US Supreme Court to consider NY gun rights case

[LeverGunFan]

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett. The case is challenging the "proper cause" requirement of New York State in issuing handgun carry permits. Needless to say, a ruling in this case will impact the several states with "may issue" permits that depend on the discretion of state and local authorities. Arguments will likely be heard this fall with a ruling expected next year. It will be an interesting year ahead with talk of packing the Supreme Court and other political changes. More information at the SCOTUSblog.

[steve4102]

What happens if the number of justices is increased between now and Oct?

[5whiskey]

^i believe that’s one parties pipe dream, all because of sour grapes. I believe that same party will suffer significant losses in the mid terms if they continue bringing up such radical stances as Supreme Court packing and ending the filibuster.

Otherwise, I’m glad to finally see a 2A case on scotus docket.

[44 AMP]

Unfortunately, there is always a risk when the High Court hears a case. Remember that the Heller decision was only ONE VOTE from going the other way.

Also remember that the High Court speaks in its own terms, and those terms are narrow in scope and only apply to the High Court's rulings.

But those same rulings are re-interpreted by lower courts, other levels of govt, and politicians to suit their own ends in every possible way, AND the High Court is under no compulsion to correct them, until/unless a case about that is brought before them, AND they agree to hear it.

The ruling in Heller was clear on the main points, but the opinion about other gun laws being legal and allowed while clear to the court (and those who understand the "Courtspeak") was taken as meaning that those laws are valid by many people when in fact all the Court really said is "we're not looking at (or ruling on) those laws here, so until we do, we will presume them to be valid..."

which is something done in every decision, they rule on a narrow point of law, and everything else is not ruled on. Yet people take those rulings and act as if they were broad and all encompassing permissions, until/unless the Court system rules otherwise.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Looks like the court narrowed the issue a bit.

"Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Looks like the court narrowed the issue a bit.

I look at that as a positive omen. It has been documented that Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas have been frustrated by the lower courts basically thumbing their collective noses at Heller and McDonald, and the fact that the SCOTUS hasn't done anything to kick them (the lower courts) to the curb. I think they want to get another 2A case before the court, and the fact that they narrowed this one down as a precondition to accepting it may be a sign that they think they have (or can get) the votes to prevail on the narrower issue.

They probably have Kavanaugh, Thomas, and probably Alito. If what we have read is true, they probably also have Barrett. That leaves Roberts as the likely swing vote, and the narrower they make the scope the more likely he is to rule correctly. [I hope]

[Metal god]

Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

I look at that as a positive omen.

I don't see it as a positive in any way , of course that's coming from someone that reads the 9th circuit rulings on firearms cases . Narrowing it to conceal carry only allows them to say although we believe at some level the right extends beyond the home . Concealed carry is not protected under the second amendment . Stating things like " a gentleman carries his firearm openly " as being a long tradition of carrying firearms .

The best that can come out of this IMHO is nothing for are side . I just don't see the court narrowing the question then hitting it out of the park for us . Can someone give me a sentence or two that "may" be in the ruling that is a win for us while keeping in mind how narrow they now made the case ?

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by steve4102

What happens if the number of justices is increased between now and Oct?

The bottom line is the restriction of your right to protect yourself is unconstitutional.

[mack59]

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas have been on record decrying not hearing and protecting the 2nd Amendment. That leaves Barrett as the deciding vote. Obviously Roberts has no interest in protecting the 2nd and the other 3 liberal justices are hostile to it.

Given the court is now accepting this case it argues that they want to overturn the NY may issue law, otherwise they could easily continue to refuse such cases and allow them to stand.

If you read the liberal gun controllers responses to this decision to hear the case you can plainly see they in no way see it as a positive for their gun control cause.

I am cautiously optimistic. About a quarter of all US citizens reside in the several remaining may issue states. So this is a big deal. Welcoming a good percentage of the population into the shall issue fraternity and giving them a practical daily stake as well as a concomitant financial stake in the RKBA is potentially huge.

[44 AMP]

I think narrowing the case is the smart move. NY and other places have a long, long history of requiring permits just for possession, let alone concealed carry, and also since day one the Federal govt has been reluctant to interfere in this portion of state's rights.

Though they happily jump in when other issues are involved, historically, state's laws about the state's residents gun ownership has been a Fed "hands off" subject.

Till now. And I think that the Court ruling on the entire permit system in NY would be roundly castigated as a huge Federal overreach.

SO, by narrowing the area being reviewed to whether or not it is a violation of rights to require s "special need" as part of the application, its a better"fit" for Fed judicial review.


Splitting a huge boulder begins with making a small crack, which, over time, expands and expands. We can hope a ruling in our favor will work that way.

