|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 19, 2021, 04:31 PM | #1 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
NYSRPA v. Bruen: Amicus Curiae brief from 176 Representatives
It looks like this may our next big Supreme Court case. At issue is New York's Sullivan Law, which requires very strict and discriminatory permitting to carry a firearm outside the home.
You can read it here [pdf]. Here are a few choice quotes: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
July 19, 2021, 04:42 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 523
|
Thanks for the quotes and the big grin.
|
July 22, 2021, 09:31 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: March 10, 2018
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 40
|
That the petitioners disavow that bearing arms beyond the confines of your own home is a right could be the fatal flaw of this case. To keep arms implies possession and is not limited by location. To bear arms means to carry arms about. To suggest that bearing arms is limited to within one's own domicile is absurd and contradicts the common understanding by those who drafted and ratified the Article.
|
July 22, 2021, 11:36 AM | #4 | |||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
It depends on whether or not the act of concealed carry is a right, or as the state believes, a privilege. That is the first and primary point the court needs to rule on. Do remember the general belief and attitudes about firearms during the era of the Founders is drastically different then the general attitude today. Before, during and for a long time afterwards the general attitude was that honest people don't conceal their arms. Only those up to no good would conceal their arms. In fact, it was generally regarded that a concealed weapon was reasonable grounds for suspicion, and something the govt SHOULD act on. This is almost the exact opposite of the situation today. Today we have the public holding a general fear of visible arms, and, while laws about open carry are still on the books, doing so in many places, while legal invites police intervention, and sometimes even results in a level of public panic. Some of us believe that the right to "bear arms" includes both concealed and open carry other people believe that while open carry is Constitutionally proteted concealed carry is not. And that has been the state in many states for many, many years. SO, I'd say that before one can rule that denying applications for concealed carry permits is a denial of a constitutionally protected right, one must first rule that concealed carry IS a 2nd Amendment protected right. What "everyone knew" and accepted during the days of the Founders is no longer accepted as true without a modern court ruling supporting it. Not because it isn't true, or that its any less true today than it was then, but because so many people have been taught otherwise, and don't recognize the errors of their education. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||
July 22, 2021, 06:54 PM | #5 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
July 22, 2021, 10:33 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
One of my rules in brief-writing has been to re-draft a sentence if I or someone else has to read a sentence more than once to make sense out of it. That's not to say I have never violated this rule. Sometimes the press of time blurs the ability to spot these sorts of drafting issues.
|
|
|