a hardcore Thomas view, without alienating robert’s ? And maybe one other. The threat of 4/5 ruling tempering the strength of pro 2a ruling if too hard core?

How do concurring rulings work? In this context ?

I ain’t a lawyer!! Just trying to understand the workings here.

 

[777GSOTB]

The way we would know for sure it's Nichols would be a prediction of a loss claiming no right to CCW based on Robertson v. Baldwin dicta

There is no right to CCW, based on a majority of 19th-century courts to decide the matter...Justice Scalia, you know the guy that penned the Heller case, states just that. NYSRPA will lose their case.

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

 

[press1280]

There is no right to CCW, based on a majority of 19th-century courts to decide the matter...Justice Scalia, you know the guy that penned the Heller case, states just that. NYSRPA will lose their case.

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

And yes, you just proved you're you as well

 

[Texasgrillchef]

DC was constitutional carry for three days due to Grace when the District was enjoined from enforcing its gun laws before a stay against the injunction was issued. Here’s a former MDS’r enjoying himself during that time. It’s the first know photo of a regular citizen legally carrying a gun in DC in generations.

I didn’t realize that it was as short as 3 days. But I knew it happened, and that’s the point I was making. It happened.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

And yes, you just proved you're you as well

Again… just cause Scalia said it doesn’t mean he can’t be overturned.

Keep in mind that roe v wade to some degree is being overturned. Maybe not fully. But it is to some degree. So not everything is written in stone, just because.

If CCW isn’t a right, then SCOTUS wasted time and taxpayer dollars reviewing the case.

Why not just d y cert to NYSPRA? If open car is a right. They could hav granted cert to Young v Hawaii and bypassed NYSPRA.

Which means even Nichols case, and the others loose as well. Nobody wins.

I highly doubt that. Just keep in mind. 83% of SCOTUS decisions reverse lower courts ruling, only 17% are affirmed. Which man’s in General they don’t take cases that don’t have a good chance o being reversed.

 

[eruby]

Good times we’re had by many folks for three days.

Good Times.
Any time you meet a payment.
Good Times.
Any time you need a friend.
Good Times.
Any time you're out from under.

Not getting hassled, not getting hustled.
Keepin' your head above water,
Making a wave when you can.

Temporary lay offs.
Good Times.
Easy credit rip offs.
Good Times.
Scratchin' and survivin'.
Good Times.
Hangin' in and jivin'
Good Times.
Ain't we lucky we got 'em - Good Times.

 

[boothdoc]

Exactly

 

[Mark75H]

(someone claiming to be) Charles Nichols posted on scotusblog this morning, predicting Kavanaugh writing NY Rifle.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-march-31/

So Mondays and Wednesdays are the most likely days for announcements of decisions?

 

[camo556]

So Mondays and Wednesdays are the most likely days for announcements of decisions?

Or Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, lol. Last few have been Thursday, and I think we had a Friday also.

Just watch the calendar: https://www.supremecourt.gov/

They added Monday as an opinion day. We might get another Thursday,. but we wont know until Monday afternoon.

 

[pcfixer]

There is no right to CCW, based on a majority of 19th-century courts to decide the matter...Justice Scalia, you know the guy that penned the Heller case, states just that. NYSRPA will lose their case.

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

Yes. That was THEN. 2008 is 12 years ago.
Now there ARE 43 States "Shall Issue".
40% require no permit.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/ccw-reciprocity-map/?msclkid=706f1d12b1d811ecb17dd6e2043314cf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Kavanaugh Yes, a "Dissent".
This is insight into what could be decision.

NO RIGHT?

II
 This case also presents the Court with an opportunity to clarify that the Second Amendment protects a right to public carry. While some Circuits have recognized that the Second Amendment extends outside the home, see Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 665 (CADC 2017); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012), many have declined to define the scope of the right, simply assuming that the right to public carry exists for purposes of applying a scrutiny-based analysis, see Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865, 876 (CA4 2013); Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 431 (CA3 2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 89 (CA2 2012).2 Other courts have specifically indicated that they would not interpret the Second Amendment to apply outside the home without further instruction from this Court. United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d 458, 475 (CA4 2011) (“On the question of Heller’s applicability outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court itself”); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011) (“If the Supreme Court . . . meant its holding [in Heller] to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly”). We should provide the requested instruction.

