Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

[777GSOTB]

Wolfwood is right, they should have filed suit for civil rights violations instead. But I didn't see that case as adding anything novel over Heller other than extending the right to practice ones firearm proficiency at gun ranges.

Of all the petitions for Cert. sitting at their door, the only case with possible standing is Wilson v Cook County, Illinois, as they actually have those types of firearms in their possess for self-defense. But they also have FOID cards and licenses, so that may be viewed as being enough to diminish the right in the states favor. Most of the other cases want a license to carry concealed firearms and there is no such right to do so...Those are dead in the water. The interstate handgun case doesn't violate anyone's rights, as they can purchase firearms in their home state, under home state licensing conditions and Congress has commerce clause powers to regulate such transactions. So don't expect much happening with any of those.

No doubt, a lot of the relisting is done because they just never got to that case within the allotted conference time.

 

[E.Shell]

...Most of the other cases want a license to carry concealed firearms and there is no such right to do so...

How do we reconcile this concept with the word "bear" in the amendment? Particularly when the choice is between 'open' and 'concealed', and concealed is the least threatening/most accepted way to bear your arms.

 

[j26sub]

Good email from MSI today! Praying!

 

[E.Shell]

Ginsburg hospitalized:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...g-hospitalized-with-infection-court-announces

 

[jcutonilli]

How do we reconcile this concept with the word "bear" in the amendment? Particularly when the choice is between 'open' and 'concealed', and concealed is the least threatening/most accepted way to bear your arms.

He was not clear, but I suspect that the issue is the historical precedent about prohibiting concealed carry. While I agree today concealed carry is the least threatening/most accepted way to bear your arms outside the home, it was prohibited for much of our earlier history. No one has attempted to explain why it should be acceptable today given the past precedent in any of these cases.

 

[ted76]

Ginsburg hospitalized:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...g-hospitalized-with-infection-court-announces

My mother is 98-3/4 years old and is in better health and shape than R"D"G, and even though she is a life long "D", I think that she would make better decisions than R"D"G on the cases being heard, at least my mother is open to hearing the other side of a augment. The more times that I see R"D"G survive these life threating ailments, the more I believe that she sold her sole to the devil.

&

 

[777GSOTB]

How do we reconcile this concept with the word "bear" in the amendment? Particularly when the choice is between 'open' and 'concealed', and concealed is the least threatening/most accepted way to bear your arms.

Concealed carry may be the least threatening, but many state supreme courts have determined that it's Constitutional to regulate that type of carry because one can draw a concealed firearm in a heated moment, to the surprise of another. In simple terms, it's all about the surprise factor, that's it. With open carry, that supposedly can't happen..Not true, because one can open carry behind the back. It's really all pretty ridiculous to say the least. I don't believe it's correct to prohibit concealed carry, but Scalia set the standard in his Heller decision. There's a reason why SCOTUS hasn't taken a licensed concealed carry case and here it is.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

" For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

" Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

" In Nunn v.State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid."

" In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: "

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;.."

 

[jcutonilli]

Concealed carry may be the least threatening, but many state supreme courts have determined that it's Constitutional to regulate that type of carry because one can draw a concealed firearm in a heated moment, to the surprise of another. In simple terms, it's all about the surprise factor, that's it. With open carry, that supposedly can't happen..Not true, because one can open carry behind the back. It's really all pretty ridiculous to say the least. I don't believe it's correct to prohibit concealed carry, but Scalia set the standard in his Heller decision. There's a reason why SCOTUS hasn't taken a licensed concealed carry case and here it is.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

" For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

" Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

" In Nunn v.State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid."

" In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: "

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;.."

The reasons concealed carry was prohibited was because it was considered something only a criminal would do. The "tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations" is a reference to the nature of those that use that method. Today we do not have those issues with it and concealed can be considered appropriate in today's society.

Scalia did not set the standard. He simply referenced it. It is unclear if he understood the reasoning behind it. The current lawsuit do not explain why either.

The reason SCOTUS has not taken another case is because the plaintiffs can't explain what is wrong with the lower court decision.

 

[Bob A]

The reasons concealed carry was prohibited was because it was considered something only a criminal would do. The "tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations" is a reference to the nature of those that use that method. Today we do not have those issues with it and concealed can be considered appropriate in today's society.