[raimius]

Best case: they strike down the may issue system with strict scrutiny.

Probable: strike down the current system and have some medium-toothed review or don't even specify.

Worst case: we lose

[Metal god]

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided to hear an important 2A case - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - which challenges New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime.

This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home.

Is this correct I’ve not been following this case . The case is/was about the good cause/reason requirement in New Yorks ccw permits ? Which the SCOTUS changed to a straight conceal carry argument????

This is going to be a disaster , conceal carry is not protected and we will ignore states requiring you to show the government why you are more special then the rest of the citizenry.

Best case scenario - The court rules concealed carry is not protected but some sort of Carry is , the states get to choose which they prefer open or concealed but you can’t deny both .

Worst case I already described above

In my best case scenario what states will start to do is enact what California had for a while which was that you could carry but the gun had to be unloaded . The ninth circuit ruled a full magazine or ammo close by is the same as the firearm being loaded So there’s already president allowing that .

I don’t remember the specific case but it came down to what is a functioning firearm ? Our side argued that if the firearm was not loaded it was not functionable . The court ruled that an unloaded firearm was still a functioning firearm . You know just like a car with no gasoline is still a functioning vehicle or a refrigerator without Freon is still a functioning refrigerator or a TV without electricity is still a functioning TV . Solid logic like that is what we’ve got to look forward to .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Is this correct I’ve not been following this case . The case is/was about the good cause/reason requirement in New Yorks ccw permits ? Which the SCOTUS changed to a straight conceal carry argument????

This is going to be a disaster , conceal carry is not protected and we will ignore states requiring you to show the government why you are more special then the rest of the citizenry.

I don't think it's going to be a disaster. Right now, today, several of the federal circuit courts have taken the view that "Heller says" the right to keep and bear arms applies ONLY inside the home. That's NOT what Heller says, of course, but that's what anti-gun judges have said it says.

So, if the Supreme Court rules on this, they may say that carry outside of the home IS part of the right to keep and bear arms, and that states can't prohibit the exercise of the right under the guise of "regulating" it. That's how Ohio gained concealed carry licenses a few years ago, for example. Ohio law prohibited concealed carry. A case made it to the Ohio Supreme Court in which they ruled that a right is a right, and the state could not completely ban the right. Therefore, since the legislature had decreed that concealed carry was not allowed ==> open carry had to be allowed.

So Ohioans started open carrying everywhere, the usual suspects had massive cases of the vapors, and very soon thereafter the Buckeye State had a concealed carry law.

[Metal god]

So, if the Supreme Court rules on this, they may say that carry outside of the home IS part of the right to keep and bear arms, and that states can't prohibit the exercise of the right under the guise of "regulating" it.

My point is they don't need to get to the right outside the home . By narrowing the scope they now only have to rule on conceal carry . Not to quote all the anti gun groups but they've made good points about this in other cases out of the 9th . There is very little to no presidents for "concealed firearms" in public . I didn't pull the "a gentleman carry's openly" out of thin air . In fact it's my understanding back when open carry was a given and everyone that wanted to , did . There were laws on the books all over the place stating you could not conceal your firearms which I don't believe were ever overturned so there's precedent in that direction .

This is all way above my pay grade but IMHO if this goes in our favor the judges will need to be activist judges , the very thing most of us rail against . Will I take the win ? Heller yes but won't like how we got it . It will also be something the anti's can look at as a reason to pack the court , not that they need a reason other then getting there own way .

[mack59]

Cripes, the court didn't take the case to affirm the NY law, at least 4 of the justices have railed about the court in the past not taking action to affirm and protect the 2nd. Barrett has lower court decisions affirming the 2nd as a real right. The left is upset all over social media about the court taking this case. Yet more than half the 2nd Amendment advocates are being doomers and woe is me about this case. Sure nothing is certain but when has there been a better time than now.

The court will affirm that carry outside the home is a right - similar as was mentioned about the Ohio case. States will no longer be able to easily and arbitrarily deny the right to carry outside the home for self defense. A quarter of the citizens in the US will be able for the first time to exercise their RKBA and carry firearms for self-defense. It isn't activist judging it's returning to the intent of the founders that people have a right to arm themselves for self defense.

And when millions of citizens regain that right then a good percentage of them will exercise that right - there will be more gun owners - those individuals will become invested in the RKBA as they have not before. Before for most of those urban or city dwellers in the states with may issue the RKBA had little relevance to them. If they bought a gun (unless they hunted which most did not) then that gun resided at their house or apt in a box or safe rarely touched or used collecting dust. Now those guns will be carried and shot and many others who saw no reason for a gun will join them. Then they will have skin in the game - a reason to support the 2nd and money and property tied to their exercising that right. They will become familiar with firearms personally and will not just swallow whatever the news or politicians say about guns. They will become indoctrinated in the gun culture and many will begin to say - wait this so called assault weapons ban is stupid and what do you mean that my standard handgun magazines that I paid for and carry should be illegal?