I’m Paul Harvey.” Then after he started his story, before the next break he’d say, “In a moment…. the rest of the story….”

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Yes. That was THEN. 2008 is 12 years ago.
Now there ARE 43 States "Shall Issue".
40% require no permit.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/ccw-reciprocity-map/?msclkid=706f1d12b1d811ecb17dd6e2043314cf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Kavanaugh Yes, a "Dissent".
This is insight into what could be decision.

NO RIGHT?

By April 11th, GA will be Con Carry and that will make 50% require no permit.

And not to be to specific. Even today with 23 states having passed Con Carry… that’s 46% not 40%.

We will know by April 11th if Nebraska passes Con Carry. If they do. That will make 26 states. The majority of states, at 52% of the states requiring no permit.

 

[pcfixer]

By April 11th, GA will be Con Carry and that will make 50% require no permit.

And not to be to specific. Even today with 23 states having passed Con Carry… that’s 46% not 40%.

We will know by April 11th if Nebraska passes Con Carry. If they do. That will make 26 states. The majority of states, at 52% of the states requiring no permit.

Sounds like a Win, Win situation!

 

[777GSOTB]

Yes. That was THEN. 2008 is 12 years ago.
Now there ARE 43 States "Shall Issue".
40% require no permit.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/ccw-reciprocity-map/?msclkid=706f1d12b1d811ecb17dd6e2043314cf

The time period from 2008 to now has no influence on determining the extent of a right. Sorry, that only works on corrupt judicial legislatures. As Justice Scalia stated in Heller and Justice Alito reaffirmed at NYSRPA v Bruen orals, the historical understanding of the right, is determined from 19th-century court decisions.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Kavanaugh Yes, a "Dissent".
This is insight into what could be decision.

Two dissenting justices means nothing as there are 7 others that didn't.

NO RIGHT?

You've confused state legislative authority to allow a privilege to exist, over that of a right.

 

[777GSOTB]

And yes, you just proved you're you as well

What I've proven is, what I had been saying about CCW not being a right, was 100% correct. And if you don't believe me STILL, go listen to Scalia again and again until it sinks in.

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

 

[press1280]

What I've proven is, what I had been saying about CCW not being a right, was 100% correct. And if you don't believe me STILL, go listen to Scalia again and again until it sinks in.

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html

This doesn't mean squat if the ruling comes down the way I (and MANY others) believe it will.
What did you hear from oral arguments that bolsters your case?
I didn't hear anything other than from Kagan, who isn't on our side anyway.

 

[Kharn]

The time period from 2008 to now has no influence on determining the extent of a right. Sorry, that only works on corrupt judicial legislatures. As Justice Scalia stated in Heller and Justice Alito reaffirmed at NYSRPA v Bruen orals, the historical understanding of the right, is determined from 19th-century court decisions.


Two dissenting justices means nothing as there are 7 others that didn't.

You've confused state legislative authority to allow a privilege to exist, over that of a right.

Rights can expand, they don't contract.

 

[777GSOTB]

This doesn't mean squat if the ruling comes down the way I (and MANY others) believe it will.
What did you hear from oral arguments that bolsters your case?
I didn't hear anything other than from Kagan, who isn't on our side anyway.

I would say your thought process is lacking, compared to 4 US Supreme Court justices that concurred on the Heller ruling, of which 3 are still sitting on the court. The 3 libs with Roberts and Alito, equals, NYSRPA losing..Though, it should be an 8-0 loss if not for legislating from the bench. And here it is again...The 19th-century is the time period, not New York's tradition of licensing in the 20th-century.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen

From Oral Arguments:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Heller -- and -and I will stop after this - Heller cited decisions going into the 19th century as confirmation of what it had already concluded based on text and history at or before the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and said this is what it was understood to mean at the time and it's further evidence that this is what this right was understood to mean because it kept being reaffirmed by decisions that came after. But I find it hard to understand how later decisions and statutes, particularly when you start to get into the late 19th century and the early 20th century, can be used as a substitute for evidence about what the right was understood to mean in 1791 or 1868, if you think that's the relevant date.