Just so. The changing nature of society underlies the reasoning, past and present.

Bearing arms openly was not at all uncommon in the 18th century. As noted, those who would conceal their weapons were suspected of being up to no good.

Today's induced hoplophobia has reversed the previous order of things, at least in major population centers on the coasts. West of the Mississippi and in many Southern states, the culture is accustomed to the presence of firearms, so it's not such a big issue.

Then too, those who tend toward taking personal responsibility for themselves and their families form a group that has been denigrated by the Eastern Establishment, who view themselves as too civilised to worry about such things. Gated communities and ivory towers distance and insulate them from the realities of the human condition, and human nature itself.

Being a predatory class itself, it prefers that its prey be disarmed. There does seem to be a bit of "honor among predators" in effect as well, given the way the ruling courts will treat street criminals more gently than upright citizens who would arm themselves for protection rather than thuggery.

 

[Blacksmith101]

In order for "bear" to be in keeping with the COTUS states must allow at least one acceptable method. I do not care which they choose however they will have fewer panicked citizens if they choose concealed rather than open but eventually even snow flakes will become used to seeing people with guns.

 

[press1280]

The 5 carry cases before the court are from states where they do not distinguish between open and concealed carry so the court will not need to either.

 

[danb]

The 5 carry cases before the court are from states where they do not distinguish between open and concealed carry so the court will not need to either.

The court may not even address this question. My bet is always that they don't reach any question which they do not need to address.

 

[delaware_export]

In those states, I believe they essentially say, spinning the words and punctuation from heller here:

You may not carry. In any manner. What so ever.

By being may, but won’t issue on concealed carry, and outlawing open carry, NJ NY CA. Or like Hawaii, requiring an OC permit too, and may/won’t issue those as well.

So doesn’t the matter bring to the fore of allowing some form of carry be a right?

Maybe not specifying which, but one.

In peruta they argued concealed carry, but one of the judges tossed the peruta lawyer this. Loosely quoted from memory:

Since your case started, the state has also outlawed open carry. Do you wish also to argue that all carry is denied?

The attorney didn’t go there. Not sure of the ramifications of that. If it could have complicated the matter more or helped.

At least one state, Georgia, which is shall issue, easy to get, also requires payment to exercise the right. Any public carry is illegal, open Or concealed, unless you have a permit. (Exception for your own property, hunting and a few other things).

Should they be granted cert, should these cases go the with the question tossed in peruta and argue that open carry is not an option as laws prevent that, so the only Avenue is concealed carry? And that is denied to average citizens.

Would that then push them to legalize open carry? Or loosen permit requirements so as to allow some form of legal carry by JohnQ? And how to address the “pay a tax for the right” issue? At some point

The 5 carry cases before the court are from states where they do not distinguish between open and concealed carry so the court will not need to either.

 

[press1280]

The court may not even address this question. My bet is always that they don't reach any question which they do not need to address.

Although, I don't put it past these guys to try to make it into a CCW-only case.

 

[press1280]

In those states, I believe they essentially say, spinning the words and punctuation from heller here:

You may not carry. In any manner. What so ever.

By being may, but won’t issue on concealed carry, and outlawing open carry, NJ NY CA. Or like Hawaii, requiring an OC permit too, and may/won’t issue those as well.

So doesn’t the matter bring to the fore of allowing some form of carry be a right?

Maybe not specifying which, but one.

In peruta they argued concealed carry, but one of the judges tossed the peruta lawyer this. Loosely quoted from memory:

Since your case started, the state has also outlawed open carry. Do you wish also to argue that all carry is denied?

The attorney didn’t go there. Not sure of the ramifications of that. If it could have complicated the matter more or helped.

At least one state, Georgia, which is shall issue, easy to get, also requires payment to exercise the right. Any public carry is illegal, open Or concealed, unless you have a permit. (Exception for your own property, hunting and a few other things).

Should they be granted cert, should these cases go the with the question tossed in peruta and argue that open carry is not an option as laws prevent that, so the only Avenue is concealed carry? And that is denied to average citizens.

Would that then push them to legalize open carry? Or loosen permit requirements so as to allow some form of legal carry by JohnQ? And how to address the “pay a tax for the right” issue? At some point

Essentially that's what it comes down to but it boggles the mind how they try to weasel out of it thinking if they issue some percentage above 0 of the law abiding population, that the right is somehow satisfied.