This could result in millions of new members of the gun culture and supporters of the RKBA especially amongst minorities. And that could entirely change the politics and the ground of the RKBA debate.

[44 AMP]

Before we get too giddy dancing with joy thinking the Supreme Court is going to magically abolish NY (and other states) permit system, I think some deep background information would be useful, particularly for those members here who live and/or grew up in "free-er" states.

I grew up in New York state, and moved away permanently in 1979. The system, as it existed back then (and for generations before then) required a pistol permit to POSSESS a handgun. It was entirely arbitrary, totally up to the whim of the issuing Judge.

Applying for the permit required 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs (passport size), and 3 character references (non-family members), and the application also included a question asking the reason for applying for the permit.

Which is where it got a bit tricksy. A Judge in one county would only approve permits with "Hunting and Sporting purposes" as the reason. IF you aaid "Self defense" or "personal protection" or anything like that, the judge would not approve it.

In the next county, the Judge would only approve permits for self defense, and if it said anything else, it was denied. So you needed to do some research before submitting the application.

And, the permit I'm talking about was just for possession and open carry. It did NOT allow concealed carry (and, was not valid in NYC, at all).

Concealed carry permits were not something for the masses. In effect, they were only available to those who provided qualifying "special reasons". Licensed private security, private detectives, businessmen who carried large amounts of cash to deposit at the end of the day, and those people who were "connected" (by being related to, or donating enough cash to the right people...) were the only ones that seemed to qualify...

A little more info about the "regular" permit, it allowed possession (at home) and lawful open carry (such as while hunting, ONLY for the pistol(s) listed on the permit.

Each gun was listed on the permit, by make, caliber, barrel length and serial number. It was typed on the back of the permit paper. So for example, your permit might say "S&W .357Mag 6" #N123456.

That gun, and ONLY that gun was legal for you to possess and open carry. NO OTHER, unless it was also listed on the permit.

And, they were rather serious about that. Due to a car wreck in the late 60s my Mom & Dad wound up doing some checking and learning that, if something happened to Dad (like being killed in a car wreck) if no one else in the household had a pistol permit, listing his handguns on it, then his pistols would have to be surrendered to the State.

The State Police said they would keep them 30 days and then destroy them. (or sell them, which was allowed in those days, and yes, they would keep the money...)

The County Sheriff would, if a permit was applied for, keep them until the application was either approved or denied. Approved, they would give them back, denied, they would dispose of them like the State Police...
Mom applied right away, and both my brother and I applied when we turned 18. (yes, 18, not 21, because we knew a Judge who would approve at 18)

And all our permits listed all the pistols Mom & Dad had on them. Which, when I went into the Army, was 7 pistols. More than most folks we knew.

And the permit was good for life, unless revoked. And a Judge could revoke for any reason he chose....

I don't think things have gotten any more relaxed in the decades since I moved away, and I've heard that the lifetime duration went away, and the fees hugely increased.

Don't think for a minute that they don't keep track of them all, though they are kind of slow about some things....in about 2001 I got a letter from NY informing me that since I was no longer a resident of NY, my pistol permit was no longer valid, and, they wanted it back...AND they wanted to know where the pistols listed on it, were ...

Get that?
The wallet sized paper (not cardstock) non laminated paper they issued in 1975, in 2001, the wanted it back. My reply would not pass TFL's language filters, but essentially I told them to go pound sand...

SO, that's a bit of first hand background on how things were back then. I can only believe nothing has been reduced and more added in the years since.

Now, on to the looming SCOTUS case...
If I am understanding it correctly, what the High Court is going to do is restrict their review to the "special requirements" needing to be shown to obtain a concealed carry permit.

I seriously doubt the Court would rule that requiring a permit for concealed carry to be unconstitutional. What I think they will rule on is having to provide the state with some "special need" in order to obtain the concealed carry permit. This does not mean they will rule that the permit be "Shall Issue", either, they could rule only that the requirements be the same for all, which is what I am expecting at this time.

get your popcorn ready, this one will be one to watch...

[RETG]

Popcorn is already on the standby when waiting for SCOTUS to make a decision. Therefore, I'll wait to comment after the fact knowing that whatever I comment means nothing at that time.

But trying to guess what SCOTUS is going to rule is like buying a lotto ticket.

[zukiphile]

I look forward to the briefing, and the video of argument. Let's hope it is in person.

