Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever

[mikejonestkd]

So, is the permit now an "all in one" thing??

The NYS process is still a county by county patchwork of inconsistent methodologies.
Some counties allow full concealed once an applicant goes through the 1 to 1.5 year process. Other counties only allowed target/ hunting permits initially, then a person could apply for full carry after a period of time.
The entire process was ( and still is ) completely up to each county and issuing judge, even with the apparent Bruen victory. I frequent a few NYS specific forums and members still rant about police, county licensing agents and Judges putting their fingers on the scales to tip the outcome of each application, and none of it is in favor of the application's approval

We were hopefully that Bruen would make NYS SHALL ISSUE. That has not happened, in fact it is worse than before

[44 AMP]

A year to a year and a half to GET the permit???

wow....

I guess modern technology has really helped the process!

back when I got mine 2 months was about average, 3 months was rather unusual. Bet its not $20 and good for life unless revoked, anymore either, is it?

To be completely fair, having it entirely up to each individual judge isn't automatically a 100% bad thing. Though it seems these days to be a 99.95% bad thing....

No doubt if/when they tip the scales in favor of the applicant, we never hear about that....

I know of one case (again, way back in ancient history) where a judge denied a permit to a guy who was not legally disqualified. This particular guy had a couple dozen speeding tickets (and some other "minor" incidents but nothing that ever got him arrested). The judge did not approve his pistol permit application, citing his past behavior indicated a "pattern of disrespect for the law" and a couple years later that pattern did put that fellow in prison as a convicted felon.

Regarding each judge being the final ultimate authority, it ought to be a good thing, but that requires good people in those positions, and sadly that is not something that can be guaranteed.

I am reminded of a quote ascribed to Henry Kissinger...
"The 5% of politicians who actually are honest make the rest of us look bad!"

[Metal god]

San Diego permit is running 11 months just to get the interview, then another 3 to 5 months for the background check . Before Bruan it was about a 5 or 6 month process total but most did not qualify. It’s basically shall issue here now as long as you pass there background check and pass the firearms training/class .

[Tom Servo]

Bruen was supposed to be a big win for NYS firearm owners, but it certainly does not feel like it to everyone i talk to.

It's an echo of the situation in Washington DC after Heller. The District did all it could to avoid compliance without looking like they were avoiding compliance. They allowed people to get a permit to own a handgun in theory, but made it as difficult as they can get away with in practice. One writer chronicled the process, and it's ridiculous.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It's an echo of the situation in Washington DC after Heller. The District did all it could to avoid compliance without looking like they were avoiding compliance. They allowed people to get a permit to own a handgun in theory, but made it as difficult as they can get away with in practice.

The same happened in Illinois after McDonald.

[44 AMP]

The same kind of thing has happened many times in different places and slightly different ways, but whenever the govt creates a ruling that is unpopular with the gun control zealots, they do everything they can think of that is not clearly and specifically listed as being illegal in order to screw up the ruling's effect as much as they can.

For another example, just look back at what they did after it was ruled that airline pilots could, if they wished, have a gun in the cockpit.

IT was only a few small things, like requiring specific approved training, only given in one place in the country, pilots had to take time off work and pay money out of their own pocket to attend, and on top of that, the gun had to be in a special "lock box" which testing revealed actually increased the risk because of the additional requirement that it had to be taken out checked and put back in before each flight (and, IIRC there was a projection in the box that COULD hit the trigger...) little things like that...
What we hoped for was that if a pilot already had a permit they would be allowed to carry their own personal arm, but no, that safe and logical step simply wasn't good enough, so they added enough additional requirements that the majority of people who could, simply didn't try. De facto result? Legal to do, but about nobody did it, because meeting the mandated "safety" requirements was just too much hassle and expense.

This was, essentially what NY did, SCOTUS ruled one of their requirements was excessive, so while they HAD to drop that one, they added a host of other, NEW, additional requirements, and no one can convince me they didn't have that entire list already written up and waiting, considering they passed their new law within a handful of weeks after the SCOTUS ruling and without the usual and normal legislative give and take discussion process. It was virtually a passed in the middle of the night "emergency" thing without either the time or the opportunity for normal debate on the bill before it became law.

