Thank you for the clarification, Spats, and the information about how the ruling also set a new "framework" for considering 2A laws.
I believe I understand about the burden shift for 2A cases and I can see how lack of valid historical precedent could certainly be applied against some of the features of the new NY law, particularly the huge expansion of "gun free zones".
What I'm not sure of is it would even apply to the situation given here...
Quote:
|
So, it would seem to me that if a resident of New York applied for a carry license, was turned down and then decides to carry a gun (contrary to the State's law) and use it in self defense, the Supreme Court decision could be used as a defense if the shooter is prosecuted.
|
I can see the Bruen ruling being used in defense if one were a legal permit holder, and were charged with a crime for carrying in one of the new "gun free zones" but in the given situation, the crime is carry without a permit, isn't it?? The poster stated so, specifically, and I don't see how the SCOTUS ruling could be applied to that.
IF the ruling were that the entire permit process were unconstitutional, then yes, but that isn't what the Bruen ruling did.
I think if would take another, different case and SCOTUS ruling to void the entire permit requirement system, wouldn't it??