Originally Posted by Metal God

This is all way above my pay grade but IMHO if this goes in our favor the judges will need to be activist judges , the very thing most of us rail against . Will I take the win ? Heller yes but won't like how we got it . It will also be something the anti's can look at as a reason to pack the court , not that they need a reason other then getting there own way .

The charge of judicial activism refers to a judiciary that rests its decisions on ideologies extraneous to the constitution and laws, not on the language of the law, precedent and good faith extensions of either. That doesn't mean that all judicidal activism comes from only one side. In Gonzalez v. Raich, lots of smart people who are usually on my side of commerce clause issues argued that drugs that are not in commerce and never cross state lines can still be regulated by Congress as interstate trade, because otherwise federal drug legislation couldn't work. That's policy driving constitutional law.

It isn't judicial activism for the Court to find that the 2d Am. describes an individual right that DC can't violate with a de facto prohibition on possession. It isn't judicial activism to find that Chicago isn't free to violate the fundamental right described in the 2d Am. through application of incorporation, a well recognized doctrine.

It would not be judicial activism to find that NY can't legally violate this fundamental right where individuals seek to exercise it outside their homes. That would be an ordinary and predictable development of this area of law.

"Judicial activism" isn't just a result someone didn't like, but was levelled at courts innovating results as ideological matters rather the ordinary practice of jurisprudence. Some misuse the charge of activism to obscure the difference.

If this turns out to be a win, take it and know that it rests on decent principle, not mere power.

[Metal god]

@ 44 , I had no idea NY was that bad . I knew they had some bad gun laws but that almost makes CA look like TX haha . All that clearly needs some cleaning up by the SCOTUS . Your post changes my opinion some as it relate to what good can come of this . I am however very worried they narrowed the scope to concealed carry as I stated previously .


As for "Judicial activism" , I just feel if any part of carry outside of home has history and precedents . IMO that would be open carry and I could see a reasoned argument to say . Concealed carry is not protected but open carry is based on the history of carry in the US . My hope would be the court rules carry outside of the home is protected and a state can restrict one or the other but can not restrict both open and concealed carry .

[mack59]

I'd be willing to bet the court will end up recognizing carry outside the home as a right, and gutting may issue to be replaced with shall issue.

[44 AMP]

I am however very worried they narrowed the scope to concealed carry as I stated previously .

You can be concerned, but consider this, if you try to shove the whole Apple into your throat you choke. Taken a bite at a time, you get to eat the whole apple, and don't choke.

The "Creeping incrementalism" process has been working for the other side for a long time. Done right, it can work for our side as well.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I am however very worried they narrowed the scope to concealed carry as I stated previously .

You might stop to consider that if they had not narrowed it, they might not have taken the case at all.

Remember, there are a few justices (especially Thomas) who have expressed frustration recently over the fact that no 2A cases have been granted Certioari. Not every case that is sent to the Supreme Court is accepted -- they agree to hear only a small fraction of the number that are submitted. They hold conferences to decide which ones they'll take. In the last year or two, a number of people have expressed surprise that certain cases weren't accepted -- and they were surprised by some of the justices who voted NOT to take those cases.

The theory is that the pro-gun justices didn't want those cases to be heard either because they didn't think they were good cases, OR because they weren't comfortable that they could be assured of a majority in favor of gun rights.

So along comes this case, and the pro-2A justices want to hear it ... and the anti-2A justices are probably pooping cows over it. My guess is that they had to narrow the scope in order to get it accepted.

I still think it has the potential to be helpful. Even with the narrowed scope, it could (and should) put a stake through the heart of "may issue" states (such as New York and California, among others). But think beyond that -- right now, there are multiple federal circuits that have said the right to keep and bear arms exists ONLY in the home. You don't need a permit to carry in your home, so the only way the Supremes can strike down "good cause" and "may issue" is to first recognize that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. If it doesn't extend beyond the home, there's no case.

t's going to bear watching, but I am cautiously optimistic.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

But think beyond that -- right now, there are multiple federal circuits that have said the right to keep and bear arms exists ONLY in the home.

That makes as much sense, for example, as saying you don't have any 1st Amendment right of free speech outside your home. Doesn't give much inspiration in the courts.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

That makes as much sense, for example, as saying you don't have any 1st Amendment right of free speech outside your home. Doesn't give much inspiration in the courts.

The courts that have said that have their agenda, which is anti-gun. They have taken the Heller decision and bent, folded, spindled and mutilated it. They take it completely out of context and use it to reach a predetermined end. Those same circuit courts also play games with the level of scrutiny they apply. It's complete intellectual dishonesty, but it does make sense (from their perspective), once you realize that they hate guns.

[steve4102]

My understanding is that it takes at least 4 justices to grant cert.

Do they publish these votes, so we can see who voted for what?