I doubt the new additional requirements will stand, long term, but until the legal challenges are resolved they are the law. And that, I think is what their proponents are counted on.

[Metal god]

Briefs should have been submitted to the 2nd circuit on Monday on this case . I'm trying to find them but don't actually know case name . It's not the same as before ( Bruan )

Anyone have a link or case name/# so we can follow along ?

Still surprised SCOTUS has not said anything yet , thought they would have wanted some clarity before the 2nd started hearing the case .

[44 AMP]

Still surprised SCOTUS has not said anything yet , thought they would have wanted some clarity before the 2nd started hearing the case .

You're missing one of the "joys" of our system. Look at the history of the Supreme Court. While there may be examples I'm not aware of, looking at the way they normally do business, they make a ruling and then, they're done with it. They don't "waste" their time correcting anyone who misinterprets it. Unless/until it comes up again in some future case they are hearing.

Making sure all the ...people understand the ruling the way the Supreme Court does, and seeing to it that those people in govt follow the ruling, including making laws in line with that ruling is not the function of the Supreme Court, (no matter how much we think we might be better off, if they did) it is the function of lower courts and other parts of government to do that.

And it is only if they fail in that, that the Supreme Courts gets another case on the matter. IF they choose to hear it. Seems that usually the high court will kick it back to lower courts until those lower courts "get it right".

I wouldn't expect to hear any kind of official "clarification" from SCOTUS unless it becomes clear that lower courts cannot or will not resolve the matter in line with whatever the SCOTUS ruling on the subject is.

[heyjoe]

the supreme court has unanimously upheld the injunction on the temporary restraining order

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/11/supr...in-effect.html

[Metal god]

Total BS once again they are a one and done court . there is zero reason to let that law continue , It's not like it's some long standing ordinance that by blocking leaves the state with no scheme . I hate this idea of status que on brand new legislation . The status que is what ever the law was before it was changed , not what it was changed to . I'm seeing this more and more . The courts don't want to upset an apple cart that was literally just loaded , completely ignoring the other cart that came before it .

[heyjoe]

Today 02:35 PM
Metal god Total BS once again they are a one and done court . there is zero reason to let that law continue , It's not like it's some long standing ordinance that by blocking leaves the state with no scheme . I hate this idea of status que on brand new legislation . The status que is what ever the law was before it was changed , not what it was changed to . I'm seeing this more and more . The courts don't want to upset an apple cart that was literally just loaded , completely ignoring the other cart that came before it .

And the mighty Casey struck out. Well now we only have to wait for about 3 years for it to wind its way through the system.

[44 AMP]

I looked at the linked article, and as usual with Internet "news" (and especially anything with NBC associated with it) they included enough actual facts to make it seem plausible and made a hash of the rest by misstating some facts, omitting others and generally writing to imply their desired conclusions, more than reality.

The entire "stay/counter stay" thing is being reported as "upholding" or "approving" the law in question, and is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It has nothing to do with, and is not any kind of ruling on the NY law, it is a procedural matter in the court system.

Any law passed with proper due process can only be struck down or overturned with proper due process. The due process can be a court ruling or it can be another law, superseding the previous one.

there is zero reason to let that law continue , It's not like it's some long standing ordinance that by blocking leaves the state with no scheme . I hate this idea of status que on brand new legislation .

Actually, there are valid reasons why the law must continue UNTIL the challenges are either upheld or dismissed. One of them being "because it is the law". And, from what I've heard, the way the new NY law was written it replaces the previous law so now, there is, technically NO OLD LAW to go back to.

Right or wrong in your opinion, our system is set up that a law is the law, and stays the law (for good or bad) until it is replaced or removed by due process. The system (the courts, generally) can order SECTIONS of the contested law to be "stayed" from enforcement WHILE the law is contested, OR they can just let it run. This depends on the specifics of the matter, and the opinion of the judges about the potential harm/benefits of proceeding either way.

It is the nature of the beast that no matter what the decision is (on any subject) some people will not be happy with it, or with the way it was done.