The court shouldn't need to address this. If those states don't have it in their laws that concealed and open carry are to be treated differently, then why should the court?
My guess is that if they lose those states would probably change their general carry permits over to a straight CCW. The 2 other jurisdictions to be forced into public carry for all (IL & DC) went for CCW only permits.

 

[delaware_export]

Realizing I am a non lawyer, and probably preaching to multiple choirs...

Thinking that they shouldn’t need to...

Not sure about treating differently as long as one or both options are available. Both being off the table for average citizens, well, not good.

If they get that far, then the pay for a right would never stand for voting, why for guns.

It would also seem that IF they are concerned with appearances, cc would keep the feelz people more calm, as they can’t see.

Was it scotus or a circuit that said that Open carry IS NOT RAS Where open carry is legal? Ok, but imagine the usual culprits state Leo on a MWAG call.

Again, sorry for layman pondering here, but the “signals” approach hasn’t worked well apparently.

Offender, ie .gov employees need to be arrested for infringing on the 2a the same way a Kentucky county something or other clerk was for not issuing a gay couple a marriage certificate. Ending up in jail is a signal.

and thanks to you and the legal folks here for trying to explain stuff to us non legal folks. I am sure it takes lots of patience!

Essentially that's what it comes down to but it boggles the mind how they try to weasel out of it thinking if they issue some percentage above 0 of the law abiding population, that the right is somehow satisfied.

The court shouldn't need to address this. If those states don't have it in their laws that concealed and open carry are to be treated differently, then why should the court?
My guess is that if they lose those states would probably change their general carry permits over to a straight CCW. The 2 other jurisdictions to be forced into public carry for all (IL & DC) went for CCW only permits.

 

[jcutonilli]

The 5 carry cases before the court are from states where they do not distinguish between open and concealed carry so the court will not need to either.

The court may not even address this question. My bet is always that they don't reach any question which they do not need to address.

It has addressed this question in Heller. I don't believe the dissent will let them ignore that issue.

 

[danb]

It has addressed this question in Heller. I don't believe the dissent will let them ignore that issue.

not really. Just dicta.

 

[jcutonilli]

Essentially that's what it comes down to but it boggles the mind how they try to weasel out of it thinking if they issue some percentage above 0 of the law abiding population, that the right is somehow satisfied.

The court shouldn't need to address this. If those states don't have it in their laws that concealed and open carry are to be treated differently, then why should the court?
My guess is that if they lose those states would probably change their general carry permits over to a straight CCW. The 2 other jurisdictions to be forced into public carry for all (IL & DC) went for CCW only permits.

Realizing I am a non lawyer, and probably preaching to multiple choirs...

Thinking that they shouldn’t need to...

Not sure about treating differently as long as one or both options are available. Both being off the table for average citizens, well, not good.

If they get that far, then the pay for a right would never stand for voting, why for guns.

It would also seem that IF they are concerned with appearances, cc would keep the feelz people more calm, as they can’t see.

Was it scotus or a circuit that said that Open carry RAS Where open carry is legal? Ok, but imagine the usual culprits state Leo on a MWAG call.

Again, sorry for layman pondering here, but the “signals” approach hasn’t worked well apparently.

Offender, ie .gov employees need to be arrested for infringing on the 2a the same way a Kentucky county something or other clerk was for not issuing a gay couple a marriage certificate. Ending up in jail is a signal.

and thanks to you and the legal folks here for trying to explain stuff to us non legal folks. I am sure it takes lots of patience!

The problem is a combination of existing precedent and the arguments that are presented.

Courts tend to stick with precedent even if it is wrong on the assumption that it provides consistency. Precedent can be overcome but it is difficult.

The lower courts have argued that they are simply following court precedent. The problem with the arguments is that they do not really help the court to understand what really needs to be changed.

Peruta never really challenged why concealed carry was wrong. They argued that since open carry was banned the court should allow concealed carry. The court came back and said concealed carry is not part of the right.

The KY clerk was not jailed because they did not issue marriage licences, they were jailed because they defied a court order.

 

[rambling_one]

To bear arms one must carry them. Once that is accepted, how becomes the issue. Let that up to the states. It’s really not that difficult. Why can’t the legal whiz kids see it?