Do the best you can to avoid lurid internet "click bait" headlines and articles filled with partial truths, misleading statements and factual omissions from shaping the way you think about issues. Sadly, its not a simple or easy task, these days....

[Metal god]

Actually, there are valid reasons why the law must continue UNTIL the challenges are either upheld or dismissed. One of them being "because it is the law". And, from what I've heard, the way the new NY law was written it replaces the previous law so now, there is, technically NO OLD LAW to go back to.

Ummmmmm so , not our problem . I don’t see a relevance . That was a choice the legislature made while purposefully thumbing there nose at the clear new precedent . They passed a bill in 8 days they can do it again and slow walk any applications for a few days with nobody noticing . In fact they wouldn’t even have to slow walk anything because the background check will take longer then getting new legislation in order and they can write in the law if you’re still in the process of getting your permit any and all new laws must be followed before the new permits are issued .

Those again are not reasonable arguments. It “might” be different if it was a different state but the same state and same basic law type only months later . All they had to do is reverse the stay sending a message to the lower courts ( stop playing games ) . However I feel now these very important cases In CA just got the green light to be stalled out even more . This IMHO was much bigger then just this case . All the anti judges now have free rain to rule however they feel . With the 9th circuit now knowing SCOTUS is not going to do anything if they go against Bruan .

The make up of the court is not going to be in our favor for long we don’t have to three years of these cases to work their way back up . I feel this is a really big deal and not in our favor .

[heyjoe]

44 Amp i posted that link because it was the only one i could find about the decision at that time

[heyjoe]

i agree Metal God, plus in the meantime there are people who are being irreparably harmed, denied a constitutional right while the court case winds its way through the system and facing felony charges if they violate a maze of places where carry is prohibited. some of the prohibited places to carry depend on who owns the building, not what the current occupancy is. My understanding was that if the plaintiffs had a case that was likely to be successful and involved a constitutional right that a temporary restraining order was the proper course of action.

[heyjoe]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...2a557_0pm1.pdf

[44 AMP]

This is getting a tad confusing, but if I'm reading it correctly, The District Court issued an injunction against sections of the NY law, and provided their reasoning for doing so.

Then, the 2nd Circuit placed a
"stay" on that injunction, which results in the law being in effect until litigation on the law is completed. And did not give their reasoning for doing so.

"Relief" was sought from the Supreme Court to set aside the 2nd Circuit's ruling and that request has been denied.

My take on the linked information from the high court is that they aren't happy with the Circuit court ruling, because there is no explanation (and no supporing arguments) for that ruling, but are not "stepping in to overrule the circuit court decision at this time, and so have denied the request to vacate that ruling.

That being said, I think its important to consider the final portion of the linked text, which is.

Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order
from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not,
within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its
stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal

From what it looks like to me, SCOTUS is hoping (possibly requiring) the Second Circuit to take care of its own mess (by providing the basis for their ruling) to the high court's satisfaction, and if they don't, THEN SCOTUS could (and hopefully will) step in.

Again, this is all procedural crap inside the court system, about how to handle things while the legality of the NY law is being litigated.

Are people going to be harmed by allowing the NY law to be enforced before the legal challenges are resolved? I believe so. Can those people be "made whole" (compensated) for the harm? Possibly, in some cases, in others, possibly not. The District court that issued the initial injunction apparently believes that less harm would result from having the law's enforcement suspended until the legal challenges are resolved. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals apparently believes differently, but hasn't explained WHY to the satisfaction of either the people, or SCOTUS.

It APPEARS that SCOTUS expects that explanation and isn't going to step in and overrule the 2nd Circuit until they see that explanation and decide if they need to overrule 2nd Circuit, or not, based on the arguments and reasoning they expect that explanation to provide. And they specifically said that if that explanation isn't given "in a reasonable time" that application for relief from the 2nd Circuit's ruling could be applied for, again.

so, get your popcorn ready, and try and keep a lid on your frustration as this can of worms slowly empties....

[heyjoe]

44 Amp I concur on your analysis

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

This is getting a tad confusing, but if I'm reading it correctly, The District Court issued an injunction against sections of the NY law, and provided their reasoning for doing so.

Then, the 2nd Circuit placed a
"stay" on that injunction, which results in the law being in effect until litigation on the law is completed. And did not give their reasoning for doing so.

"Relief" was sought from the Supreme Court to set aside the 2nd Circuit's ruling and that request has been denied.

Correct.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

My take on the linked information from the high court is that they aren't happy with the Circuit court ruling, because there is no explanation (and no supporing arguments) for that ruling, but are not "stepping in to overrule the circuit court decision at this time, and so have denied the request to vacate that ruling.

That being said, I think its important to consider the final portion of the linked text, which is.

From what it looks like to me, SCOTUS is hoping (possibly requiring) the Second Circuit to take care of its own mess (by providing the basis for their ruling) to the high court's satisfaction, and if they don't, THEN SCOTUS could (and hopefully will) step in.

Again, this is all procedural crap inside the court system, about how to handle things while the legality of the NY law is being litigated.

Are people going to be harmed by allowing the NY law to be enforced before the legal challenges are resolved? I believe so. Can those people be "made whole" (compensated) for the harm? Possibly, in some cases, in others, possibly not. The District court that issued the initial injunction apparently believes that less harm would result from having the law's enforcement suspended until the legal challenges are resolved. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals apparently believes differently, but hasn't explained WHY to the satisfaction of either the people, or SCOTUS.

It APPEARS that SCOTUS expects that explanation and isn't going to step in and overrule the 2nd Circuit until they see that explanation and decide if they need to overrule 2nd Circuit, or not, based on the arguments and reasoning they expect that explanation to provide. And they specifically said that if that explanation isn't given "in a reasonable time" that application for relief from the 2nd Circuit's ruling could be applied for, again.

so, get your popcorn ready, and try and keep a lid on your frustration as this can of worms slowly empties....

I write to express my concurrence in 44AMP's opinion... I'm sure there have been other times when a SCOTUS denial has a note appended to it like this, but I cannot recall having seen it, at the moment. Someone took the time to write this for Alito and Thomas, it and was done for a reason.

[Frank Ettin]

I agree with 44AMP and Spats.

I believe that on occasion SCOTUS will give an errant court of appeal a chance to correct its decision, and it might do so if required to try to explain its decision.

Or if the Second Circuit's explanation is specious, it will give SCOTUS an opportunity to dismantle it and thus further clarify the rules.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

I agree with 44AMP and Spats.

I believe that on occasion SCOTUS will give an errant court of appeal a chance to correct its decision, and it might do so if required to try to explain its decision.

Or if the Second Circuit's explanation is specious, it will give SCOTUS an opportunity to dismantle it and thus further clarify the rules.

SCOTUS is being extremely courteous, especially since the law in question was written to flount a Supreme Court decision. I'm hoping that this is to give the Second Circuit every possible chance to do the right thing before SCOTUS smacks them down flat for not doing it. A per curium decision, such as was used in Caetano v Mass would be appropriate. That's where SCOTUS overturns a lower court decision without even hearing arguments, because the lower court decision is so obviously wrong.

[ViperJon]

New York is going to be dragged into compliance kicking and screaming (and delaying) but eventually they will lose. They know it.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ViperJon

New York is going to be dragged into compliance kicking and screaming (and delaying) but eventually they will lose. They know it.

I disagree. The politicians in New York do not know they will eventually lose. They are counting on the Second Circuit to cover their backs and, so far, the Second Circuit has done exactly that. And will continue to do so unless the SCOTUS steps in and rules decisively.

[mikejonestkd]

New York is going to be dragged into compliance kicking and screaming (and delaying) but eventually they will lose. They know it.

I appreciate your positive vibes. But, the state has been winning every case for over 100 years, with a little help occasionally from the 2nd circuit court.

[Metal god]

With a little help from the cases in CA now , hopefully that will change . The court there ( in 4 separate cases ) required the state to submit a spread sheet of every law restricting the RKBA from the founding to 20yrs after the 14th amendment. This I believe “ good or bad “ will be what courts will turn to in the future as to the historical evidence to support there rulings based on the Bruen text and tradition new standard . Judge for your self if there is a tradition of firearm/s restrictions in the US

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2089.163.1.pdf